How the IRS Scandal Threatens Obamacare

Photo credit: OECD / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-NDObamacare is not merely a massive overhaul of the health care system. It is also a substantial expansion of the Internal Revenue Service. That’s because the law relies on the tax collection agency to both enforce its individual mandate and administer the tax credits the law offers to subsidize the purchase of health insurance. Following recent revelations that agents in multiple IRS offices, including tax officials in Washington, targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny, a number of former and current Republican legislators are already counseling caution about the agency's role in administering the law.

Concerns about the agency’s oversight of the health law are well-founded—and not only because of general concerns about the agency’s judgment.

For one thing, the IRS appears to have specifically targeted groups that opposed the health care law. According to The Washington Post, “although some of the groups were explicitly labeled ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot,’ others that came under intense scrutiny were focused on challenging the Affordable Care Act — known by many as Obamacare — or the integrity of federal elections.”

In other words, the agency has singled out Obamacare opponents for unusual treatment. That does not speak well of the agency’s ability to fairly carry out its duties under the law.

Perhaps more importantly, however, the agency has already launched an attempt to subvert the health law’s clear statutory language. As I noted earlier today, the text of the legislation specifies that the law’s tax credits for private insurance are available in exchanges created by states. It does not provide for those subsidies to be available in exchanges run by the federal government. Yet the IRS rule regarding the tax credits essentially ignored this, and allowed for the subsidies to be available in both state and federally run exchanges.

What this means is that the IRS is already taking creative liberties with the administrative duties it is assigned under the health law. It’s already attempting to use its power to expand Obamacare beyond the specifics of its statute. It’s already ignoring the text of the law when doing so suits its purposes. 

And it has done so with the explicit support of the same top official who claimed that there was “absolutely no targeting” of conservative groups going on at the IRS.

As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon noted last week, former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman insisted in a 2012 congressional subcommittee hearing that the IRS was in no way singling out groups based on political outlook. We now know that to be false.

A year prior, Shulman insisted that the IRS rule regarding premium subsidies in federally run exchanges was “consistent with the language, purpose, and structure” of Obamacare. Tellingly, he did not point to a statute authorizing the IRS interpretation. Admittedly, that would have been difficult, because there isn’t one. As the Congressional Research Service noted in its analysis of the law, a “strictly textual analysis of the plain meaning of the provision would likely lead to the conclusion that the IRS’ authority to issue the premium tax credits is limited only to situations in which the taxpayer is enrolled in a state-established exchange.” [Emphasis added.]

The IRS has already demonstrated dubious political and legal judgment regarding its role in the administration of Obamacare. More officials should question its judgment in matters related to the law. 

View the original article here

VIDEO: How Oil Drilling Threatens Theodore Roosevelt National Park

The Center for American Progress released a new video today revealing how North Dakota’s oil boom is threatening Theodore Roosevelt National Park. The park is located in the heart of the massive Bakken shale play, which has recently become one of the most productive oil fields in the United States thanks to improved technologies like hydraulic fracturing.

As the video shows, oil wells are creeping closer and closer to the park’s boundaries, and drill rigs and flares can even be seen from within the park itself. Already, visitors are discovering that the national park’s three units are becoming islands in a sea of industrial development — from oil trucks on roads leading to the park to intrusive noise levels that ruin the park’s natural quiet. Soon, there could even be drilling within the national park itself, as it is one of 30 national park units that could have drilling within its borders in the future.

There is tremendous irony in the oil and gas industry tarnishing the very park that honors our greatest conservation president, Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt spent a few formative years on ranches in the North Dakota badlands, which he credited with giving him the depth of character he needed to be president.

Winthrop Roosevelt, Roosevelt’s great-great-grandson who narrates the video, also today has a piece in the Daily Beast about his e indignation towards drilling so close to Theodore Roosevelt National Park. As he puts it:

If you are outraged like I am that a national park could be sacrificed in the oil and gas industry’s quest for selfish profit, it’s time to take action.

The North Dakotans featured in the video are quick to note that they are not against oil drilling but argue there needs to be a better balance between drilling and conservation. As Roosevelt himself put it, “I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us.”

We can have both energy development and conservation on our public lands. But right now, the industry is winning: over the last four years, 2.5 times more acres of public lands have been leased to oil and gas companies than have been permanently protected. This must change. As former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt stated in February, President Obama and Congress should put conservation of our public lands “on equal ground” with energy development. One step forward in this direction would be to ensure that Theodore Roosevelt National Park is adequately protected from the consequences of oil drilling.

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

View the original article here

How the IRS Scandal Threatens Obamacare

Photo credit: OECD / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-NDObamacare is not merely a massive overhaul of the health care system. It is also a substantial expansion of the Internal Revenue Service. That’s because the law relies on the tax collection agency to both enforce its individual mandate and administer the tax credits the law offers to subsidize the purchase of health insurance. Following recent revelations that agents in multiple IRS offices, including tax officials in Washington, targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny, a number of former and current Republican legislators are already counseling caution about the agency's role in administering the law.

Concerns about the agency’s oversight of the health law are well-founded—and not only because of general concerns about the agency’s judgment.

For one thing, the IRS appears to have specifically targeted groups that opposed the health care law. According to The Washington Post, “although some of the groups were explicitly labeled ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot,’ others that came under intense scrutiny were focused on challenging the Affordable Care Act — known by many as Obamacare — or the integrity of federal elections.”

In other words, the agency has singled out Obamacare opponents for unusual treatment. That does not speak well of the agency’s ability to fairly carry out its duties under the law.

Perhaps more importantly, however, the agency has already launched an attempt to subvert the health law’s clear statutory language. As I noted earlier today, the text of the legislation specifies that the law’s tax credits for private insurance are available in exchanges created by states. It does not provide for those subsidies to be available in exchanges run by the federal government. Yet the IRS rule regarding the tax credits essentially ignored this, and allowed for the subsidies to be available in both state and federally run exchanges.

What this means is that the IRS is already taking creative liberties with the administrative duties it is assigned under the health law. It’s already attempting to use its power to expand Obamacare beyond the specifics of its statute. It’s already ignoring the text of the law when doing so suits its purposes. 

And it has done so with the explicit support of the same top official who claimed that there was “absolutely no targeting” of conservative groups going on at the IRS.

As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon noted last week, former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman insisted in a 2012 congressional subcommittee hearing that the IRS was in no way singling out groups based on political outlook. We now know that to be false.

A year prior, Shulman insisted that the IRS rule regarding premium subsidies in federally run exchanges was “consistent with the language, purpose, and structure” of Obamacare. Tellingly, he did not point to a statute authorizing the IRS interpretation. Admittedly, that would have been difficult, because there isn’t one. As the Congressional Research Service noted in its analysis of the law, a “strictly textual analysis of the plain meaning of the provision would likely lead to the conclusion that the IRS’ authority to issue the premium tax credits is limited only to situations in which the taxpayer is enrolled in a state-established exchange.” [Emphasis added.]

The IRS has already demonstrated dubious political and legal judgment regarding its role in the administration of Obamacare. More officials should question its judgment in matters related to the law. 

View the original article here

Sen. Paul threatens hold on Brennan over armed drone strikes

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Wednesday threatened to hold John Brennan's nomination for CIA director unless he receives more answers on the administration’s drone program.

“I have asked Mr. Brennan if he believed that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and my question remains unanswered," Paul said in a statement. "I will not allow a vote on this nomination until Mr. Brennan openly responds to the questions and concerns my colleagues and I share.

"These issues must be discussed openly so that the American people can understand what constraints exist on the government’s power to use lethal force against its citizens," Paul continued. "Before confirming Mr. Brennan as the head of the CIA, it must be apparent that he understands and will honor the protections provided to every American by the Constitution."

Brennan, Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, faced a contentious confirmation hearing last week, as lawmakers pressed him on the legality of using armed drone strikes against suspected terrorists, in particular American citizens.

The increased congressional scrutiny followed the leak of a Justice Department (DOJ) memo laying out the circumstances in which the administration would authorize a deadly drone strike on a U.S. citizen.

Lawmakers, though, have demanded that the DOJ share its actual legal memos justifying the targeting of Americans abroad.

The administration attempted to defuse congressional anger by providing a private briefing to lawmakers before Brennan’s hearing. Brennan also testified that the administration only authorizes lethal force as a “last resort to save lives.”

But the briefing and Brennan’s testimony did little to satisfy lawmakers. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have said they will hold more hearings on the issue.

Feinstein last week also suggested creating a federal court to oversee and approve drone strikes, but Republicans quickly rebuffed the proposal.

“I think it is a terrible idea,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told The Hill.

Over the weekend Graham also said he would put a hold on Brennan's nomination as well as former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Obama’s nominee for Defense secretary, until the administration provides more details about its response to the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

View Comments

View the original article here

Corporate Lobby Threatens A Blizzard Of Litigation Attacking Wall Street Reform And Environmental Protection

Yesterday, U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue delivered his “State of American Business” address, in which he laid out the wealthy corporate lobbying group’s agenda for the coming year. After using several questionable statistics to attack regulations intended to protect the environment or prevent Wall Street from triggering another economic crisis, Donohue’s speech includes a promise to unleash a barrage of well-compensated lawyers to help immunize corporate America from these regulations. “You are going to see us significantly expand the expertise in our law firm, the National Chamber Litigation Center and in other areas of our institution, in order to deal with regulations. Our preference is always to work within the legislative and regulatory processes and we do that on a daily basis. But when rights have been trampled on, or regulators have overstepped their bounds, we’ll take the necessary legal action.”

So long as the Supreme Court’s current majority sits, the Chamber’s threat needs to be taken seriously. One of the Chamber’s top attorneys, Supreme Court litigator Carter Phillips, claimed in 2007 that “[e]xcept for the solicitor general representing the United States, no single entity has more influence on what cases the Supreme Court decides and how it decides them than the National Chamber Litigation Center.” If anything, this understates the corporate lobby’s success before the Roberts Court. According to a 2010 study by the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, the Chamber’s victory rate before the Supreme Court spiked 15 points once Chief Justice Roberts took the Court’s center seat. In total the Court favors business interests 61 percent of the time.

Indeed, the Roberts Court is so favorable to the corporate lobby’s position that every single justice examined by the study was more likely to favor the Chamber’s position that the one who held that seat 25 years before:

If anything, the Roberts Court has become even more favorable to corporate interests since this study was conducted. In the term that concluded earlier this year, the Chamber went 7-0 before the justices — the first time since 1991 that the Chamber was undefeated in the nation’s highest Court.

View the original article here