Schumer optimistic about immigration bill

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that an immigration-reform bill has “a very decent chance of getting done” this Congress.

Schumer is working with a group of senators on a bipartisan framework, and said President Obama has given them “the space we need” to hammer out a deal. He said he was "hopeful" about producing a bill in March.

But Schumer acknowledged talks could be complicated by a White House draft immigration bill leaked Saturday, as first reported by USA Today.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) called the reported plan “dead on arrival.”

Rubio and Schumer comprise two members of the bipartisan Senate “Gang of Eight," who unveiled their immigration blueprint last month.

The group’s framework for a bill includes creating a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, strengthened border security and efforts to increase high-skilled immigration and employee verification.

Rubio said the reported administration plan,though, would leave the U.S. “with unsecured borders and a broken legal immigration system for years to come.”

A White House spokesman would not confirm the details of the report, but told CNN that it intends to let Congress lead the immigration push.

Schumer said Rubio was “upset with this leak.” He said he talked to the Florida Republican, who is “fully on board with our process.”

Schumer also said he understood the leaked White House proposal, which he had not seen, “wasn’t their final or complete bill.”

The White House draft would establish a “Lawful Prospective Immigrant” visa that permits people to work and travel after paying fees and passing a criminal background check. After eight years under the visa, immigrants could apply for permanent residency status with a green card. The draft also boosts Border Patrol spending, adds federal immigration judges and expands the use of E-Verify.

Regardless of who leads the charge, any bill that creates an avenue for citizenship for illegal immigrants is likely to run into GOP opposition in the House. Many Republicans see such measures as amnesty.

View Comments

View the original article here

McCain 'cautiously optimistic' House would follow Senate on immigration

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is "cautiously optimistic" that if President Obama and the Senate can agree on an immigration reform plan, legislators in the House will follow suit.

McCain, in an interview with Univision set to air on Sunday, was asked what would happen if House Republicans voted against immigration reform.

"Well, I hate to obviously predict what might happen," McCain, a member of a bipartisan group of senators in the Senate that unveiled a framework for passing immigration reform, said.

McCain added that he is "cautiously optimistic that with the President and the Senate basically acting together that that would be sufficient to have the House, to agree with that, if it’s reasonable with the majority of the American people."

But McCain cautioned that the consequences of the House rejecting an immigration-reform plan are hard to imagine.

"So it’s hard for me to predict," McCain continued. "But I think you, I know what you’re referring to, and that is the election results with a smaller number of our Hispanic/Latino citizens that are voting for Republicans. We understand that."

Both Republicans and Democrats have expressed interest in passing immigration reform. A major sticking points in negotiations so far, however, has been whether to include a pathway to citizenship for immigrants living in the country illegally. The immigration framework crafted by McCain and seven other senators includes a pathway to citizenship as long as border security is first strengthened.

McCain said he is not sure whether there will be enough votes in the Senate to pass a reform plan that includes a pathway to citizenship.

"You know, I don’t know yet, because we haven’t finished the package. I know that the attitude of the American people is that," McCain said. "And I think that there’s a realization on my side of the aisle that we need to have this resolved. And that people should have a pathway to citizenship. But look, I’ve lost before and so for me to predict would be premature. But I do think that the attitude overall of the American people and members of the Senate is significantly improved to the point where I am cautiously optimistic."

Also on Friday, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) said a secretive bipartisan group of House members is close to unveiling an immigration reform agreement. Becerra has reportedly participated in the group’s negotiations.

"The reality is that we are on the cusp of actually having an opportunity to put forward a bipartisan proposal in the House of Representatives," Becerra said.

View Comments

View the original article here

NFL commissioner ‘optimistic’ about league’s future despite safety concerns

National Football League (NFL) commissioner Roger Goodell "couldn't be more optimistic" about the future of professional football, despite growing concern about the sport's injuries.

President Obama said in a recent interview with The New Republic that if he had a son, he would "have to think long and hard" about letting him play football. Concerns have mounted over the long-term health impacts of the sport, particularly when it comes to repetitive head injuries.

But Goodell said the NFL was doing everything it could to keep the sport entertaining for fans, but safe for players.

"What you have to do is make sure the game is as safe as possible," he said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "In the NFL, we're changing the rules."

On Super Bowl Sunday, Goodell touted the NFL's efforts to update equipment to protect against injuries, and its investment in medical research on head injuries and brain damage.

"We take those issues very seriously," he said. "We're going to let the medical individuals make those points. We're going to give them the money to advance that science."

Furthermore, the NFL is studying how the game is played, looking for further ways to keep players healthy.

"The game of football has always evolved," he said. "If we see techniques that we think lead to injuries, we're going to get them out of the game."

He also pointed out that women's soccer has the second-highest rate of head injuries of any sport. Like Obama, the commissioner said he has two daughters.

"I'm concerned when they play any sport," he said.

View Comments

View the original article here

Obamacare Medicaid Expansion: States Should Be Realistic, Not Optimistic

Months since the Supreme Court ruling that made the Obamacare Medicaid expansion optional, the state costs associated with expansion still remain highly uncertain—making expansion a dicey course for states and their budgets.

Indeed, states should not lose sight of the fact that the original Medicaid expansion was coercive for a reason. As Nina Owcharenko, director of Heritage’s Center for Health Policy Studies, points out, “The fact that the authors of Obamacare felt the need to threaten states with total defunding tells you that they knew many states would resist expanding their programs—even with 100 percent federal funding.”

States are still weighing their options. Many of them have commissioned studies to project the state costs of expanding. However, all cost estimates reflect the assumptions used to construct them, and using different assumptions can result in estimates varying wildly between (and sometimes within) states.

For instance, Florida Governor Rick Scott (R) released a study that projected that an Obamacare Medicaid expansion would cost his state $26 billion over 10 years. A different Florida study made alternative assumptions, concluding it would cost Florida about $3 billion over 10 years. The major difference between the competing studies is that Scott’s does not assume that the federal government’s enhanced match rate will continue as described in the law.

Scott is right to distrust the federal government. In the Administration’s 2013 budget, the President proposed using a “blended” reimbursement rate for Medicaid. A blended rate could cost states considerably more than the funding levels promised in Obamacare. According to Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis calculation, under the Obamacare rates it would cost the 50 states a total of almost $42 billion from 2014 to 2022, while under one version of a blended rate it would cost states about $120 billion over the same period.

Though White House officials recently said that the Administration no longer supports a blended match rate, states have no guarantee that the federal government—either under this President and Congress or future ones—will maintain Obamacare’s extra Medicaid funding. States simply can’t afford additional Medicaid spending, as it is already unsustainable and crowding out other state budget priorities such as education and transportation.

While 18 states have announced that they plan to expand Medicaid, immense uncertainty remains even in those states. When New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez (R) announced that her state would expand, she used the same breath to cast doubt on the federal government’s commitment to full funding:

I want all of us to remember, Medicaid expansion is a federal government promise. Unfortunately, we know that out-of-control federal spending can create uncertainty for these kinds of programs. If the federal government breaks its promise and begins to cut their reimbursement rate, we will be forced to scale back this expansion.

“Such skepticism is warranted,” Owcharenko says. “Washington has rung up a $16 trillion debt and is running more than $1 trillion in the red annually, even without any of the costs associated with the health-care law. Where will it get the money to make good on this promise? And will future administrations honor this promise, no matter what?”

If New Mexico’s faith in the federal government proves to be the wrong bet, Martinez’s pledge to roll back an existing entitlement would be quite tricky, and it would undoubtedly face opposition from this Administration.

The bottom line is that this is a highly uncertain environment, and states need to be very cautious before putting their taxpayers and other budget priorities at risk.

View the original article here