Presidential Memorandum -- Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

May 17, 2013

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Modernizing Federal Infrastructure Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures

Reliable, safe, and resilient infrastructure is the backbone of an economy built to last. Investing in our Nation's infrastructure serves as an engine for job creation and economic growth, while bringing immediate and long-term economic benefits to communities across the country. The quality of our infrastructure is critical to maintaining our Nation's competitive edge in a global economy and to securing our path to energy independence. In taking steps to improve our infrastructure, we must remember that the protection and continued enjoyment of our Nation's environmental, historical, and cultural resources remain an equally important driver of economic opportunity, resiliency, and quality of life.

Through the implementation of Executive Order 13604 of March 22, 2012 (Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects), executive departments and agencies (agencies) have achieved better outcomes for communities and the environment and realized substantial time savings in review and permitting by prioritizing the deployment of resources to specific sectors and projects, and by implementing best-management practices.

These best-management practices include: integrating project reviews among agencies with permitting responsibilities; ensuring early coordination with other Federal agencies, as well as with State, local, and tribal governments; strategically engaging with, and conducting outreach to, stakeholders; employing project-planning processes and individual project designs that consider local and regional ecological planning goals; utilizing landscape- and watershed-level mitigation practices; promoting the sharing of scientific and environmental data in open-data formats to minimize redundancy, facilitate informed project planning, and identify data gaps early in the review and permitting process; promoting performance-based permitting and regulatory approaches; expanding the use of general permits where appropriate; improving transparency and accountability through the electronic tracking of review and permitting schedules; and applying best environmental and cultural practices as set forth in existing statutes and policies.

Based on the process and policy improvements that are already being implemented across the Federal Government, we can continue to modernize the Federal Government's review and permitting of infrastructure projects and reduce aggregate timelines for major infrastructure projects by half, while also improving outcomes for communities and the environment by institutionalizing these best-management practices, and by making additional improvements to enhance efficiencies in the application of regulations and processes involving multiple agencies -- including expanding the use of web-based techniques for sharing project-related information, facilitating targeted and relevant environmental reviews, and providing meaningful opportunities for public input through stakeholder engagement.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to advance the goal of cutting aggregate timelines for major infrastructure projects in half, while also improving outcomes for communities and the environment, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1. Modernization of Review and Permitting Regulations, Policies, and Procedures. (a)      The Steering Committee on Federal Infrastructure Permitting and Review Process Improvement (Steering Committee), established by Executive Order 13604, shall work with the Chief Performance Officer (CPO), in coordination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), to modernize Federal infrastructure review and permitting regulations, policies, and procedures to significantly reduce the aggregate time required by the Federal Government to make decisions in the review and permitting of infrastructure projects, while improving environmental and community outcomes.

This modernization shall build upon and incorporate reforms identified by agencies pursuant to Executive Order 13604 and Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review).

(b)      Through an interagency process, coordinated by the CPO and working closely with CEQ and OIRA, the Steering Committee shall conduct the following modernization efforts:

(i)      Within 60 days of the date of this memorandum, the Steering Committee shall identify and prioritize opportunities to modernize key regulations, policies, and procedures -- both agency-specific and those involving multiple agencies -- to reduce the aggregate project review and permitting time, while improving environmental and community outcomes.

(ii)      Within 120 days of the date of this memorandum, the Steering Committee shall prepare a plan for a comprehensive modernization of Federal review and permitting for infrastructure projects based on the analysis required by subsection (b)(i)      of this section that outlines specific steps for re-engineering both the intra- and inter-agency review and approval processes based on experience implementing Executive Order 13604. The plan shall identify proposed actions and associated timelines to:

(1)      institutionalize or expand best practices or process improvements that agencies are already implementing to improve the efficiency of reviews, while improving outcomes for communities and the environment;

(2)      revise key review and permitting regulations, policies, and procedures (both agency-specific and Government-wide);

(3)      identify high-performance attributes of infrastructure projects that demonstrate how the projects seek to advance existing statutory and policy objectives and how they lead to improved outcomes for communities and the environment, thereby facilitating a faster and more efficient review and permitting process;

(4)      create process efficiencies, including additional use of concurrent and integrated reviews;

(5)      identify opportunities to use existing share-in-cost authorities and other non-appropriated funding sources to support early coordination and project review;

(6)      effectively engage the public and interested stakeholders;

(7)      expand coordination with State, local, and tribal governments;

(8)      strategically expand the use of information technology (IT) tools and identify priority areas for IT investment to replace paperwork processes, enhance effective project siting decisions, enhance interagency collaboration, and improve the monitoring of project impacts and mitigation commitments; and

(9)      identify improvements to mitigation policies to provide project developers with added predictability, facilitate landscape-scale mitigation based on conservation plans and regional environmental assessments, facilitate interagency mitigation plans where appropriate, ensure accountability and the long-term effectiveness of mitigation activities, and utilize innovative mechanisms where appropriate.

The modernization plan prepared pursuant to this section shall take into account funding and resource constraints and shall prioritize implementation accordingly.

(c)      Infrastructure sectors covered by the modernization effort include: surface transportation, such as roadways, bridges, railroads, and transit; aviation; ports and related infrastructure, including navigational channels; water resources projects; renewable energy generation; conventional energy production in high-demand areas; electricity transmission; broadband; pipelines; storm water infrastructure; and other sectors as determined by the Steering Committee.

(d)      The following agencies or offices and their relevant sub-divisions shall engage in the modernization effort:

(i)      the Department of Defense;

(ii)      the Department of the Interior;

(iii)      the Department of Agriculture;

(iv)      the Department of Commerce;

(v)      the Department of Transportation;

(vi)      the Department of Energy;

(vii)      the Department of Homeland Security;

(viii)      the Environmental Protection Agency;

(ix)      the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation;

(x)      the Department of the Army;

(xi)      the Council on Environmental Quality; and

(xii)      such other agencies or offices as the CPO may invite to participate.

Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a)      Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)      the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)      the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals, or the regulatory review process.

(b)      This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)      This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and my memorandum of November 5, 2009 (Tribal Consultation).

(d)      This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(e)      The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

The President and the Department of Defense are taking unprecedented steps to protect our environment, achieve significant cost savings, and give our military better energy options.

Today at the White House, we convened the 10th annual meeting of the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Insurers See Way To Dodge Federal Healthcare Law Next Year

A new fight is brewing over health insurance companies letting millions of Americans renew their current coverage for another year — and thereby avoid changes under the federal healthcare law.

That may offer a short-term benefit for certain consumers and shield some of those individual policyholders from potentially steep rate increases. But critics say this maneuver could undermine government efforts to remake the insurance market next year and keep premiums affordable overall.

At issue is a little-known loophole in President Obama's landmark legislation that enables health insurers to extend existing policies for nearly all of 2014. This runs contrary to the widespread belief that all health insurance must immediately comply with new federal rules starting Jan. 1, when most provisions of the law take effect.

"Insurers are onto this, and the big question is how many will try to game the system," said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a law professor and health policy expert at Washington and Lee University.

Some of the nation's biggest health insurers are looking to take advantage of this delay, and Arkansas officials are encouraging companies to do this by resetting customers' renewal dates for the end of December. There's also concern that some insurers and agents could rush to sell more individual policies before year-end so they could be extended in 2014.

Some policy experts are expressing concern about this practice for fear that insurers will focus on renewing younger and healthier policyholders and hold them out of the broader insurance pool next year. Their absence could leave a sicker and older population in new government insurance exchanges, driving up medical costs and premiums there.

"This could undermine the Affordable Care Act, and it opens the door for exacerbating potential rate shock in the exchanges," said Christine Monahan, a senior analyst at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute. "The health insurers can cherry-pick some healthy people and it raises prices for everyone else."

This issue could affect some of the 15 million people nationwide who purchase their own coverage and millions more of the uninsured who are expected to join government exchanges next year. It would not pertain to the 150 million Americans who get health benefits through their employers.

Many health insurers are still mulling over their options on how to handle these individual renewals.

"Some carriers will require everyone to switch plans Jan. 1, and other carriers will allow customers to stay on their existing plan as long as possible," said Bob Hurley, senior vice president of carrier relations at online site eHealthInsurance. "We are trying to nail this down with the carriers. I think it would be better for consumers to have that choice to carry their policy forward."

The nation's largest health insurer, UnitedHealth Group Inc. of Minnetonka, Minn., said, "We are currently looking at the best way to serve our customers' best interests while continuing to comply with the Affordable Care Act going into 2014."

WellPoint Inc., the Indianapolis insurance giant that runs Blue Cross plans in California and 13 other states, said its renewal practices will vary by state. In California, the company said its Anthem Blue Cross unit may allow individual policyholders to renew through March 31.

Kaiser Permanente, a major nonprofit health plan based in Oakland, said it doesn't plan to renew policies beyond Jan. 1 in California and most of the other states where it sells coverage.

Richard Kern and his wife, a retired couple in Los Angeles, say they would welcome the flexibility to keep their individual policy from Aetna Inc. for another year amid so much uncertainty over next year's rates.

"We don't even know what the prices and alternatives are under Obamacare," Kern said. "We are waiting for the other shoe to drop."

If an insurer offers this option, it would then be up to consumers to decide whether they want to renew an existing policy into 2014. The length of any renewal may depend on what month their annual plan year begins.

Many lower-income people will qualify for federal premium subsidies, which will be available only when purchasing new coverage available in state- or federal-run insurance exchanges. It would make financial sense to take advantage of that government aid. Individuals earning less than $46,000 or families below $94,000 annually would be eligible for subsidies.

However, many people who are middle income or above could face significantly higher premiums next year with no subsidies. Those premium increases are tied to federal requirements that insurers accept all applicants regardless of their medical condition and the inclusion of more comprehensive benefits.

Renewing an older policy could mean forgoing some of those richer benefits and new limits on out-of-pocket medical expenses.

Last week, California officials estimated that premiums may rise 30% on average for about 1.3 million existing policyholders primarily because of those changes in the federal law. Insurers have warned that some customers could see their premiums double depending on their age and other factors.

Citing that threat of higher rates, Arkansas officials issued a bulletin to insurers last month describing how they could extend individual policies until Dec. 30, 2013, and then renew them for another year.

These health plans "would not be required to comply with the [Affordable Care Act] market reforms until 12/31/2014," according to the Arkansas bulletin.

"For those folks who don't qualify for subsidies, this is a consumer-friendly thing because the premium rates for 2014 will be substantially higher," said Dan Honey, deputy commissioner of compliance for the Arkansas Insurance Department. "You will be exposed to rate shock."

Other states may oppose that approach, further underscoring the uneven implementation of the federal healthcare law across the country. Oregon Insurance Commissioner Louis Savage said these renewals could be problematic and his office issued a rule barring any extension beyond March 31, 2014.

"We want to get as many people as possible into the exchange," Savage said. "I think having renewals go deep into 2014 is counterproductive to the goals of the federal healthcare law."

In California, state lawmakers are working on legislation that could address this renewal issue and other details about how individual policies comply with the federal overhaul.

These questions over renewals are separate from "grandfathered" health policies that existed before the federal law passed in March 2010. Those plans don't have to meet all the requirements of the healthcare law as long as insurers or employers don't make significant changes to them.

chad.terhune@latimes.com

View the original article here

Insurers See Way To Dodge Federal Healthcare Law Next Year

A new fight is brewing over health insurance companies letting millions of Americans renew their current coverage for another year — and thereby avoid changes under the federal healthcare law.

That may offer a short-term benefit for certain consumers and shield some of those individual policyholders from potentially steep rate increases. But critics say this maneuver could undermine government efforts to remake the insurance market next year and keep premiums affordable overall.

At issue is a little-known loophole in President Obama's landmark legislation that enables health insurers to extend existing policies for nearly all of 2014. This runs contrary to the widespread belief that all health insurance must immediately comply with new federal rules starting Jan. 1, when most provisions of the law take effect.

"Insurers are onto this, and the big question is how many will try to game the system," said Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, a law professor and health policy expert at Washington and Lee University.

Some of the nation's biggest health insurers are looking to take advantage of this delay, and Arkansas officials are encouraging companies to do this by resetting customers' renewal dates for the end of December. There's also concern that some insurers and agents could rush to sell more individual policies before year-end so they could be extended in 2014.

Some policy experts are expressing concern about this practice for fear that insurers will focus on renewing younger and healthier policyholders and hold them out of the broader insurance pool next year. Their absence could leave a sicker and older population in new government insurance exchanges, driving up medical costs and premiums there.

"This could undermine the Affordable Care Act, and it opens the door for exacerbating potential rate shock in the exchanges," said Christine Monahan, a senior analyst at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute. "The health insurers can cherry-pick some healthy people and it raises prices for everyone else."

This issue could affect some of the 15 million people nationwide who purchase their own coverage and millions more of the uninsured who are expected to join government exchanges next year. It would not pertain to the 150 million Americans who get health benefits through their employers.

Many health insurers are still mulling over their options on how to handle these individual renewals.

"Some carriers will require everyone to switch plans Jan. 1, and other carriers will allow customers to stay on their existing plan as long as possible," said Bob Hurley, senior vice president of carrier relations at online site eHealthInsurance. "We are trying to nail this down with the carriers. I think it would be better for consumers to have that choice to carry their policy forward."

The nation's largest health insurer, UnitedHealth Group Inc. of Minnetonka, Minn., said, "We are currently looking at the best way to serve our customers' best interests while continuing to comply with the Affordable Care Act going into 2014."

WellPoint Inc., the Indianapolis insurance giant that runs Blue Cross plans in California and 13 other states, said its renewal practices will vary by state. In California, the company said its Anthem Blue Cross unit may allow individual policyholders to renew through March 31.

Kaiser Permanente, a major nonprofit health plan based in Oakland, said it doesn't plan to renew policies beyond Jan. 1 in California and most of the other states where it sells coverage.

Richard Kern and his wife, a retired couple in Los Angeles, say they would welcome the flexibility to keep their individual policy from Aetna Inc. for another year amid so much uncertainty over next year's rates.

"We don't even know what the prices and alternatives are under Obamacare," Kern said. "We are waiting for the other shoe to drop."

If an insurer offers this option, it would then be up to consumers to decide whether they want to renew an existing policy into 2014. The length of any renewal may depend on what month their annual plan year begins.

Many lower-income people will qualify for federal premium subsidies, which will be available only when purchasing new coverage available in state- or federal-run insurance exchanges. It would make financial sense to take advantage of that government aid. Individuals earning less than $46,000 or families below $94,000 annually would be eligible for subsidies.

However, many people who are middle income or above could face significantly higher premiums next year with no subsidies. Those premium increases are tied to federal requirements that insurers accept all applicants regardless of their medical condition and the inclusion of more comprehensive benefits.

Renewing an older policy could mean forgoing some of those richer benefits and new limits on out-of-pocket medical expenses.

Last week, California officials estimated that premiums may rise 30% on average for about 1.3 million existing policyholders primarily because of those changes in the federal law. Insurers have warned that some customers could see their premiums double depending on their age and other factors.

Citing that threat of higher rates, Arkansas officials issued a bulletin to insurers last month describing how they could extend individual policies until Dec. 30, 2013, and then renew them for another year.

These health plans "would not be required to comply with the [Affordable Care Act] market reforms until 12/31/2014," according to the Arkansas bulletin.

"For those folks who don't qualify for subsidies, this is a consumer-friendly thing because the premium rates for 2014 will be substantially higher," said Dan Honey, deputy commissioner of compliance for the Arkansas Insurance Department. "You will be exposed to rate shock."

Other states may oppose that approach, further underscoring the uneven implementation of the federal healthcare law across the country. Oregon Insurance Commissioner Louis Savage said these renewals could be problematic and his office issued a rule barring any extension beyond March 31, 2014.

"We want to get as many people as possible into the exchange," Savage said. "I think having renewals go deep into 2014 is counterproductive to the goals of the federal healthcare law."

In California, state lawmakers are working on legislation that could address this renewal issue and other details about how individual policies comply with the federal overhaul.

These questions over renewals are separate from "grandfathered" health policies that existed before the federal law passed in March 2010. Those plans don't have to meet all the requirements of the healthcare law as long as insurers or employers don't make significant changes to them.

chad.terhune@latimes.com

View the original article here

Presidential Memorandum -- Federal Employee Pay Schedules and Rates that are set by Administrative Discretion

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Federal Employee Pay Schedules and Rates That Are Set by Administrative Discretion

Section 1112 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6), reflects the Congress's decision to continue to deny statutory adjustments to any pay systems or pay schedules covering executive branch employees. In light of the Congress's action, I am instructing heads of executive departments and agencies to continue through December 31, 2013, to adhere to the policy set forth in my memoranda of December 22, 2010, and December 21, 2012, regarding general increases in pay schedules and employees' rates of pay that might otherwise take effect as a result of the exercise of administrative discretion.

This memorandum shall be carried out to the extent permitted by law and consistent with executive departments' and agencies' legal authorities. This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall issue any necessary guidance on implementing this memorandum, and is also hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

President Obama tell the American people about the budget he is sending to Congress, which makes the tough choices required to grow our economy and shrink our deficits

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

President Obama marks the end of the Easter season with a prayer breakfast at the White House.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Agencies should treat discrimination as a misuse of federal funds

Agencies should treat discrimination as a misuse of federal funds - The Hill's Congress Blog @import "/plugins/content/jw_disqus/tmpl/css/template.css"; li.item435,li.item437,li.item439,li.item441,li.item443,li.item497,li.item499,li.item501,li.item503,li.item605,li.item689,li.item691,li.item693,li.item695,li.item697,li.item683,li.item685{display: none;} var _comscore = _comscore || []; _comscore.push({ c1: "2", c2: "10314615" }); (function() { var s = document.createElement("script"), el = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.async = true; s.src = (document.location.protocol == "https:" ? "https://sb" : "http://b") + ".scorecardresearch.com/beacon.js"; el.parentNode.insertBefore(s, el); })(); function getURLParameter(name) { return decodeURI( (RegExp(name + '=' + '(.+?)(&|$)').exec(location.search)||[,null])[1] );}(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1&appId=369058349794205"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); if (getURLParameter("set_fb_var") == '1') { jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var', 'true', { expires: 7, path: '/' }); return true; } if (!jQuery.cookie('set_fb_var') && d.referrer.match(/facebook.com/i)) { window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({ appId : '340094652706297', status: true, xfbml: true, cookie: true, oauth: true }); }; }}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));if((navigator.userAgent.match(/iPhone/i)) || (navigator.userAgent.match(/iPod/i))) {document.write('');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/iPad/i)) {document.write('');}if(navigator.userAgent.match(/Android/i)) {document.write('');} Follow!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");Advanced Search Options » Home/NewsSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsCampaignBusiness & LobbyingK Street InsidersLobbying ContractsLobbying HiresLobbying RevenueOpinionColumnistsEditorialsLettersOp-EdWeyants WorldCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkNew Member of the Week20 QuestionsMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAnnouncementsMeet the LawmakerJobsVideoGossip: In The Know Briefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxIn The KnowPunditsTwitter Room HomeSenateHouseAdministrationCampaignPollsBusiness & LobbyingSunday Talk ShowsBlogsBriefing RoomRegWatchHillicon ValleyE2-WireFloor ActionOn The MoneyHealthwatchTransportationDEFCON HillGlobal AffairsCongressBallot BoxIn The KnowPunditsTwitter RoomOpinionA.B. StoddardBrent BudowskyLanny DavisDavid HillCheri JacobusMark MellmanDick MorrisMarkos Moulitsas (Kos)Robin BronkEditorialsLettersOp-EdsJuan WilliamsJudd GreggChristian HeinzeKaren FinneyJohn FeeheryCapital LivingCover StoriesFood & DrinkAnnouncementsNew Member of the WeekMy 5 Min. W/ObamaAll Capital LivingVideoHillTubeEventsVideoClassifiedsJobsClassifiedsResourcesMobile SiteiPhoneAndroidiPadLawmaker RatingsWhite PapersOrder ReprintsLast 6 IssuesOutside LinksRSS FeedsContact UsAdvertiseReach UsSubmitting LettersSubmitting Op-edsSubscriptions   Agencies should treat discrimination as a misuse of federal fundsBy Harper Jean Tobin, National Center for Transgender Equality-03/22/13 10:50 AM 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");

The reauthorization this month of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was a milestone, because, among many other reasons, for the first time Congress expressly banned discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. These protections are critical for victims of violence who have often faced barriers to life-saving services. But while we should celebrate this historic step, we should not wait for a gridlocked Congress to secure critical new protections when federal agencies already have the power to establish them.

We often think of nondiscrimination in terms of rights that belong to individuals and are created by legislators. But when people are excluded from opportunities based on personal traits, it also exacts a cost on society. Employers lose out on the contributions of skilled employees, for example, and the economy suffers from needless displacement and reduced productivity.
 
This dynamic is starkest in programs that serve the public, using public funds. VAWA’s long-standing programs were created and funded to serve all those who need counseling, support, and advocacy. For grantees to cut off eligible victims from these services because of bias defeats the goal of the program. As Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) the lead author of VAWA, often said, “A victim is a victim is a victim.” That is why Congress wisely wrote into VAWA an explicit ban on discrimination.
 
But this ban did not need to come from Congress – it could have come from the Department of Justice (DOJ). Like most laws governing federal grants, VAWA already authorized DOJ to adopt “such rules, regulations, guidelines, and procedures as are necessary” to carry out the program. Under this authority, the department could have adopted explicit, LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination requirements for grantees, without waiting for Congress. More importantly, DOJ has the authority to do the same now for other programs it manages, such as those that serve victims of other crimes.
 
The Obama administration has done this before. In 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) adopted regulations prohibiting hospitals receiving federal funds from discriminating in visitation. They didn’t have to stop there – it could, and should, prohibit all forms of anti-LGBT discrimination by hospitals that take federal funds. And in early 2012, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a rule banning anti-LGBT discrimination in all federal housing programs. Advocates have long urged President Obama to apply the same principle to job discrimination by federal contractors via an executive order.
 
Mandating nondiscrimination through rulemaking has its limits, and there is still an undeniable need for new civil rights legislation. Most obviously, without new legislation agencies can’t ban discrimination by private entities – like most employers – that don’t receive federal funds. Legislative protections send a stronger message, and create stronger remedies for victims of discrimination. Nevertheless, regulatory protections have real legal and social force.
 
Let’s celebrate the passage of an explicitly LGBT-inclusive VAWA as a milestone that creates real protections. But let’s not wait years for further protections from a gridlocked Congress. The administration can adopt real protections now for critical programs that impact millions of people.
 
Nondiscrimination can be included in regular updates to existing rules– but we shouldn’t stop there. Whether  in grants or contracts or healthcare payments, federal funds should be used responsibly to implement federal programs, employ the best talent, and serve all people in need – not to irrationally discriminate.

Tobin director of Policy at the National Center for Transgender Equality.

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/the-administration/289815-agencies-should-treat-discrimination-as-a-misuse-of-federal-fundsThe 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 ViewedAid reform delivering resultsEnhancing America's image in the worldUS is unprepared to face another TB epidemicStrengthening the inter-American human rights systemAgencies should treat discrimination as a misuse of federal fundsEmailedArbitrary soda ban does nothing to resolve obesity Paul-Leahy sentencing bill will ensure time fits the crimeObama in Israel: Tourism or opportunityUS is unprepared to face another TB epidemicStemming the tide of military suicideDiscussedTWA flight attendants deserve earned seniority restored before merger is approvedProtect rights of artists in new copyright lawSenate budget is a bad choice for AmericaStemming the tide of military suicidePerez is the best choice to head Labor DepartmentBlog Home »Most Viewed RSS Feed »  More The Administration HeadlinesPerez is the best choice to head Labor DepartmentSenate should view Jewell's blended background with cautionSally Jewell is right for Interior jobMore The Administration Headlines » The Administration 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 RoomSenate moving through 400 amendments on way to budgetChristie opposes 'conversion therapy'Biden fuels 2016 speculation with fundraisers in key Dem primary states
More Briefing Room »Congress BlogEnvironmentalists shouldn't side with Big Oil against biofuelsSeismic testing will inform sound energy decisionsRestricting drug patent settlements would result in protracted litigation
More Congress Blog »Pundits BlogSame-sex marriage: From hot-button issue to litmus testCan the Republican Party recover from Iraq? Can America?Shocker: Hillary crushes Rubio and Bush in Florida, annihilates Perry in Texas
More Pundits Blog »Twitter RoomObama Twitter retweets Yoko Ono photo of John Lennon's bloody glassesNotre Dame sends Obama neon jersey after sartorial swipeFormer Defense chief Rumsfeld's Iraq war tweet sparks support and backlash
More Twitter Room »Hillicon ValleyNews bites: Google's Schmidt calls for Internet freedom in MyanmarFCC's Genachowski to step downOVERNIGHT TECH: Negotiations continue over CISPA
More Hillicon Valley »E2-Wire (Energy)Senate Democrats in 'reply mode' on climate budget amendmentsObama taps nuke safety chief Macfarlane for new termNews bites: Obama to announce national monuments, Apple’s data going green, and more
More E2-Wire (Energy) »Ballot BoxReport: Clinton urging Judd, Grimes to run for Senate in KentuckyBillionaire opens attack on Lynch in Mass. Senate race over Keystone XLCLF attacks two House freshmen on budget in first ads of 2014 cycle
More Ballot Box »On The MoneyGrassley pushes for consumer bureau watchdog in budget amendmentWaters calls for funds to rehab foreclosed propertySupport grows for renewing fast-track authority
More On The Money »HealthwatchInsurers spent little on quality improvement, study findsNRCC launches anti-'ObamaCare' fundraising siteNews bites: Health reform at 3
More Healthwatch »Floor ActionGOP bill would block political robo-callsSenate rejects repeal of healthcare law, againSenate rejects plan to tie tax hikes to lower unemployment
More Floor Action »TransportationRep. Shuster applauds Amtrak decision to continue Pennsylvania serviceNews bites: Pilot error133 lawmakers demand TSA reverse to allows knives on planes
More Transportation »DEFCON HillReport: US drone strike kills four in Pakistan Three killed in shooting, suicide at Quantico Marine Corps. baseOVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Sen. Levin backs GOP over Syria
More DEFCON Hill »Global AffairsObama gets diplomatic win with Netanyahu apology to Turkey Congress axes Pakistan counterinsurgency fundTop Republican on intel panel joins call for arming rebels in Syria
More Global Affairs »In The KnowFBI director hasn't seen 'Zero Dark Thirty'Gary Sinise: If you do good things, 'somebody wants you to run for office'Jill Biden, Sen. Gillibrand honored as Elle and Gucci's 'luminaries'
More In The Know »RegWatchGOP lawmaker: No more food stamps to buy junk foodCordray vows to soldier on at consumer bureauAdministration: $20 million in grants for background checks
More RegWatch » Blogs News FeedCongress Blog RollCapital GamesDaily KosDCCCDNCDrudge ReportDSCCJudicial WatchNRCCNRSCPolitical AnimalRNCThe ChamberPostThe CornerThe Huffington PostThe NoteThe Plank COLUMNISTSA.B. StoddardGOP infightingBrent BudowskyCordray, Warren, 2014More 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

President Obama Nominates Two to Serve on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, President Obama nominated Patricia E. Campbell-Smith and Elaine D. Kaplan to serve on the United States Court of Federal Claims.

"These nominees have dedicated their careers to serving the public good," said President Obama. "And in so doing, they have displayed an unyielding commitment to justice and integrity. I am confident that they will serve the American people well from the Court of Federal Claims, and I am honored to nominate them today."

Patricia E. Campbell-Smith:  Nominee for the United States Court of Federal Claims

Patricia E. Campbell-Smith has served as a Special Master with the United States Court of Federal Claims since 2005 and as Chief Special Master since 2011.  In that role, she presides over litigation pursuant to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.  Previously, Campbell-Smith served as a career law clerk for the Honorable Emily C. Hewitt of the United States Court of Federal Claims for seven years.  From 1993 to 1996 and again from 1997 to 1998, she worked at the law firm of Liskow & Lewis in New Orleans, where she focused on environmental regulatory law, patent infringement litigation, and toxic tort litigation.  From 1996 to 1997, she served as a law clerk for the Honorable Sarah S. Vance, and from 1992 to 1993 she served as a law clerk for the Honorable Martin L.C. Feldman, both of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  Campbell-Smith received her J.D. with honors in 1992 from Tulane Law School and her B.S. with honors in 1987 from Duke University. 

Elaine D. Kaplan:  Nominee for the United States Court of Federal Claims

Elaine D. Kaplan serves as General Counsel of the United States Office of Personnel Management, a position she has held since 2009.  Previously, she was Senior Deputy General Counsel at the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) from 2004 to 2009 and Of Counsel at the law firm of Bernabei and Katz from 2003 to 2004.  In 1998, Kaplan was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to serve as the head of the United States Office of Special Counsel and successfully completed a five-year term in that position.  From 1984 to 1998, Kaplan worked at NTEU with increasing levels of responsibility.  She began her legal career as a staff attorney in the Solicitor’s Office of the United States Department of Labor.  Kaplan received her J.D. cum laude in 1979 from the Georgetown University Law Center and her B.A. in 1976 from the State University of New York at Binghamton.

The first stop on President Obama's trip to the Middle East marks the first time the President has visited Israel since taking office, and comes as its citizens celebrate the 65th anniversary of a free and independent State of Israel.

On the third anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius lays out some of the ways in which the health reform has lowered costs.

We will be posting regular updates from the road and livestreaming several of the President's events on whitehouse.gov/live

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Report: Federal grand jury in Miami investigating Sen. Menendez

A grand jury is investigating Sen. Robert Menendez’s (D-N.J.) role in advocating for the business interests of Salomon Melgen, a political donor and Florida eye doctor, The Washington Post reported Thursday evening.

“Three people aware of the probe” told the newspaper that federal agents have questioned witnesses. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity, the Post said. 

Two people briefed on the probe told the Post that the federal grand jury in Miami has issued subpoenas for Melgen’s business and financial records.

“I welcome any review, because I believe, at the end of the day, that my actions have been appropriate,” the senator told the Post.

Menendez has steadfastly maintained his innocence against charges that he has improperly helped his “friend and political supporter.”

The Post previously reported Menendez admitted to contacting officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to raise questions about a finding Melgen had overbilled the government by nearly $9 million.

The New York Times, meanwhile, has reported Menendez discouraged the federal government from donating port security equipment to the Dominican Republic, which would have undermined a contract a company owned by Melgen had to provide security screenings.

And the Associated Press reported earlier this month that Menendez sponsored legislation to boost tax credits and grants to companies that converted their vehicle fleets to use alternative fuels that would have financially benefited Melgen.

The Senate Ethics Committee is also looking into claims that Menendez acted improperly by flying to the Dominican Republic on Melgen’s private plane.

Menendez recently reimbursed Melgen’s company $58,500, the cost of two previously undisclosed trips from personal funds.

Melgen took him on at least three trips to the Dominican Republic aboard his private plane in 2010.

Earlier this month, Menendez urged reporters to investigate who was behind the accusations that he had sex with Dominican prostitutes on those trips with the same gusto they brought to scrutinizing his relationship with Melgen.

View Comments

View the original article here

Federal Election Commission Fines 2008 Campaign — Five Years After It Ended

Former Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT)

Former U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) ended his presidential campaign in January 2008, after a weak showing in the Iowa caucuses. More than five years later, the largely-paralyzed Federal Election Commission (FEC) has fined his long-defunct campaign $42,000 for failure to properly report campaign contributions.

Because Dodd’s campaign was one of eight 2008 presidential committees to take public matching funds, it agreed to an automatic audit of campaign fundraising. That routine investigation — completed in April 2012 — found that Dodd’s campaign failed to report $764,966 in gross receipts. The matter was then referred for possible enforcement action. Nearly a year later, the Dodd 2008 campaign and the FEC signed a conciliation agreement in January. The commission accepted the agreement and make it public on Friday — more than two years after Dodd retired from public life.

Meredith McGehee, policy director at the non-partisan Campaign Legal Center, told ThinkProgress that the delayed and weak action by the FEC “shows what a joke they’ve become… They’re picking on a campaign that was incredibly unsuccessful. The candidate is no longer in office. It’s kind of like going after the mosquitoes when the room is full of lions and tigers and bears. Mosquitoes are bad, you want to get rid of them, but what does it matter if you’re being eaten by the lion, the tiger, or the bear?”

The five-year lag time, she noted, is a result of under-funding by Congress. “They just don’t have enough resources to do this is what most people would consider an effective way.” That lack of effective enforcement sends a signal to other political committees that they have little to fear if they fail to accurately report their own finances. “A lot of the effective enforcement is done when people see that there is enforcement, they self-enforce. When they don’t see enforcement, they don’t self-enforce, say ‘let’s roll the dice.’ When you win your election, the fine is just the cost of doing business.”

Audits from the 2000 campaign were mostly completed within two years. But a number of new FEC policies, instituted since, have further slowed the process. With the sequestration likely to force spending cuts at the FEC, it remains to be seen whether the three 2012 campaigns that accepted matching funds will have their audits completed by 2017.

Chris Dodd for President’s end of 2012 report showed the committee with about $18,000 in the bank. There is little forcing it to actually pay the fine and raising money for failed campaigns after the fact can be incredibly difficult — former Sen. John Glenn (D-OH) spent 23 years paying of the campaign debt from his 1984 campaign.

In addition to paying a $42,000 fine, the conciliation agreement stipulates that Dodd 2008 will “cease and desist” from violating disclosure laws going forward.

View the original article here

Federal Appeals Court Shuts Down Suspicionless Searches Of Laptops At The Border

Given enough time, law enforcement can break through the password that blocks access to a laptop. They can also access password-encrypted files and potentially even read the files a user deleted from their computer. As a recent opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit puts it, “[i]t is as if a search of a person’s suitcase could reveal not only what the bag contained on the current trip, but everything it had ever carried.”

In light of the sweeping and unpredictable nature of laptop and similar searches, the court’s opinion places an important new restriction on government searches of electronic devices as the border. As a general rule, “the long-standing right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country” justifies nearly any search of a person crossing into the United States from another country. So if you are secreting contraband away in your luggage, you are out of luck. As the Ninth Circuit’s opinion explains, however, searches of electronic devices are far greater intrusions into a traveler’s privacy, and thus must be justified by a greater degree of suspicion before they can occur:

The amount of private information carried by international travelers was traditionally circumscribed by the size of the traveler’s luggage or automobile. That is no longer the case. Electronic devices are capable of storing warehouses full of information. The average 400-gigabyte laptop hard drive can store over 200 million pages—the equivalent of five floors of a typical academic library. Even a car full of packed suitcases with sensitive documents cannot hold a candle to the sheer, and ever-increasing, capacity of digital storage.

The nature of the contents of electronic devices differs from that of luggage as well. Laptop computers, iPads and the like are simultaneously offices and personal diaries. They contain the most intimate details of our lives: financial records, confidential business documents, medical records and private emails. This type of material implicates the Fourth Amendment’s specific guarantee of the people’s right to be secure in their “papers.” The express listing of papers “reflects the Founders’ deep concern with safeguarding the privacy of thoughts and ideas—what we might call freedom of conscience—from invasion by the government.” These records are expected to be kept private and this expectation is “one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’”

The upshot of this opinion is that border agents cannot randomly select a person and comb through their laptop for incriminating data, nor can they conduct a comprehensive search of every iPad that enters the United States. Rather, before conducting a complete search of an electronic device, they must have “reasonable suspicion” that the search will uncover evidence of a crime.

View the original article here

Federal Appeals Court: Anti-Immigrant Arizona Law Violates First Amendment

Last year, the Supreme Court struck down much of Arizona’s harsh immigration law SB 1070, and stripped its “show me your papers” provision of many of its teeth. Earlier this week, another provision of this anti-immigrant law bit the dust. A bipartisan panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked SB 1070's restrictions on drivers seeking to hire day laborers:

Two provisions in Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 make it unlawful for a motor vehicle occupant to hire or attempt to hire a person for work at another location from a stopped car that impedes traffic, or for a person to be hired in such a manner. These provisions raise First Amendment concerns because they restrict and penalize the commercial speech of day laborers and those who would hire them. Arizona defends the provisions as traffic safety measures, designed to promote the safe and orderly flow of traffic. We acknowledge that Arizona has a real and substantial interest in traffic safety. Arizona, however, has failed to justify a need to serve that interest through targeting and penalizing day labor solicitation that blocks traffic, rather than directly targeting those who create traffic hazards without reference to their speech, as currently proscribed under the State’s preexisting traffic laws. Laws like this one that restrict more protected speech than is necessary violate the First Amendment.

As the court notes, the day laborer provisions had at least as much to do with discouraging immigration as it did with any concerns over traffic. The provisions’ lead sponsor claimed the provision would “discourage the ‘shadow economy’ of day labor and address illegal immigration because ‘[a] large number of these people are illegal immigrants and this is the way they get work, and this work is one of the anchors that keeps them in the country.’”

View the original article here

Federal Reserve Chairman Explains Why Looming Budget Cuts Could Be Bad News For Deficit Reduction

Budget cuts under the so-called “sequester” will go into effect on Friday. Independent estimates shows that the cuts will cost anywhere from 700,000 to 750,000 jobs. And the end result may be very little deficit reduction as well, as a more depressed economy will not produce as much in the way of revenue, as economist Adam Hersh explained.

During a hearing before the House Financial Services Committee today, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke patiently tried to explain this to Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI), who wasn’t having it:

DUFFY: Instead of encouraging responsibility, you come in and say “listen to cut 2 percent of our budget, you can’t do it. It’s going to have a great impact on our economy.” Mr. Chairman that doesn’t make sense to me.

BERNANKE: Well, I think most economists, including the CBO, would say this will cost a lot of jobs in the short run. And you can achieve the same results with longer-term programs. [...]

DUFFY: So then are you here telling us if we cut $85 billion in a more reflective way — in the bad spending that I just referenced — you would support it? It’s a good idea if we’re not doing it by way of the sequester, but we had a little more reflective analysis on the $85 billion.

BERNANKE: It would be better.

DUFFY: So is it better or you agree with us that we should actually reduce spending?

BERNANKE: I’m still concerned about the short-term impact on jobs. And you don’t get as much benefit as you think, because if you slow the economy that hurts your revenues and that means your deficit reduction is not as big as you think it is.

Watch:

For evidence of what Bernanke is talking about, one needs to look no further than Europe, where austerity — rather than sparking a recovery — has led to weak growth, high unemployment, and yes, more debt. In fact, the EU’s debt “was barely changed at 90 percent of gross domestic product in the third quarter of 2012 compared with 89.9 percent for three months earlier…It was up from 86.8 percent of GDP a year earlier,” even after the continent embraced deep spending cuts and reforms.

View the original article here

White House Announces Plan To Open Up Access To Research Supported by Federal Funds

Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren

Today, the White House released a memo directing federal agencies to make publicly funded research available to the people who pay for it:

“The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) hereby directs each Federal agency with over $100 million in annual conduct of research and development expenditures to develop a plan to support increased public access to the results of research funded by the Federal Government.”

The directive is similar to the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), a recent bi-partisan legislative proposal aimed at opening up access to federally funded research, although the waiting twelve month waiting period before research is made available in the White House plan is twice the length of the six month delay suggested by FASTR. Both the White House plan and FASTR build upon the success of the National Institute of Health’s 2008 public access policy.

Dr. John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, thanked signers of a We The People petition calling for the reform, saying its popularity was “important to our discussions of this issue.”

Today’s announcement could be critical to addressing the broken for profit academic publishing system that has led to a flourishing open access movement in scholarly circles. The movement gained a new public spotlight following the suicide of activist Aaron Swartz while facing prosecution for what many believe was an attempt to liberate research from the closed academic database JSTOR.

View the original article here

Federal Health Exchange a 'Tremendous Resource'

 Highlight transcript below to create clipTranscript:  Print  |  Email Go  Click text to jump within videoFri 15 Feb 13 | 12:00 PM ET Melissa Boudreault, CGI vp of state health solutions, talks to CNBC's Bertha Coombs about the Federally-built health care exchange. She believes it will be a tremendous resource to consumers, because it must meet the needs of a number of different states.

View the original article here

Walker Says No To Federal Medicaid Expansion

MADISON ? Gov. Scott Walker announced Wednesday that he won't propose expanding Medicaid services in Wisconsin, joining other Republican governors who have decided to reject federal money for covering more low-income residents under the health care overhaul law.

Instead, Walker outlined a hybrid approach that would allow more adults into the state health program, which he said would help cut the state's uninsured rate of 14 percent in half.

"I want to have fewer people in the state who are uninsured, but along with that I'd like to have fewer people in the state who are dependent on government," Walker said in describing his plan.

The decision came as a disappointment for the Obama administration and health care advocacy organizations, including Wisconsin hospitals, who had urged Walker to accept a broader expansion of the Medicaid program and take the billions of dollars in federal money that would come with it. Walker's proposal would not add to spending for low-income residents, but he was increasing overall spending on Medicaid programs by about $650 million over two years.

"I'm not certain what Gov. Walker is trying to prove," said Democratic state Sen. Jon Erpenbach. "If we do not take this money, it's going to go to other states."

Walker became the 14th Republican governor to reject the Medicaid expansion as too costly in the long term. Six other Republican governors have decided to go along with the expansion. Overall, 19 states plus the District of Columbia appear to be on track to expand their Medicaid programs, with 17 still uncommitted.

The split indicates that the ranks of the uninsured may vary considerably between states after the new health overhaul goes into effect in 2014, despite health care reformers' efforts to make coverage almost uniform. The federal plan was designed to achieve blanket coverage by requiring those who can afford insurance to buy it, by providing subsidies to those who need financial help and by getting states to expand Medicaid to include more working poor residents.

Walker has been an outspoken opponent of the health care overhaul law as an unjustified expansion of government.

Democratic Assembly Leader Peter Barca said Walker bowed to "right-wing extremists."

"He's trying to muddy the waters of his bad decision by laying out a convoluted, uncertain plan and labeling it a 'hybrid' when he is actually taking an extreme path rejected by many conservative Republican governors," Barca said.

Republican leaders were quick to praise the plan although Walker provided few details. With Republicans controlling both houses of the Legislature, passage is all but certain.

Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos called it a "good hybrid" that reaffirms Medicaid as a program that takes care of the state's poorest residents, while allowing others to buy private insurance through a new government-sponsored online marketplace, called an exchange. Republican Sen. Alberta Darling, co-chair of the Legislature's budget committee, called the proposal "sensible and responsible."

Under Walker's plan, income eligibility for non-elderly adults would be cut in half from 200 percent of federal poverty level to just 100 percent. But more childless adults who are now excluded from the program would be admitted. Although the full expansion would add 175,000 more adults than Walker's proposal would, many of these people would become eligible for government subsidized coverage when the new federal exchanges go into operation, state officials said.

No one would be forced off Medicaid until the new federally run exchange begins offering subsidized insurance plans, Walker said.

Dennis Smith, secretary of Walker's Department of Health Services, said the plan would need federal approval, but that he expected to receive it based on earlier guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Judy Solomon of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, said that Wisconsin officials may be able to negotiate with HHS over receiving some federal money.

Had Walker accepted the expansion, the federal government would have paid all the additional costs for expanded Medicaid for the first three years, and at least 90 percent afterward. But Walker and other Republicans raised concerns that the state's share would escalate over time.

Under a full expansion, the state would have received $4.4 billion in federal money through 2020, according to Wisconsin's nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau said. But over four years, starting in 2016, new costs to the state would have totaled about $133 million.

Earlier this month, facing a similar choice, Michigan's Republican Gov. Rick Snyder announced he would propose accepting the federal terms. But the more conservative Republican governors in the region, including Sam Brownback of Kansas and Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, have balked. Fallin and Iowa's Republican governor, Terry Branstad, have said they are exploring ways of providing more health care coverage with lower costs and greater flexibility.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Ron Kind said he didn't foresee Wisconsin getting a better financial deal for providing health care coverage "in our lifetime."

"We need to get those who lack quality affordable health care in the system so our hospitals do not have to shift the costs of uncompensated care and emergency room visits onto our businesses and families," Kind said.

About 1.2 million people are covered by one of the state's Medicaid programs, such as BadgerCare Plus and SeniorCare.

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

Federal Reserve Vice Chair Excoriates Congress For Failing To Boost The Economy

Federal Reserve Vice Chair Janet Yellen

After passage of the 2009 economic stimulus package, which helped save or create millions of jobs, Congress all but gave up providing support to the labor market. Instead, in the last two years, the nation’s deficits have been reduced by $2.5 trillion, with the overwhelming majority coming from spending cuts.

In a speech today, Federal Reserve Vice Chair Janet Yellen took policymakers to task for failing to provide support for the economy, noting that spending cuts have been a “headwind for the recovery“:

Discretionary fiscal policy hasn’t been much of a tailwind during this recovery. In the year following the end of the recession, discretionary fiscal policy at the federal, state, and local levels boosted growth at roughly the same pace as in past recoveries, as exhibit 3 indicates. But instead of contributing to growth thereafter, discretionary fiscal policy this time has actually acted to restrain the recovery.

State and local governments were cutting spending and, in some cases, raising taxes for much of this period to deal with revenue shortfalls. At the federal level, policymakers have reduced purchases of goods and services, allowed stimulus-related spending to decline, and have put in place further policy actions to reduce deficits…While a long-term plan is needed to reduce deficits and slow the growth of federal debt, the tax increases and spending cuts that would have occurred last month, absent action by the Congress and the President, likely would have been a headwind strong enough to blow the United States back into recession. Negotiations continue over the extent of spending cuts now due to take effect beginning in March, and I expect that discretionary fiscal policy will continue to be a headwind for the recovery for some time, instead of the tailwind it has been in the past.

Former President Bill Clinton said much the same thing last week, noting that “everybody that’s tried austerity in a time of no growth has wound up cutting revenues even more than they cut spending because you just get into the downward spiral and drag the country back into recession.” The experience of Europe should be showing U.S. policymakers that cutting spending in a weak economy backfires, squashing economic growth, which causes debt to expand. But it doesn’t seem like that lesson is taking hold.

View the original article here