Bipartisan Group Calls For Broader Religious Exemptions In ObamaCare

By Pete Kasperowicz - 04/29/13 05:05 PM ET

House Republicans and Democrats have joined together to re-introduce a bill that would expand the religious conscience exemptions under ObamaCare.

Under the Equitable Access to Care and Health (EACH) Act, individuals would have the option of being exempted from the Affordable Healthcare Act's mandate to buy health insurance. People could avoid the mandate by filing an affidavit as part of their tax return saying their religious beliefs keep them from buying insurance that meets federal standards.

However, anyone filing this affidavit who then uses healthcare would lose their right to the exemption from the insurance mandate.

"We believe the EACH Act balances a respect for religious diversity against the need to prevent fraud and abuse," Reps. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) and William Keating (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter seeking support for their bill.

"It is imperative we expand the religious conscience exemption now as the Administration is already developing a process to verify the various exemptions to the individual mandate," they wrote.

Religious exemption from ObamaCare has come up before, including the ruling from the Obama administration that religious-affiliated organizations must provide health insurance that covers contraception. The EACH Act, however, is unrelated to that issue, and deals only with exemptions from the insurance mandate.

The bill, H.R. 1814, enjoyed bipartisan support last year, and this year was introduced with 43 co-sponsors.

View Comments

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

View the original article here

Murkowski, Wyden set to unveil bipartisan campaign finance reform bill

The bill, to be released Tuesday, draws on state laws already enacted in Oregon and Alaska.

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) are poised to unveil legislation to reform the country’s much-maligned campaign finance rules.

The lawmakers announced a Tuesday news conference to release the bill, which seeks to counter an influx of unregulated political spending that followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizen’s United ruling. The decision paved the way for unlimited outside spending on political races.

As a result, the 2012 election was the costliest in American history, with spending on federal races totaling roughly $6 billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. 

In late December, Wyden and Murkowski announced they had agreed upon a framework for legislation that would reduce the “anonymous sleaze and innuendo” that characterized the last election cycle, they wrote in an opinion editorial published in The Washington Post.

“The anonymity of much of this spending encourages ads that lower the level of political discourse and makes it harder, not easier, for Americans to make informed decisions,” they wrote.

Under their plan, groups involved in political activity – whether directly through a campaign or via outside advocacy – would be required to disclose their donors in real time.

“Under federal law, which requires only quarterly reports, the influx of money immediately before an election is hidden from the public until months after the votes have been counted,” the lawmakers wrote.

The bill draws on state laws already enacted in Oregon and Alaska. It would be applicable to all federal candidates and “every billionaire hoping to influence an election,” they said. The laws would also apply equally to corporations, nonprofits and labor unions.

“Unlimited corporate and individual spending is corrosive to democracy and undermines the political process,” Widen and Murkowski wrote. “But the case has been decided, and it is our prerogative as legislators to improve on it.”

View Comments

View the original article here

Six Bipartisan Entitlement Reforms to Solve the Real Fiscal Crisis: Only Presidential Leadership Is Needed

Abstract: The United States faces a real fiscal crisis, and the impending fiscal cliff of massive tax hikes and spending cuts in January is only the first act. In early 2013, the federal government will exhaust its ability to issue debt legally. Yet as large and as major a concern as federal budget deficits are today, they are of secondary consequence compared with the fiscal quagmire of unaffordable entitlement spending in the next decade. Fortunately, the entitlement problem can be resolved by six simple reforms to improve the fiscal future for Social Security and Medicare. But to implement these reforms, President Barack Obama must lead.

A high-stakes fiscal policy debate of unique size and import has just begun. Absent congressional action to the contrary, a massive slate of tax hikes and spending cuts will take effect on January 1, and that is only the first act. The second act will occur early in 2013 when the federal government will exhaust its ability to issue debt legally. Both acts need prompt solutions.

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R–OH) made the first move. After congratulating President Barack Obama upon his reelection, Boehner promised a willingness to work with him, giving Obama the additional revenues he desired through pro-growth tax reform accompanied by reforms in entitlement programs.[1] President Obama's counter, while unsurprising, was unhelpful because he focused exclusively on fiscally meaningless and economically harmful tax hikes on upper-income taxpayers. The President repeatedly has argued for a balanced approach, but he has yet to offer a single meaningful proposal on spending reductions.

While the President prepares to start his second term, he should set about negotiating in good faith with Republicans, especially in the House where Republicans were returned to office in the majority with expectations of cutting spending without increasing taxes. The voters, we are told, expect it. This means the President cannot sit back and just harp on revenues. He needs to address spending and in particular entitlements.

Fortunately, the President has occasion and opportunity to lead by proposing some simple yet transformational reforms in two of the prime sources of the nation's fiscal problems: Social Security and Medicare. Better yet, many such reforms have already been thoroughly considered and enjoy broad bipartisan support, lacking only the moment and the leadership to become a reality. These proposals will not resolve either program's key structural flaws—they constitute a start of the reform journey, not the conclusion—but they would be a powerful start that would markedly alter the nation's fiscal trajectory.

At the start of a President's second term, the political stars are in the best possible alignment for solving big problems. All the President needs to do is seize the moment. This is the moment; President Obama must lead.

Many events arrive by chance, but the present fiscal spectacle is not one of them. The fiscal cliff results from explicit actions by Congress and the President to push difficult fiscal policy issues past the recent election. In this, they succeeded, although it took a series of legislative acts to accomplish it. With regard to taxes:

The payroll tax cut, extended in the spring of 2012, will expire on December 31, 2012. The extension of the Bush tax cuts, signed into law in December 2010, will expire at the end of the year. This same law also established a new structure for the death tax with a 35 percent rate and a $5 million exemption per spouse, which will expire at the end of the year. Various Obamacare tax hikes begin at the start of 2013.[2]

The same pattern holds for the spending cuts. For example, the sequester slated to gouge defense spending while making modest cuts—such as a 2 percent across-the-board cut to Medicare providers—reflects the final leavings of the earlier Budget Control Act, which created the failed "supercommittee." Early in 2012, Congress also prevented deep and disastrous reductions in Medicare provider payments, but this "doc fix" remedy expires at the end of the year.

In May 2011, the federal government exhausted its legal authority to finance deficit spending by issuing debt. The U.S. Department of the Treasury exercised its typical but limited authorities for temporarily creating more room under the "debt limit," allowing policymakers to postpone action until early August. A brutal and economically risky political battle ensued, eventually resulting in legislation that raised the debt limit by $2.1 trillion, sufficient to fund the federal government past the November election.

Projections now suggest that the government will reach the debt limit late in 2012, after which the Treasury will again deploy its limited authorities. This will trigger what could be another difficult negotiation for Congress and President Obama—a negotiation that will be heavily influenced by what happens with the fiscal cliff.

President Obama clearly believes in raising taxes on upper-income taxpayers, and he is willing to weaken the economy, slow job growth, and constrain wage growth to do so. It is difficult to fathom his acceptance of this trade-off of economic security for an ideological doctrine of social justice, especially considering that this long-standing debate likely will rage indefinitely. However, these tax hikes are a distant sideshow in the present context, a political distraction that diverts attention from the central fiscal issue of runaway spending, which gives rise to persistent and economically dangerous deficits.

In his own budget, the President proposed to extend the Bush tax cuts except for those making $250,000 or more, raising $836 billion over the next 10 years. His companion proposal to limit the value of deductions for upper-income taxpayers would raise another $574 billion, for a total of $1.4 trillion. In absolute terms, that is a lot of revenue. However, even allowing for all the other budget gimmicks and tax hikes in Obama's budget, the federal debt would rise by $7.7 trillion over the next 10 years including these tax hikes and by $9.1 trillion without them.

Obama's tax hikes would reduce the rise in federal debt over the next 10 years by about 15 percent. The President is silent about the remaining 85 percent. The numbers confirm that President Obama's tax hike demands are at best tangential to attaining a balanced budget.

As large and as major a concern as federal budget deficits are today, they are nevertheless secondary in consequence to the fiscal quagmire of unaffordable entitlements. Social Security and Medicare in particular share certain vital characteristics. Both programs are extraordinarily complicated, having been built up in complexity over the years one Congress at a time. Similarly, each program badly needs programmatic reforms. For example, the minimum benefit in Social Security is woefully inadequate to protect low-income seniors from poverty, and Medicare still lacks a catastrophic benefit. These are only some of the many shortcomings that must be addressed in fundamental overhauls of each program.

Of most immediate concern, however, is that Social Security and Medicare are unaffordable in their current forms. When this year's kindergarteners enter college, just 13 years away, spending on these two programs plus Medicaid and interest on the debt will devour all tax revenue. (See Chart 1.)

Social Security will lack the funds to pay full benefits beginning as early as 2033.[3] Medicare's unfunded promises in current dollars reach into the many tens of trillions of dollars. These facts are not in dispute. Solutions to our fiscal challenges are needed, urgent, and inevitable.

The fiscal cliff and the debt limit have set the stage, but there is also the reality of the rhythms in the American political system. There are certain windows in every four-year or eight-year cycle when bold leaders can achieve bold things. The first few months of a reelected President's second term is one such window, but it closes fast, and lame-duck status arrives quickly.

Thus, the President must adopt the mantle of leadership, rather than brinksmanship, to steer the nation away from the fiscal cliff and all that is set to follow, and he must start with spending. However, the critical silver lining is that simple, commonsense, and thoroughly vetted solutions such as the four listed below constitute a strong start on the journey to more complete programmatic reforms remedying acknowledged flaws in these programs, and they already enjoy broad support across the political spectrum.

Raise the Social Security eligibility age to match increases in longevity. Originally set at 65, the normal eligibility age is rising two months every year until 2022, when it will reach 67. According to the Social Security actuaries, continuing to increase the eligibility age to 69 by the year 2034 and allowing it to rise more slowly thereafter to reflect gains in longevity could go a long way toward reducing Social Security's funding shortfall.[4] While this would not reduce today's budget deficit, it would strengthen Social Security's finances and dissipate far more important long-term budget pressures. Correct the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). The annual COLA benefit adjustment is determined today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index (CPI). However, the CPI, an antiquated measure, generally overstates inflation, meaning that benefits are increased a bit too much each year to offset inflation. The effect on benefits in a given year of switching to a more accurate inflation measure is minute, but Social Security spans generations.[5] Again, according to the Social Security actuaries, using a more modern inflation measure would substantially reduce Social Security's shortfall over time. Raise the Medicare eligibility age to agree with Social Security. Medicare has an eligibility age problem, but unlike Social Security, the Medicare eligibility age remains stuck at 65. An obvious solution is to wait five years and then slowly raise the eligibility age to align eventually with the Social Security eligibility age. While the short-term budgetary savings would be negligible, the long-term savings in Medicare would be profound. Reduce the Medicare subsidy for upper-income beneficiaries. In 2012, the average Medicare beneficiary received a subsidy of about $5,000. The subsidy is the per capita amount of Treasury revenue that is used to fill the financial hole arising each year because Medicare's premiums are inadequate, in conjunction with its other revenue sources, to cover Medicare's total costs. Subsidizing Medicare benefits for low-income seniors—and perhaps for some middle-income seniors—makes sense, but upper-income seniors do not need and should not receive a $5,000 subsidy to buy Medicare health insurance. The Medicare subsidy was first cut for the wealthiest seniors in legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2004 by income-relating premiums so that higher-income beneficiaries pay a higher share of their Medicare cost. It was cut further in Obamacare, and President Obama proposed to pare it back still further in his budget proposals of February 2012 with still-higher premiums for upper-income beneficiaries.

Medicare has many programmatic problems that demand attention, and the sooner the better, but the immediate fiscal problem is straightforward: It is the subsidy. The total cost of the Medicare subsidy—about $230 billion in 2012—will soar over time as health care costs rise and the baby boomers retire.[6] Paring back the subsidy for well-to-do retirees is an obvious step toward reducing the budget deficit today and shoring up Medicare for the long run.

The four foregoing proposals for Social Security and Medicare meet the test of simplicity, being relatively easy to communicate to the American people, having been thoroughly vetted, and enjoying widespread support. Together, they would dramatically improve America's fiscal future for the better. Two additional proposals, one each for Social Security and Medicare, meet the tests of simplicity and effectiveness but have not been considered as intensively. Yet they should also garner bipartisan support and consideration.

Phase out Social Security benefits for upper-income retirees. Everyone who has ever paid into Social Security is entitled to the benefits prescribed by law. However, as a nation, we need to ask whether today's working families should pay payroll taxes so that upper-income retirees can continue to receive their checks. We need to ask why phasing out the Medicare subsidy to upper-income seniors while continuing to send them their full Social Security check would make sense. In short, Social Security should be social insurance against poverty rather than a government-run pension scheme.

Some might charge that this is redistributionism, but would anyone suggest that millionaires should receive food stamps? Food stamps and other welfare programs are specifically intended to operate as part of the social safety net, yet their existence constitutes a form of redistributionism that most Americans accept. Social Security (and Medicare) should become real insurance against poverty, meaning that only those seniors who need help should receive help. On the other hand, if Social Security remains a universal government-run pension, then it remains a vastly larger program built on an entirely different redistributionist principle: redistribution from workers to retirees, including the wealthy.

Consolidate Medicare's elements and collect a single higher premium. Medicare is actually three distinct components, referred to generally as Parts A, B, and D, reflecting the fact that Medicare was built up over many years. This antiquated structure is confusing and inefficient. An obvious reform is to consolidate the three distinct parts into a unified Medicare program.

Medicare Parts B and D each require beneficiaries to pay a premium covering 25 percent of the cost of the programs. As the Medicare Parts are consolidated, the premium should be consolidated as well and then raised to 35 percent of the relevant costs.[7]

The nation's fiscal problems, today and beyond, derive entirely from excess spending, especially entitlement spending, not a dearth of revenue. While current revenues are exceptionally low as a share of the economy, this is due almost entirely to the weak economy. As analysis by the Administration's budget office and the Congressional Budget Office affirm, revenues will return to a more normal 18.5 percent of the economy as the economy recovers. Given these facts, President Obama's insistence on an economically harmful tax hike for what is essentially a fiscally meaningless increase in revenues will not help policymakers navigate successfully around the fiscal cliff.

A hopeful sign, however, is that the political timing is propitious, and important policy reforms in Social Security and Medicare are simple, straightforward, and well known. These proposals, while not correcting more fundamental programmatic flaws, would materially correct the spending excesses in these programs. Better yet, these proposals are not partisan in nature, but have been supported on a bipartisan basis in the past.

All that is lacking to avoid the fiscal cliff, profoundly stabilize the nation's public finances, and shore up these critical entitlement programs is for the President to take the lead. The nation waits.

—J. D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy in and Alison Acosta Fraser is Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[1] Alison Acosta Fraser, “Boehner’s Olive Branch: More Revenues, but Only Through Growth,” Heritage Foundation, The Foundry, November 9, 2012, http://blog.heritage.org/2012/11/09/boehners-olive-branch-more-revenues-but-only-through-growth/.

[2] Curtis S. Dubay, “Taxmageddon: Massive Tax Increase Coming in 2013,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 3558, April 4, 2012, www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/taxmageddon-massive-tax-increase-coming-in-2013.

[3] David C. John, “Social Security Finances Significantly Worse, Says 2012 Trustees’ Report,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 3577, April 23, 2012, www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/social-security-finances-significantly-worse-says-2012-trustees-report.

[4] Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, “Individual Changes Modifying Social Security,” Actuarial Publications, December 21, 2011, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/index.html (accessed November 27, 2012).

[5] The Social Security actuaries have considered in particular a modern measure of inflation known as “chained CPI” (C-CPI). Price indices of this sort are constructed by looking at a basket of goods and services to proxy all consumer purchases. The traditional CPI rarely changes the basket and thus steadily becomes a less accurate proxy as the pattern of consumer purchases changes. The more modern C-CPI, relying on advances in economic theory, updates this reference basket regularly and thus better proxies consumer purchases.

View the original article here

Six Bipartisan Entitlement Reforms to Solve the Real Fiscal Crisis: Only Presidential Leadership Is Needed

Abstract: The United States faces a real fiscal crisis, and the impending fiscal cliff of massive tax hikes and spending cuts in January is only the first act. In early 2013, the federal government will exhaust its ability to issue debt legally. Yet as large and as major a concern as federal budget deficits are today, they are of secondary consequence compared with the fiscal quagmire of unaffordable entitlement spending in the next decade. Fortunately, the entitlement problem can be resolved by six simple reforms to improve the fiscal future for Social Security and Medicare. But to implement these reforms, President Barack Obama must lead.

A high-stakes fiscal policy debate of unique size and import has just begun. Absent congressional action to the contrary, a massive slate of tax hikes and spending cuts will take effect on January 1, and that is only the first act. The second act will occur early in 2013 when the federal government will exhaust its ability to issue debt legally. Both acts need prompt solutions.

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R–OH) made the first move. After congratulating President Barack Obama upon his reelection, Boehner promised a willingness to work with him, giving Obama the additional revenues he desired through pro-growth tax reform accompanied by reforms in entitlement programs.[1] President Obama's counter, while unsurprising, was unhelpful because he focused exclusively on fiscally meaningless and economically harmful tax hikes on upper-income taxpayers. The President repeatedly has argued for a balanced approach, but he has yet to offer a single meaningful proposal on spending reductions.

While the President prepares to start his second term, he should set about negotiating in good faith with Republicans, especially in the House where Republicans were returned to office in the majority with expectations of cutting spending without increasing taxes. The voters, we are told, expect it. This means the President cannot sit back and just harp on revenues. He needs to address spending and in particular entitlements.

Fortunately, the President has occasion and opportunity to lead by proposing some simple yet transformational reforms in two of the prime sources of the nation's fiscal problems: Social Security and Medicare. Better yet, many such reforms have already been thoroughly considered and enjoy broad bipartisan support, lacking only the moment and the leadership to become a reality. These proposals will not resolve either program's key structural flaws—they constitute a start of the reform journey, not the conclusion—but they would be a powerful start that would markedly alter the nation's fiscal trajectory.

At the start of a President's second term, the political stars are in the best possible alignment for solving big problems. All the President needs to do is seize the moment. This is the moment; President Obama must lead.

Many events arrive by chance, but the present fiscal spectacle is not one of them. The fiscal cliff results from explicit actions by Congress and the President to push difficult fiscal policy issues past the recent election. In this, they succeeded, although it took a series of legislative acts to accomplish it. With regard to taxes:

The payroll tax cut, extended in the spring of 2012, will expire on December 31, 2012. The extension of the Bush tax cuts, signed into law in December 2010, will expire at the end of the year. This same law also established a new structure for the death tax with a 35 percent rate and a $5 million exemption per spouse, which will expire at the end of the year. Various Obamacare tax hikes begin at the start of 2013.[2]

The same pattern holds for the spending cuts. For example, the sequester slated to gouge defense spending while making modest cuts—such as a 2 percent across-the-board cut to Medicare providers—reflects the final leavings of the earlier Budget Control Act, which created the failed "supercommittee." Early in 2012, Congress also prevented deep and disastrous reductions in Medicare provider payments, but this "doc fix" remedy expires at the end of the year.

In May 2011, the federal government exhausted its legal authority to finance deficit spending by issuing debt. The U.S. Department of the Treasury exercised its typical but limited authorities for temporarily creating more room under the "debt limit," allowing policymakers to postpone action until early August. A brutal and economically risky political battle ensued, eventually resulting in legislation that raised the debt limit by $2.1 trillion, sufficient to fund the federal government past the November election.

Projections now suggest that the government will reach the debt limit late in 2012, after which the Treasury will again deploy its limited authorities. This will trigger what could be another difficult negotiation for Congress and President Obama—a negotiation that will be heavily influenced by what happens with the fiscal cliff.

President Obama clearly believes in raising taxes on upper-income taxpayers, and he is willing to weaken the economy, slow job growth, and constrain wage growth to do so. It is difficult to fathom his acceptance of this trade-off of economic security for an ideological doctrine of social justice, especially considering that this long-standing debate likely will rage indefinitely. However, these tax hikes are a distant sideshow in the present context, a political distraction that diverts attention from the central fiscal issue of runaway spending, which gives rise to persistent and economically dangerous deficits.

In his own budget, the President proposed to extend the Bush tax cuts except for those making $250,000 or more, raising $836 billion over the next 10 years. His companion proposal to limit the value of deductions for upper-income taxpayers would raise another $574 billion, for a total of $1.4 trillion. In absolute terms, that is a lot of revenue. However, even allowing for all the other budget gimmicks and tax hikes in Obama's budget, the federal debt would rise by $7.7 trillion over the next 10 years including these tax hikes and by $9.1 trillion without them.

Obama's tax hikes would reduce the rise in federal debt over the next 10 years by about 15 percent. The President is silent about the remaining 85 percent. The numbers confirm that President Obama's tax hike demands are at best tangential to attaining a balanced budget.

As large and as major a concern as federal budget deficits are today, they are nevertheless secondary in consequence to the fiscal quagmire of unaffordable entitlements. Social Security and Medicare in particular share certain vital characteristics. Both programs are extraordinarily complicated, having been built up in complexity over the years one Congress at a time. Similarly, each program badly needs programmatic reforms. For example, the minimum benefit in Social Security is woefully inadequate to protect low-income seniors from poverty, and Medicare still lacks a catastrophic benefit. These are only some of the many shortcomings that must be addressed in fundamental overhauls of each program.

Of most immediate concern, however, is that Social Security and Medicare are unaffordable in their current forms. When this year's kindergarteners enter college, just 13 years away, spending on these two programs plus Medicaid and interest on the debt will devour all tax revenue. (See Chart 1.)

Social Security will lack the funds to pay full benefits beginning as early as 2033.[3] Medicare's unfunded promises in current dollars reach into the many tens of trillions of dollars. These facts are not in dispute. Solutions to our fiscal challenges are needed, urgent, and inevitable.

The fiscal cliff and the debt limit have set the stage, but there is also the reality of the rhythms in the American political system. There are certain windows in every four-year or eight-year cycle when bold leaders can achieve bold things. The first few months of a reelected President's second term is one such window, but it closes fast, and lame-duck status arrives quickly.

Thus, the President must adopt the mantle of leadership, rather than brinksmanship, to steer the nation away from the fiscal cliff and all that is set to follow, and he must start with spending. However, the critical silver lining is that simple, commonsense, and thoroughly vetted solutions such as the four listed below constitute a strong start on the journey to more complete programmatic reforms remedying acknowledged flaws in these programs, and they already enjoy broad support across the political spectrum.

Raise the Social Security eligibility age to match increases in longevity. Originally set at 65, the normal eligibility age is rising two months every year until 2022, when it will reach 67. According to the Social Security actuaries, continuing to increase the eligibility age to 69 by the year 2034 and allowing it to rise more slowly thereafter to reflect gains in longevity could go a long way toward reducing Social Security's funding shortfall.[4] While this would not reduce today's budget deficit, it would strengthen Social Security's finances and dissipate far more important long-term budget pressures. Correct the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). The annual COLA benefit adjustment is determined today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index (CPI). However, the CPI, an antiquated measure, generally overstates inflation, meaning that benefits are increased a bit too much each year to offset inflation. The effect on benefits in a given year of switching to a more accurate inflation measure is minute, but Social Security spans generations.[5] Again, according to the Social Security actuaries, using a more modern inflation measure would substantially reduce Social Security's shortfall over time. Raise the Medicare eligibility age to agree with Social Security. Medicare has an eligibility age problem, but unlike Social Security, the Medicare eligibility age remains stuck at 65. An obvious solution is to wait five years and then slowly raise the eligibility age to align eventually with the Social Security eligibility age. While the short-term budgetary savings would be negligible, the long-term savings in Medicare would be profound. Reduce the Medicare subsidy for upper-income beneficiaries. In 2012, the average Medicare beneficiary received a subsidy of about $5,000. The subsidy is the per capita amount of Treasury revenue that is used to fill the financial hole arising each year because Medicare's premiums are inadequate, in conjunction with its other revenue sources, to cover Medicare's total costs. Subsidizing Medicare benefits for low-income seniors—and perhaps for some middle-income seniors—makes sense, but upper-income seniors do not need and should not receive a $5,000 subsidy to buy Medicare health insurance. The Medicare subsidy was first cut for the wealthiest seniors in legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2004 by income-relating premiums so that higher-income beneficiaries pay a higher share of their Medicare cost. It was cut further in Obamacare, and President Obama proposed to pare it back still further in his budget proposals of February 2012 with still-higher premiums for upper-income beneficiaries.

Medicare has many programmatic problems that demand attention, and the sooner the better, but the immediate fiscal problem is straightforward: It is the subsidy. The total cost of the Medicare subsidy—about $230 billion in 2012—will soar over time as health care costs rise and the baby boomers retire.[6] Paring back the subsidy for well-to-do retirees is an obvious step toward reducing the budget deficit today and shoring up Medicare for the long run.

The four foregoing proposals for Social Security and Medicare meet the test of simplicity, being relatively easy to communicate to the American people, having been thoroughly vetted, and enjoying widespread support. Together, they would dramatically improve America's fiscal future for the better. Two additional proposals, one each for Social Security and Medicare, meet the tests of simplicity and effectiveness but have not been considered as intensively. Yet they should also garner bipartisan support and consideration.

Phase out Social Security benefits for upper-income retirees. Everyone who has ever paid into Social Security is entitled to the benefits prescribed by law. However, as a nation, we need to ask whether today's working families should pay payroll taxes so that upper-income retirees can continue to receive their checks. We need to ask why phasing out the Medicare subsidy to upper-income seniors while continuing to send them their full Social Security check would make sense. In short, Social Security should be social insurance against poverty rather than a government-run pension scheme.

Some might charge that this is redistributionism, but would anyone suggest that millionaires should receive food stamps? Food stamps and other welfare programs are specifically intended to operate as part of the social safety net, yet their existence constitutes a form of redistributionism that most Americans accept. Social Security (and Medicare) should become real insurance against poverty, meaning that only those seniors who need help should receive help. On the other hand, if Social Security remains a universal government-run pension, then it remains a vastly larger program built on an entirely different redistributionist principle: redistribution from workers to retirees, including the wealthy.

Consolidate Medicare's elements and collect a single higher premium. Medicare is actually three distinct components, referred to generally as Parts A, B, and D, reflecting the fact that Medicare was built up over many years. This antiquated structure is confusing and inefficient. An obvious reform is to consolidate the three distinct parts into a unified Medicare program.

Medicare Parts B and D each require beneficiaries to pay a premium covering 25 percent of the cost of the programs. As the Medicare Parts are consolidated, the premium should be consolidated as well and then raised to 35 percent of the relevant costs.[7]

The nation's fiscal problems, today and beyond, derive entirely from excess spending, especially entitlement spending, not a dearth of revenue. While current revenues are exceptionally low as a share of the economy, this is due almost entirely to the weak economy. As analysis by the Administration's budget office and the Congressional Budget Office affirm, revenues will return to a more normal 18.5 percent of the economy as the economy recovers. Given these facts, President Obama's insistence on an economically harmful tax hike for what is essentially a fiscally meaningless increase in revenues will not help policymakers navigate successfully around the fiscal cliff.

A hopeful sign, however, is that the political timing is propitious, and important policy reforms in Social Security and Medicare are simple, straightforward, and well known. These proposals, while not correcting more fundamental programmatic flaws, would materially correct the spending excesses in these programs. Better yet, these proposals are not partisan in nature, but have been supported on a bipartisan basis in the past.

All that is lacking to avoid the fiscal cliff, profoundly stabilize the nation's public finances, and shore up these critical entitlement programs is for the President to take the lead. The nation waits.

—J. D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy in and Alison Acosta Fraser is Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

[1] Alison Acosta Fraser, “Boehner’s Olive Branch: More Revenues, but Only Through Growth,” Heritage Foundation, The Foundry, November 9, 2012, http://blog.heritage.org/2012/11/09/boehners-olive-branch-more-revenues-but-only-through-growth/.

[2] Curtis S. Dubay, “Taxmageddon: Massive Tax Increase Coming in 2013,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 3558, April 4, 2012, www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/taxmageddon-massive-tax-increase-coming-in-2013.

[3] David C. John, “Social Security Finances Significantly Worse, Says 2012 Trustees’ Report,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 3577, April 23, 2012, www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/social-security-finances-significantly-worse-says-2012-trustees-report.

[4] Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, “Individual Changes Modifying Social Security,” Actuarial Publications, December 21, 2011, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/index.html (accessed November 27, 2012).

[5] The Social Security actuaries have considered in particular a modern measure of inflation known as “chained CPI” (C-CPI). Price indices of this sort are constructed by looking at a basket of goods and services to proxy all consumer purchases. The traditional CPI rarely changes the basket and thus steadily becomes a less accurate proxy as the pattern of consumer purchases changes. The more modern C-CPI, relying on advances in economic theory, updates this reference basket regularly and thus better proxies consumer purchases.

View the original article here

Bipartisan Group Calls For Broader Religious Exemptions In ObamaCare

House Republicans and Democrats have joined together to re-introduce a bill that would expand the religious conscience exemptions under ObamaCare.

Under the Equitable Access to Care and Health (EACH) Act, individuals would have the option of being exempted from the Affordable Healthcare Act's mandate to buy health insurance. People could avoid the mandate by filing an affidavit as part of their tax return saying their religious beliefs keep them from buying insurance that meets federal standards.

However, anyone filing this affidavit who then uses healthcare would lose their right to the exemption from the insurance mandate.

"We believe the EACH Act balances a respect for religious diversity against the need to prevent fraud and abuse," Reps. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) and William Keating (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter seeking support for their bill.

"It is imperative we expand the religious conscience exemption now as the Administration is already developing a process to verify the various exemptions to the individual mandate," they wrote.

Religious exemption from ObamaCare has come up before, including the ruling from the Obama administration that religious-affiliated organizations must provide health insurance that covers contraception. The EACH Act, however, is unrelated to that issue, and deals only with exemptions from the insurance mandate.

The bill, H.R. 1814, enjoyed bipartisan support last year, and this year was introduced with 43 co-sponsors.

View Comments

View the original article here

Why The Bipartisan Push For An Online Sales Tax Is The Right Move

The online retail giant Amazon benefits from a large loophole in the federal tax code. Because companies only have to collect sales tax in states where they have a physical presence, Amazon is able to avoid collecting the tax in many states, giving it a way to undermine traditional retailers. But a bipartisan group of 57 members of Congress is trying to change the law to close Amazon’s loophole:

Twenty senators and 37 members of the House from both parties signed on to the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 (MFA)—legislation that would allow states to collect taxes on what consumers buy over the Internet.

The measure would finally resolve a decades-old dispute over whether states can collect sales taxes on mail-order and online purchases. Currently, states are barred from requiring out-of-state sellers to collect sales taxes, unless the retailers have a physical presence (or nexus) in their jurisdiction. The MFA would allow states to require sellers to collect these levies no matter where the firms are located.

This loophole gives Amazon (and other online shops) a leg up on its competitors for no real reason. As Michael Mazerov wrote for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, there is “no excuse for exempting large companies like Amazon and Overstock that are perfectly capable of collecting tax everywhere — just as their brick and mortar competitors do.”

Applying an online sales tax fairly would also make the tax code slightly more progressive, as “many low-income families would love to shop online to avoid sales tax but can’t because they don’t own a computer or can’t afford high-speed Internet access.” Sales taxes are inherently regressive, and exempting online purchases makes them even more so, as those with the right technology get to skip the tax entirely.

States governed by both Democrats and Republicans have moved to address this issue, but it won’t be truly fixed until Congress takes action.

View the original article here

Sens. Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul Join Bipartisan Bill To Legalize Hemp

While most Republican members of Congress have been lukewarm at best to the prospect of legalizing marijuana, senators introduced a bipartisan measure this week to legalize industrial hemp. Riding on the passage of recent Kentucky Senate bills to ease hemp growing, the state’s Republican senators, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, joined Oregon Democratic Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden in introducing a bill to legalize production of the strain of cannabis used in the production of goods.

Hemp is a plant in the cannabis family with significantly lower levels of the psychoactive component, THC, than most varieties that are smoked or consumed. It is used to make textiles, paper, paints, clothing, plastics, cosmetics, foodstuffs, insulation, animal feed and other products, according to NORML. Hemp is nonetheless lumped in with all other cannabis products, which are classified as Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act, the most restrictive of the five schedules designated for those substances considered dangerous with no currently accepted medical value.

The bill, which would would remove hemp from the controlled substances list and define it as a non-drug so long as it contains less than 0.3 percent THC, is a small demonstration of fading hysteria over anything “cannabis” that emerged in the era of “Reefer Madness.” It also raises questions, however, about federal support for legalizing at least those strains of medical cannabis that have very low levels of THC, as well as those chemical compounds extracted from marijuana that are low in THC.

View the original article here

Republicans Attack Obama For Drafting Immigration Reform Plan That Resembles Bipartisan Principles

On Sunday, Republicans lashed out at a leaked draft of the White House’s plan to reform the immigration system.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said any proposal from the president that lacked Republican input would be “dead on arrival” and is “hurting the effort” at reform. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) claimed that Obama was looking for a “partisan advantage” on the issue and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) announced that the draft demonstrated that “the president doesn’t want immigration reform.”

But as White House Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough made clear during appearances on several Sunday talk shows, Obama is committed to immigration reform but is developing a back-up plan, to be used only in the event that talks “break down.” Short of negotiation failure, the White House stands firmly behind bipartisan congressional negotiations:

BOB SCHIEFFER: So is this a new plan the president is circulating?

MCDONOUGH: I think the report said … it has been circulating inside the administration. And I think the president laid out in Las Vegas last week we will be prepared with our own plans if the talks between Republicans and Democrats on the Hill break down. There is no evidence they have broken down. We continue to support that. We are involved in those efforts by providing technical assistance and providing them ideas and i hope Republicans and Democrats up there don’t get involved in a kind of typical Washington back-and-forth sideshow here and rather roll up their sleeves and get to work on writing a comprehensive immigration bill.

McDonough added on Meet the Press that the White House is doing what it always said it would do in “aggressively supporting” Hill negotiations, while developing its own back-up proposal that includes the core elements of comprehensive immigration reform: continued strengthening of the borders, crackdowns on businesses that game the system, a path to citizenship, and reasonable opportunities for legal immigration.

USA Today reports that Obama’s draft mirrors the 2007 bipartisan immigration proposal backed by President George W. Bush and Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). But as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) admitted during an appearance on ABC’s This Week, Republicans are unlikely to support any plan with Obama’s name on it — even if it incorporates many of their own proposals.

View the original article here

Senators Introduce Bipartisan Bill To Strengthen America’s Mental Health System

As part of a wide-ranging effort to address gun violence in the wake of December’s mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, a bipartisan group of senators has introduced the Excellence In Mental Health Act, legislation that aims to strengthen America’s mental health safety net by providing behavioral health care facilities more access to federal funding and consolidating disparate elements of the U.S. mental health safety net.

When introducing the legislation, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) explained, “[W]e must work together to spend federal dollars more wisely when treating people who are mentally ill. This bill will help address our fragmented mental health system and ensure that more patients have access to the care they need by offering current Community Mental Health Centers a chance to expand their services and obtain the Federally Qualified Community Behavioral Health Center designation.” Such a move would provide qualifying behavioral health centers parity with physical health centers by giving them access to prospective — rather than retrospective — Medicaid reimbursements. Modern Healthcare reports that the legislation would also require the federal health centers to offer more expansive services to mentally ill Americans and their families:

The new criteria established by the bill… would require such things as 24-hour crisis care, the increased integration of mental and substance abuse care with other kinds of medical care, as well as expanded support for families of mental health patients.

Mark Covall, president and CEO of the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, said increased standardization and integration are both worthwhile goals (though the association doesn’t take an official stand on the bill). Whether it is adding mental health services to federally qualified health centers or adding medical care to mental health centers, integration is important because that is the direction the industry is moving toward, Covall said.

In its current iteration, the Excellence In Mental Health Act represents a solid step in the right direction when it comes to bridging the illogical gap between the ways that physical and behavioral health issues are treated in America. But while the increased funding provisions are good news, the bill still does not go quite as far as the Wellstone-Domenici Mental Health Parity And Addiction Equity Act, which would require most private insurers to treat mental health coverage the same way they treat any other coverage.

It is also encouraging that the bill includes mental health resources for veterans and substance abusers. Military suicides reached a record high in January, and substance abusers — as a group — are among the most likely to suffer from a co-occurring mental illness. Alongside Sen. Al Franken’s (R-MN) recently-introduced Mental Health In Schools Act — which encourages early intervention and community resources for mentally ill American children — the new legislation suggests that the Senate is serious about plugging the gaping holes in America’s mental health safety net.

View the original article here

Bipartisan immigration reform blueprint has best chances of success

Bipartisan immigration reform blueprint has best chances of success - 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 @thehill!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 BoxGOP12In The KnowPunditsTwitter Room HomeSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsBlogsBriefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxGOP12In 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   Bipartisan immigration reform blueprint has best chances of successBy Robert Gittelson, president, Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform-01/29/13 01:50 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");

On Sunday evening, an important, bipartisan, and influential group of leaders in the Senate introduced their outline suggesting reasonable and balanced solutions for fixing our nation’s outdated and thoroughly broken immigration system. On Tuesday, President Obama will also lean into this issue by introducing his thoughts about immigration reform legislation. Our Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform coalition applauds this leadership, and we are anxious to review and compare these blueprints. We note that the Senate’s plan is very much in line with the principles that our coalition has been advocating for some time now.

In point of fact, we have been meeting with many leaders on Capitol Hill over the past several weeks about this issue, and I am optimistic because thoughtful and serious remedies are being put forward to address this problem. While of course we have not met everyone in Congress, we have certainly met with enough folks on both sides of the Hill – including leaders from both parties – to get a sense of their emerging consensus. Make no mistake, immigration reform is coming, and it is coming quickly.
 
However, I caution that while there most certainly is a consensus as to the need to fix the problem of immigration, the exact blueprint for a final solution is very much still an evolving process. We are aware that the “devil is in the details.” Not every issue is resolved, including whether this process will be ultimately settled in one comprehensive bill – as the Senate outline suggests - or a series of smaller measures that ultimately add up to comprehensive reform. I will say that while these and other issues remain outstanding, I am convinced that people of good will are working through them thoughtfully, and with an eye on the rule of law, justice, and pragmatism.
 
Our group has been urging our leaders to look at the big picture, with an eye toward the future. Our position is that there exists in this debate a moral imperative to address this issue firmly yet fairly, and to resolve any differences through open dialogue and with open minds. Therefore, we are stressing the need to present legislation that has been vetted through what is known as “regular order,” in which the proper committees will have a full chance to weigh into this debate with an open, (within reason), amendment process, and with the benefit of full and reasoned hearings on all aspects of this legislation.
 
It is our contention that both Democrats and Republicans want to see this issue resolved not only for the undocumented that are currently here, but so that we do not have to address this issue again several years from now. Furthermore, we must find solutions that address the future flow of immigrants that will allow our nation to prosper long into the future. After all, the best recipe for addressing our nation’s financial woes is for robust future economic prosperity. We must grow our way out of our budget crisis because spending cuts – while important – will not get us to a balanced budget without addition revenue, and we believe that this additional revenue should come through economic growth as opposed to more and higher taxes.
 
A study that was recently done by Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, a respected economics professor from U.C.L.A., suggests that the legalization of our undocumented population would result in $1.5 trillion dollars in additional GDP over the next 10 years. I think that he is actually understating the numbers. I think the impact will be bigger.
 
I started my business in California in 1982, 4 years before President Reagan signed the last immigration overhaul in 1986. I lived through the financial impact of his economic policies, including his immigration solutions that included the legalization of some 3,000,000 people. There is no doubt in my mind that the Reagan economic model put in place policies that enabled President Clinton to balance our nation’s budget 10 years after his immigration bill was signed. The impact of his legislation on my state cannot be understated. There was robust growth in many financial sectors of our economy that were directly attributable to the legalization of the undocumented population. His policies fueled the additional revenue that helped to create a government surplus of revenue - something that would be extremely helpful to our nation as we head into the 21st century.
 
The American Exceptionalism model is built on the foundation of American Capitalism. This model relies in large measure upon a simple formula; ambition plus opportunity equals success. There is no doubt that many of the undocumented immigrants that came here, came with the ambition to pursue opportunity and the American Dream. However, without any real avenue toward opportunity, they have encountered a wall that prohibits them from fulfilling the chance to see how far their wits and ambition would allow them to prosper. We must, to paraphrase President Reagan, “tear down that wall.”
 
Furthermore, as we have been meeting with members of Congress, we have been respectfully suggesting that while the opportunity to legalize the status of the undocumented goes most of the way toward solving the problem of having 11,000,000 people - and their citizen or legal resident family members - living in the shadows of society, it falls short of the ultimate remedy of allowing for a long, rigorous, yet attainable opportunity for them to complete their American Dream, and to take the solemn oath of allegiance to the United States and become citizens. The Senate blueprint calls for this opportunity, and we therefore applaud them for their leadership on this important element of the debate. We view the taking of this oath seriously, and note that immigrants must swear, in part, upon the same language that we demand of our members of Congress, “…that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”
 
It is our belief that it is in the best long term interests of both these prospective citizens, and for our nation, to allow the folks that can qualify - and are willing to admit that they broke the law, are willing to pay some form of restitution to get right with the law, and to jump through whatever hoops Congress determines constitutes an earned pathway – to have an opportunity to eventually become United States citizens.
 
However, at the end of the day, we will wait to see how Congress seeks to ultimately address these issues, and how they determine to be what is in the best long term interests of the United States, as they seek to find a lasting solution that fixes our broken immigration system. We urge our leaders to perform this legislative process openly and transparently, allowing all members of Congress – pro and con – to weigh into this debate. We are confident that while this process might prove to be somewhat messy, and perhaps heated, we feel that America’s interests, and true justice for all, will best be served though regular order. We trust that at the end of the day, our legislative system will work, if people of good will seek solutions that are in the best interests of America.
 
In closing, it is our wish to see both parties ultimately put forward immigration reform legislation that is balanced and just. Neither side in this debate has a monopoly on good ideas. This legislation will be most effective if it is representative of input from both parties. Speaking as a conservative, I have heard many conservative members articulate reasoned and patriotic concepts that would strike a much needed balanced between the rule of law, and the moral imperatives that are inherent in our makeup as Americans. I encourage my conservative friends to articulate their perspectives as this debate progresses. The final product will only be effective if it is representative and inclusive of input from both sides of our nation's ideological spectrum.
 
 
Gittelson is president of Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

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/homeland-security/279697-bipartisan-immigration-reform-blueprint-has-best-chances-of-successThe 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 ViewedAverting the real fiscal cliff: Political posturing slow's path to fiscal solvencySHIELD Act will help address patent system abusesHaggling over Hurricane Sandy relief: The unraveling of a rational disaster relief policyObama must act boldly to protect workers' rightsConservatives and Republicans should embrace the populismEmailedTo grow the economy, invest in early childhood educationWhy school choice worksHaggling over Hurricane Sandy relief: The unraveling of a rational disaster relief policy'Our journey is not complete': Equal pay requires passage of Paycheck Fairness ActObama must act boldly to protect workers' rightsDiscussedEnvironmental extremism costing GOP at ballot boxObama must follow through on climate change challengeBlog Home »Most Viewed RSS Feed »  More Homeland Security HeadlinesLGBT community at mercy of discriminatory immigration systemA welcome step in reforming our immigration systemThe time has come for immigration reformMore Homeland Security Headlines » Homeland Security 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 RoomObama signs $50B Sandy relief measure Report: Obama to visit Minneapolis on MondayDAY'S END ROUNDUP
More Briefing Room »Congress BlogLGBT community at mercy of discriminatory immigration systemIran reset: Challenges for next four yearsBipartisan immigration reform blueprint has best chances of success
More Congress Blog »Pundits BlogRoger Ailes says farewell to Sarah Palin, Marco Rubio says hello to immigration reform, Hillary Clinton says farewell for nowEgyptian president must make real amends to end the unrestImmigration offers Republicans an opportunity
More Pundits Blog »Twitter RoomDem senator 'encouraged' by immigration reform principlesList: Freshman House members on TwitterMitt and Ann Romney lunch with Ryan, McCain in Washington
More Twitter Room »Hillicon ValleyOVERNIGHT TECH: Tech companies line up to support high-skilled immigration billMeasures in Obama proposal mirror high-skilled immigration legislationDisney CEO rips ‘ill-informed’ Markey over ‘MagicBands’ criticism
More Hillicon Valley »E2-Wire (Energy)Book review: Al Gore faces 'The Future'OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Al Gore hits talk-show circuitEPA denies regional chief used private email for official business
More E2-Wire (Energy) »Ballot BoxRep. Stephen Lynch to announce bid for Senate on ThursdayKeystone XL decision may loom large for red state Democrats in 2014 midtermsSen. Alexander to raise $3 million by May
More Ballot Box »On The MoneyOVERNIGHT MONEY: Senate ponders debt-ceiling billSEC names new inspector generalStudy: Consumers spent more of payroll tax cut than intended
More On The Money »HealthwatchOVERNIGHT HEALTH: Obama plan nixes health benefits for immigrants in the pipelineRepublicans threaten to subpoena IRS records on health law's subsidiesRubio: Immigration deal 'un-doable' if health benefits are on the table
More Healthwatch »Floor ActionJustice Department gives monetary awards to 9/11 first respondersGOP offers resolution calling carbon tax harmful to low-income familiesGrassley: Obama's logic on guns turns Constitution on its head
More Floor Action »TransportationEqual Employment Opportunity Commission to investigate TSA NTSB performing chemical tests on defective 787 'Dreamliner' batteryNTSB chief — and DOT contender — thanks LaHood for service
More Transportation »DEFCON HillOVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Benghazi invades Hagel confirmationSen. Graham: Either Panetta testifies on Libya or I put hold on Hagel nomination 9/11 conspirator delivers tirade against US prosecutors in Gitmo tribunal
More DEFCON Hill »Global AffairsSenate confirms Kerry for State on 94-3 voteState Department defends commitment to closing down Guantánamo prisonSenate panel approves Kerry for State
More Global Affairs »In The KnowSimilar-looking congressmen creating confusion on Capitol HillRep. Blackburn challenges Obama to skeet shooting showdownGo nuts! Lawmakers form Congressional Peanut Caucus
More In The Know »RegWatchFederal regulators target doggie doo in San Francisco park Lobbyists air concerns about doctor gift-disclosure rule at White HouseOil group: High-ethanol fuel harms cars
More RegWatch » Blogs News FeedCongress Blog RollCapital GamesDaily KosDCCCDNCDrudge ReportDSCCJudicial WatchNRCCNRSCPolitical AnimalRNCThe ChamberPostThe CornerThe Huffington PostThe NoteThe Plank COLUMNISTSLanny DavisConscious capitalismBrent BudowskyHillary turns Texas blueMore 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

Key Democratic Senator Backs Universal Background Checks, And Indicates A Bipartisan Bill Is In The Works

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), once thought to be a possible roadblock to some of President Obama’s proposed gun control measures, told a West Virginia talk show host Thursday morning that he supports legislation requiring a background check for anyone who wants to buy a gun.

Manchin has long been a darling of the National Rifle Association, and has consistently earned A ratings from the organization since he assumed his Senate seat in 2010. In December, days after the mass school shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school, Manchin signaled an openness towards rethinking his past resistance to new gun control regulation, but his comments to radio host Hoppy Kercheval on Thursday suggest that the blue dog Democrat is already working on a bill to introduce universal background checks:

KERCHEVAL : Do you think there should be universal background checks on anybody who wants to buy a gun? Right now it’s done only through federally licensed firearms dealers.

MANCHIN: I’m working on a bill right now with other Senators — Democrats and Republicans — we’re trying to get it, and looking at a background check that basically says that if you’re going to be a gun owner, you should be able to pass a background check, to be able to get that. With exceptions. The exceptions are: Families, immediate family members, some sporting events that you’re going to — that if you’re just going to be using them at the sporting events. So we’re looking and talking to people with expertise. I’m working with the NRA, to be honest with you, and talking to them.

Recent polling has shown that more than nine in ten Americans are in favor of universal background checks, but the NRA has thus far refused to lift its opposition to any substantial new regulations on gun ownership. But Manchin is now the second Democrat to reveal that the NRA has been party to ongoing negotiations over background checks.

Presently, as many as 40 percent of all guns sales are done with no background checks at all.

(HT Greg Sargent)

View the original article here

Bipartisan Pair Of Senators Calls For Investigation Into U.S. Taxpayer Losses From Coal Exports

by Jessica Goad

Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have called on Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to investigate if U.S. taxpayers are getting shortchanged by companies mining coal from public lands and exporting the resource to other countries.

That’s according to a report from Reuters today.

Senator Wyden is Chairman of the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Senator Murkowski is the ranking member.

Wyden and Murkowski said they were concerned that coal companies are not paying high enough royalties on coal mined on public lands.  According to another Reuters article in December, companies are valuing coal at lower domestic prices rather than higher international prices so they “can dodge the larger royalty payout when mining federal land.”

If any violations of the law have occurred, companies should be required to cure any gap in royalty payments and, if misconduct has occurred, civil penalties should be levied,” reads Wyden and Murkowsi’s letter.

Approximately 43 percent of the coal produced in the U.S. comes from public lands managed by the government and owned by all Americans. Public lands are home to some of the richest coal deposits in the nation, mostly located in Wyoming and Montana’s Powder River Basin.

However, as the use of coal for electricity continues to decrease, coal companies have been eying fast-growing Asian markets as a potential destination for U.S. coal.  In 2011, U.S. coal exports were the highest they have been since 1991, and companies like Arch Coal have predicted that they could be even higher over the next few years.

Shorting royalties isn’t the only way that taxpayers may be losing out. Some have called out the government for carrying out policies on public lands that keep coal cheap, and therefore shortchange American taxpayers.

For example, a report published by financial analyst Tom Sanzillo in July found that the Interior Department has offered coal leases non-competitively in the Powder River Basin rather than putting them up for auction, thus costing taxpayers  as much as $29 billion over the last three decades.

Coal companies can also get leases on public lands extremely cheaply. The highest bid ever received on a federal coal lease in the Powder River Basin was $1.10 per short ton, despite the fact that the coal can be sold for approximately $10 per short ton.

In a separate piece on coal exports, Reuters noted that these government policies raise “questions about whether taxpayers are essentially helping Asian economies save on energy costs.”

Coal exports are another emerging environmental fight. Currently, five coal export terminals are proposed in Oregon and Washington — projects that have been strongly opposed by everyone from environmentalists to farmers and ranchers to local officials.

The Army Corps of Engineers, along with state and local agencies, recently started holding preliminary hearings on how to assess the construction of the terminals and determine whether or not there should be a cumulative analysis on the new infrastructure built across the West to accommodate the vastly increased amounts of coal.

Wyden and Murkowski aren’t the only lawmakers paying attention to the growing issues around coal exports.  Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), the ranking member on the House Committee on Natural Resources, asked the Government Accountability Office in April to review the government’s program and policies for overseeing coal mined on public lands.

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

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

View the original article here