GOP Files Bills Limiting IRS Oversight Of ObamaCare

House Republicans have introduced separate bills aimed at scaling back the Internal Revenue Service's involvement with implementation of ObamaCare.

Reps. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) and Tom Price (R-Ga.) said their bills are needed in the wake of the IRS's confirmation that it applied extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Forbes called that a form of "bullying" by the IRS, and said it's a reason why Congress should approve his bill, which would prohibit the hiring of any new IRS officials to implement ObamaCare.

"Under current law, the authority to implement the president's healthcare tax rests with the very people who used their government positions to act as political operatives working to influence the electoral process," Forbes said. "I'm introducing legislation today to prevent the IRS from being handed their newest bludgeon to target businesses and individuals that do not come in line with their political philosophy or policy positions.

"The IRS would be better to police its own than to police the millions of Americans who believe this healthcare law to be bad for their families and bad for our businesses," he added.

Forbes' Prevent IRS Overreach Act, H.R. 1993, would prevent the IRS from hiring what many expect to be thousands of new IRS agents tasked with implementing the law. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) said Wednesday that he was working on similar legislation.

The IRS is involved in large part because of the law's requirement that most people buy health insurance, and the possibility of fines for failing to meet this mandate. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the law is constitutional, and that these fines for failing to buy health insurance are allowable when viewed as a tax.

Price introduced his own Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act for the same reason as Forbes — to keep what he said is an intrusive IRS out of the business of regulating healthcare. Price's bill, H.R. 1990, would prohibit the IRS from implementing or enforcing any piece of the law.

"The same agency that just committed an appalling violation of the American people's trust is going to be at the forefront of enforcing the health care law, including the individual mandate which will require every citizen to prove to this agency that they've purchased government-dictated health care coverage," Price said.

"When it comes to an individual's personal health care decisions, no American should be required to answer to the IRS — an agency that just forfeited its claim to a reputation of impartiality," he added. "It has always been an untenable and unacceptable scenario, and we ought to take this common sense step to take the IRS out of healthcare."

View Comments

View the original article here

Obamacare Credits Could Trigger Surprise Tax Bills

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Millions of people who take advantage of government subsidies to help buy health insurance next year could get stung by surprise tax bills if they don't accurately project their income.

President Barack Obama's new health care law will offer subsidies to help people buy private health insurance on state-based exchanges, if they don't already get coverage through their employers. The subsidies are based on income. The lower your income, the bigger the subsidy.

But the government doesn't know how much money you're going to make next year. And when you apply for the subsidy, this fall, it won't even know how much you're making this year. So, unless you tell the government otherwise, it will rely on the best information it has: your 2012 tax return, filed this spring.

What happens if you or your spouse gets a raise and your family income goes up in 2014? You could end up with a bigger subsidy than you are entitled to. If that happens, the law says you have to pay back at least part of the money when you file your tax return in the spring of 2015.

That could result in smaller tax refunds or surprise tax bills for millions of middle-income families.

"That's scary," says Joan Baird of Springfield, Va. "I had no idea, and I work in health care."

Baird, a health care information management worker, is far from alone. Health care providers, advocates and tax experts say the vast majority of Americans know very little about the new health care law, let alone the kind of detailed information many will need to navigate its system of subsidies and penalties.

"They know it's out there," said Mark Cummings, who manages the H&R Block office where Baird was getting her own taxes done. "But in general, they don't know anything about it."

A draft of the application for insurance asks people to project their 2014 income if their current income is not steady or if they expect it to change. The application runs 15 pages for a three-person family, but nowhere does it warn people that they may have to repay part of the subsidy if their income increases.

"I think this will be the hardest thing for members of the public to understand because it is a novel aspect of this tax credit," said Catherine Livingston, who recently served as health care counsel for the Internal Revenue Service. "I can't think of what else they do in the tax system currently that works that way." Livingston is now a partner in the Washington office of the law firm Jones Day.

There's another wrinkle: The vast majority of taxpayers won't actually receive the subsidies. Instead, the money will be paid directly to insurance companies and consumers will get the benefit in reduced premiums.

Health care providers and advocates for people who don't have insurance are planning public awareness campaigns to teach people about the health care law and its benefits.

Enroll America, a coalition of health care providers and advocates, is planning a multimillion-dollar campaign using social media, paid advertising and grass-roots organizing to encourage people who don't have insurance to sign up for it, said Anne Filipic, a former Obama White House official who is now president of the organization.

The Obama administration says it, too, is working to educate consumers.

"On Oct. 1, each state will have a marketplace up and running where consumers can choose a private health insurance plan that fits their health needs and budget," said Treasury spokeswoman Sabrina Siddiqui. "The premium tax credits will give middle-class Americans unprecedented tax benefits to make the purchase of health insurance affordable for everyone, and we will continue to work with consumers, community health organizations and other stakeholders to raise awareness and understanding of these tax benefits."

The subsidies, which are technically tax credits because they are administered through the tax code, will help low- and middle-income families buy health insurance through the state-based exchanges. Under the new law, nearly every American will be required to have health insurance starting in 2014, or face penalties.

The enrollment season starts Oct. 1.

The subsidies are available to families with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty level. This year, four times the poverty level is about $62,000 for a two-person family. For a family of four, it's $94,200.

About 18 million people will be eligible for subsidies, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

If families get bigger subsidies than they are entitled to under the law, the amount they have to repay is capped, based on income and family size. If they get less than they qualify for under the law, the government will pay them the difference in the form of a tax refund.

There are also special rules that protect people who marry or divorce from being required to pay back subsidies just because their marital status changes.

There are four thresholds for repaying the subsidies:

—A family of four making less than $47,000 would have to repay a maximum of $600.

—If the same family makes between $47,000 and $70,000, the amount they have to repay is capped at $1,500.

—If the same family makes between $70,000 and $94,200, the amount is capped at $2,500.

—Families making more than four times the poverty level have to repay the entire subsidy.

"It's potentially going to come as a shock to individuals who meet that criteria where their income hits a point where they owe money back," said Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., chairman of the House Ways and Means oversight subcommittee. "The fact is, with variations in income, people could end up owing money back and that will create consternation and problems for them."

The total amount of money that taxpayers will have to repay is unclear, but congressional estimates offer some clues.

Twice since the health care law was passed Congress has increased the caps for how much people will have to repay. Combined, the two measures are expected to raise more than $40 billion over the next decade, according to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation.

"I think people will get there," said Livingston, the former IRS official. "They will develop instincts about it the way we all do about any process we go through multiple times. But when it's new, in the early years, this will be a real learning curve."

___

Follow Stephen Ohlemacher on Twitter: http://twitter.com/stephenatap

View the original article here

Tennessee Legislature Allows Two Anti-Gay Education Bills To Die

Tennessee has been a toxic place on issues of sex and gender recently, with the University of Tennessee recently caving to Fox News’ complaints and cutting funding for students’ “Sex Week” programming. This week there was some good news, however, because two anti-gay pieces of legislation died in committee.

The first was the odious “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which was originally designed to censor school officials and teachers from discussing homosexuality in grades K-8. Versions introduced this year included requirements that school counselors out LGBT students to their families or prevent counselors from providing mental health services whatsoever. The bill did not receive a second when it was moved in the House Education Subcommittee and subsequently died. State Rep. John Ragan (R), who sponsored the bill because “it was about school safety,” has promised to reintroduce it next year.

Another bill targeted institutions of higher education, threatening to cut support for campus police if universities required student groups to abide by “all-comers” nondiscrimination policies. The intention behind such measures, like one recently passed in Virginia, is to allow Christian groups to discriminate against gay students. Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper (D) called the bill unconstitutional and Gov. Bill Haslam (R) said he saw no reason to have the bill considered. Last year, he vetoed a similar bill targeting university nondiscrimination statements. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mark Pody (R), took the bill “off notice,” killing it, but his apparent vendetta against Vanderbilt University’s “all-comers” policy suggests this isn’t the last of his efforts.

The death of these two bills is a nice reprieve for Tennessee’s LGBT community, but it seems neither of these fights is permanently over.

View the original article here

GOP Files Bills Limiting IRS Oversight Of ObamaCare

House Republicans have introduced separate bills aimed at scaling back the Internal Revenue Service's involvement with implementation of ObamaCare.

Reps. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) and Tom Price (R-Ga.) said their bills are needed in the wake of the IRS's confirmation that it applied extra scrutiny to conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Forbes called that a form of "bullying" by the IRS, and said it's a reason why Congress should approve his bill, which would prohibit the hiring of any new IRS officials to implement ObamaCare.

"Under current law, the authority to implement the president's healthcare tax rests with the very people who used their government positions to act as political operatives working to influence the electoral process," Forbes said. "I'm introducing legislation today to prevent the IRS from being handed their newest bludgeon to target businesses and individuals that do not come in line with their political philosophy or policy positions.

"The IRS would be better to police its own than to police the millions of Americans who believe this healthcare law to be bad for their families and bad for our businesses," he added.

Forbes' Prevent IRS Overreach Act, H.R. 1993, would prevent the IRS from hiring what many expect to be thousands of new IRS agents tasked with implementing the law. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) said Wednesday that he was working on similar legislation.

The IRS is involved in large part because of the law's requirement that most people buy health insurance, and the possibility of fines for failing to meet this mandate. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the law is constitutional, and that these fines for failing to buy health insurance are allowable when viewed as a tax.

Price introduced his own Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act for the same reason as Forbes — to keep what he said is an intrusive IRS out of the business of regulating healthcare. Price's bill, H.R. 1990, would prohibit the IRS from implementing or enforcing any piece of the law.

"The same agency that just committed an appalling violation of the American people's trust is going to be at the forefront of enforcing the health care law, including the individual mandate which will require every citizen to prove to this agency that they've purchased government-dictated health care coverage," Price said.

"When it comes to an individual's personal health care decisions, no American should be required to answer to the IRS — an agency that just forfeited its claim to a reputation of impartiality," he added. "It has always been an untenable and unacceptable scenario, and we ought to take this common sense step to take the IRS out of healthcare."

View Comments

View the original article here

The Top Ten Health-Care Bills for 2013

February 20, 2013 4:00 A.M.

"Hands Off My Health Care" rally at Capitol Hill, March 27, 2012.

Last year, the two best opportunities to stop Obamacare before it got implemented were missed. First, Chief Justice John Roberts bent over backwards to find the law’s individual mandate to be a constitutional tax on the uninsured. Then, the voters decided they preferred another term for President Obama over a Romney administration.

As a consequence, Obamacare isn’t going to be wiped off the federal books in the next few years.

This reality has important implications for congressional tactics. In the previous two years, everything that was done in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives was aimed at building momentum for full repeal in the event Romney won the White House. Since that didn’t happen, other tactics are necessary.

Congressional opponents of Obamacare need to do two things in the months ahead. First, they need to pursue legislation that can contain and minimize Obamacare so that a future president and Congress can still change direction if they choose to do so. Second, Congress needs to continue to cultivate public opposition to Obamacare by highlighting strong bipartisan opposition to its worst features. Bipartisan bills to repeal or substantially amend the law are especially important because they will sow disunity among Democrats and create openings for future revision.

Advertisement

The following is a top-ten list of health-care bills that could help Congress pursue these goals (although there are, of course, many other good ideas that would also help the cause). Each of these items could be pursued as stand-alone bills on the House floor.

1. Delay
The Obama administration chose to delay many of the most controversial implementing rules of Obamacare during 2012 to avoid stirring up opposition to the president during the election year. That decision has now put everything behind schedule. Moreover, a majority of states have decided (as was their right) not to build the state exchanges envisioned in the law, leaving the task to the federal government. And there’s no direct appropriation available to the federal government for this task. So it’s quite clear that implementing the law by January 2014 will create significant and unnecessary chaos in the insurance marketplace. Republicans should seize the opportunity this state of affairs provides and push for a delay of the law’s implementation. The administration will of course vigorously oppose any suggestion of delay, but many employers, states, and health-sector participants would welcome it.

2. IPAB Repeal
The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is the poster child of the Obama vision for cost control. The new agency, composed of 15 unelected “experts,” is supposed to enforce a new cap on Medicare spending growth, without any political accountability to the program’s beneficiaries. Moreover, the only tools IPAB can use are further reductions in what Medicare pays for the provision of services to patients. But these kinds of price controls drive suppliers out of the program and leave beneficiaries on waiting lists for services. A clean IPAB-repeal bill — with no other poison pills attached to it — is sure to draw significant Democratic support. The GOP should ensure such a vote occurs soon.

3. Scale Back Premium-Credit Subsidies
Obamacare has set in motion the largest entitlement expansion in a generation. In theory, the new law entitles all Americans with incomes between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line to new subsidies for health insurance. According to the Census Bureau, there are 110 million Americans under age 65 in that income range. Once the subsidies are in place, the pressure in Congress will be to expand benefits for this large new cohort of entitled voters. President Obama has often said that Massachusetts was the model for the national law. Well, Massachusetts cut off its new entitlement at 300 percent of the poverty line. The House should advance a bill to do the same with Obamacare before the entitlement goes into effect.

4. Repeal the Uninsured Tax (the Individual Mandate)
The chief justice ruled that the individual mandate could survive as a constitutional tax on those who fail to buy government-approved insurance. But that didn’t make it any more popular. Indeed, now that it is clearly just a tax on the uninsured, it will be more unpopular than ever. Ironically, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a repeal of this tax would reduce the deficit by nearly $300 billion over a decade as it would lead to fewer participants in the Obamacare entitlement expansion.

View the original article here

Three Problems Contributing To Americans’ Sky High Medical Bills — And Three Ways To Fix Them

This week’s issue of Time Magazine takes a deep dive into Americans’ medical bills and the roots of the U.S. health care industry’s rampant inflation — costs that force one in four American seniors into bankruptcy and over one in three Americans to forgo care.

The investigative piece highlights the exorbitant costs of the most commonplace procedures and medications, and how insurance coverage often falls through for Americans who encounter unaffordable out-of-pocket costs due to the rising price of health care technology and services. Furthermore, it is often impossible for patients to ascertain why they are being charged what they are for care — a pricing opacity that is truly unique to the service-centered health care industry. Here are the three biggest takeaways from the Time exposé on the unsustainable foundations of American health care costs — and some ideas for shifting the U.S. medical landscape towards a more equitable system:

The indefensible costs of medical testing, technology, and drugs. Much of the report focuses on the costs of receiving basic care and testing, such as diabetes tests, drawing blood samples, or even taking plain old Tylenol — which one hospital in the report marked up to $1.50 per pill, approximately 100 times its general market price, for a cancer patient. Hospitals are largely able to get away with this because they are, as the article puts it, “sellers in what is the ultimate seller’s market,” so device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and hospital chains — even technically “nonprofit” ones — are free to run up the tabs on Americans’ care. Use market competition and price negotiations to lower costs. In its Senior Protection Plan, the Center for American Progress (CAP) advocates tying relatively low Medicare drug rebates to more generous Medicaid drug rebates, and enforcing competitive bidding for all health care products in both the public and private sectors, as well as intrastate price negotiations in the private medical sector that constrains annual spending to a predesignated cap. All told, such reforms would reduce American health care spending by at least $180 billion.People usually don’t know why they get charged what they do for care. It’s a common mantra among health care reform advocates — America doesn’t have a health care system, it has a sick care system. Services are charged after the fact, often in the form a hefty, inscrutable bill that tells patients very little about why they are being asked to pay tens of thousands of dollars in order to receive care that can mean the difference between life and death. This opacity allows providers to get away with jacking up the price of services even as medical technology makes huge strides — which should theoretically lower costs. One GAO report states that “the lack of price transparency and the substantial variation in amounts hospitals pay for some IMD [implantable medical devices] raise questions about whether hospitals are achieving the best prices possible.”Make hospitals issue easily understandable receipts for all health care services.This is a relatively simple fix that would help facilitate further cost reductions by rooting price negotiations in easily-available, verifiable, and uniform data. As the CAP health policy team’s Topher Spiro states in an email to ThinkProgress, “We propose full price transparency—so it wouldn’t take a seven month investigation by a reporter to find out what prices are being charged.” The best possible outcome would be for hospitals and insurers to provide a comprehensive list of services to all patients and beneficiaries that let Americans know exactly how much a particular disease treatment or procedure will cost them.Americans get care at expensive hospital chains that don’t necessarily provide the best service. As Time’s article points out, national and multi-national hospital chains rule the American medical industry — but that doesn’t mean they provide the cheapest, highest quality, or most efficient care. For instance, at the Texas giant MD Anderson, hospital administrators charged Sean Recchi over ten times as much for a chest x-ray as they would have been reimbursed by Medicare, which is required by law to approximate the price of services rendered. Why? Because Sean Recchi had subpar private insurance, and MD Anderson could get away with it.Encourage patients to visit high-performing hospitals with insurance incentives. Americans might believe that such hospitals are their only recourse — but that doesn’t have to be true. One approach to encouraging providers to provide more efficient, quality, and affordable care would be the creation of tiered insurance plans that reward patients — through lower premiums and deductibles — who use low-cost, high-quality hospitals for their care instead of the highest-cost brand name hospitals.

View the original article here

Arizona Bills Require Public School Students To Recite Loyalty Oaths

Public high school students in Arizona will have to “recite an oath supporting the U.S. Constitution” to receive a graduation diploma, if a new bill introduced in the new session of the state legislature is passed and signed into law. The measure, House Bill 2467, was offered by Rep. Bob Thorpe (R), a freshman tea party members who also backs a bill preventing state enforcement of federally enacted gun safety laws. Here is the text of HB 2467:

As written, the bill does not exempt atheist students or those of different faiths from the requirement, though Thorpe has pledged to amend the measure. “In that we had a tight deadline for dropping our bills, I was not able to update the language,” he wrote in an e-mail to the Arizona Republic. “Even though I want to encourage all of our students to understand and respect our Constitution and constitutional form of government, I do not want to create a requirement that students or parents may feel uncomfortable with.”

A separate measure introduced by Thorpe’s colleague would also “require all students in first through 12th grades” “to say the pledge of allegiance each day.” Currently, “schools must set aside time for the pledge each day, but students may choose whether to participate.”

Constitutional experts warn that both proposals are unconstitutional. As American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona Public Policy Director Anjali Abraham explained, “You can’t require students to attend school … and then require them to either pledge allegiance to the flag or swear this loyalty oath in order to graduate. It’s a violation of the First Amendment.”

View the original article here

Statement by the Press Secretary on Bills Signed on January 10, 2013

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Statement by the Press Secretary on H.R. 1339, H.R. 1845, H.R. 2338, H.R. 3263, H.R. 3641, H.R. 3869, H.R. 3892, H.R. 4053, H.R. 4057, H.R. 4073, H.R. 4389, H.R. 5859, H.R. 6014, H.R. 6260, H.R. 6379, H.R. 6587, H.R. 6620, H.R. 6671, S. 925, S. 3202, S. 3666 and S.J. Res. 49

On Thursday, January 10, 2013, the President signed into law:

H.R. 1339, which designates the City of Salem, Massachusetts, as the birthplace of the U.S. National Guard;

H.R. 1845, the "Medicare IVIG Access and Strengthening Medicare and Repaying Taxpayers Act of 2012," which establishes a demonstration project to evaluate the benefits of allowing Medicare Part B coverage for in-home intravenous treatments for patients with primary immune deficiency disease; and amends certain rules under which Medicare is a secondary payer to specified third party payers;

H.R. 2338, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service in Cocoa, Florida as the Harry T. and Harriette Moore Post Office;

H.R. 3263, the "Lake Thunderbird Efficient Use Act of 2012," which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow the storage and conveyance of non-project water at the Norman Project in Oklahoma;

H.R. 3641, the "Pinnacles National Park Act," which redesignates the Pinnacles National Monument in California, as the Pinnacles National Park;

H.R. 3869, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service in Little Rock, Arkansas as the Sidney "Sid" Sanders McMath Post Office Building;

H.R. 3892, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service in Roseville, California as the Lance Corporal Victor A. Dew Post Office;

H.R. 4053, the "Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012," which clarifies requirements for Federal agencies to use improper payment information to determine program or award eligibility; establishes a Do Not Pay Initiative; and expands OMB responsibilities in the effort to eliminate and recover improper payments;

H.R. 4057, which requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a comprehensive policy for providing information regarding higher education and training programs to veterans and members of the Armed Forces;

H.R. 4073, which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to accept a railroad right of way within and adjacent to the Pike National Forest in Colorado;

H.R. 4389, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service in Fowler, California as the Cecil E. Bolt Post Office;

H.R. 5859, which repeals the requirement that the Department of Transportation prescribe regulations to require automobile dealers to provide insurance cost comparison information to prospective buyers; and requires the Department to report to Congress on the most useful way to provide consumers with information on the susceptibility of automobiles to damage;

H.R. 6014, the "Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2012," which authorizes the Justice Department to carry out a grant program to assist States with the first-year costs associated with the implementation of a process to collect DNA from individuals who are arrested for or charged with certain criminal offenses under State law;

H.R. 6260, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service as the Lieutenant Kenneth M. Ballard Memorial Post Office;

H.R. 6379, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service in Ravenel, South Carolina as the Representative Curtis B. Inabinett, Sr. Post Office;

H.R. 6587, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service in Simi Valley, California as the Postal Inspector Terry Asbury Post Office Building;

H.R. 6620, the "Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012," which restores lifetime Secret Service protection of former Presidents who did not serve as President prior to January 1, 1997, and their spouses; and provides for protection of all children of former Presidents until they become 16 years of age;

H.R. 6671, the "Video Privacy Protection Act Amendments Act of 2012," which allows the informed, written consent that a video tape service provider must receive from a consumer in order to be authorized to disclose personally identifiable information to a third party to also be obtained using the Internet; and specifies that the consent would have to be either given at the time the disclosure is sought or given in advance for a set period of time of up to two years or until the consumer withdraws the consent, whichever is sooner;

S. 925, the "Mt. Andrea Lawrence Designation Act of 2011," which designates "Mt. Andrea Lawrence" in the Inyo National Forest and Yosemite National Park; 

S. 3202, the "Dignified Burial and Other Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2012," which amends authorities of the Department of Veterans Affairs related to: cemetery matters; health care; and miscellaneous matters;

S. 3666, which amends the Animal Welfare Act to modify the definition of "exhibitor"; and

S.J. Res. 49, which appoints Barbara Barrett as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

We'll soon reach a milestone in Afghanistan -- when Afghan forces take full responsibility for their nation's security and the war draws to a close.

The President asks Jacob Lew -- the current White House chief of staff -- to serve as the next Treasury Secretary.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Eight Smart Gun Bills Introduced On Day One Of The New Congress — And Two Stupid Ones

The 113th Congress is officially in session, and legislators kicked off the new year, and new term, yesterday with several pieces of gun-related legislation, their response to December’s tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary.

In total — between the Democrats’ proposed gun safety laws and the Republicans’ plans for expanded gun access — ten bills are being introduced today. Here they are:

1. Banning high-capacity ammunition. HR 138. This bill from Reps. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Diana DeGette (D-CO) would ban anyone in the US from owning, buying, or trading high-capacity ammunition clips, like the kinds that are often used in mass shootings. Such clips allow a gunman to fire off as many as 100 rounds without stopping to reload. McCarthy’s connection to gun safety laws is personal: Her husband was killed and son critically injured during a mass shooting.

2. Closing the ‘gun show loophole.’ HR 141. Another measure from McCarthy requires that all gun purchasers undergo a full background check. As-is, the private sales of firearms, and the sale of guns at gun shows, are exempt from the background check requirements that are mandatory for other gun sales. That loophole is currently an easy way for criminals or the mentally ill to access a gun undetected.

3. Making the database of who cannot buy guns effective. HR 137. Currently, states do a terrible job of entering names — of felons or the mentally ill — into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This measure also from McCarthy is called the Fix Gun Checks Act, and has been introduced in previous legislative sessions. It would create incentives and penalties to encourage the efficient entry of names into NICS. It would also close the gun show loophole.

4. Regulating where and how ammunition is purchased. HR 142. McCarthy’s fourth and final bill would make it mandatory for all ammunition dealers to have a license to sell. It would also require anyone purchasing ammunition to do so in person, face-to-face with a seller. All bulk purchases of ammunition would need to be reported under McCarthy’s law. This bill responds to the criticisms that the internet is an open market for the unlimited sale of ammunition.

5. Requiring handguns to be registered. HR 117. Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) crafted this national law based on his state’s requirements for handgun purchasing. It would require every single handgun sold in the United States to be licensed and registered, without any exceptions or loopholes, and for that registry to be easily accessible.

6. Regulating how gun licenses are issued. HR 34. Like Holt, Rep. Bobby Rush’s (D-IL) bill aims to create a unified system of gun licensing procedures — for both handguns and semi-automatic weapons. Rush’s legislation, a reintroduction of “Blair’s Bill,” named after a murdered Chicago teen, would also require gun safety training for firearm owners.

7. Raising the age of legal handgun ownership to 21. HR 65. In a move that seems pointed toward combating youth street violence, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) proposed this bill that would make it illegal to own a handgun before the age of 21. Some states have such laws in place, but Jackson Lee’s measure would make the law national.

8. Requiring the reporting of stolen guns. HR 21. This bill, which Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) has introduced to Congress previously and is reintroducing to the new Congress, would also close the ‘gun show loophole’ by requiring all gun-owners to undergo background checks. Additionally, it would make sure that gun owners are required to report stolen guns — a measure that could help law enforcement track illegal guns.

9. & 10. Eliminating ‘gun free zones’ in schools. HR 35 and HR 133. Following the lead of the National Rifle Association, Reps. Steve Stockman (R-TX) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) are both proposing more guns in schools. They want to eliminate “gun free school zones.” In a press statement, Stockman used this highly flawed logic as the reasoning for his bill: “In the 22 years before enactment of ‘gun free school zones’ there were two mass school shootings. In the 22 years since enactment of ‘gun free schools’ there have been 10 mass school shootings.”

View the original article here

House prepares three 'milk cliff' bills

House leaders have prepared three bills to deal with the looming "milk cliff" for floor action this week.

The three bills are aimed at preventing a spike in dairy prices looming in the new year. 

Because Congress has failed to renew farm programs, an underlying 1949 law is slated to kick in. This would force the government to buy up American milk at inflated prices and the purchases are expected to possibly double the price of milk at the grocery store as supplies dwindle.

Late Saturday night, House Republicans posted the three bills on the House Rules Committee website, setting up possible Monday votes under layover procedures put in place in this Congress.

One bill would extend the expired 2008 farm bill, which expired Sept. 30, for one year. The second would provide for a farm-bill extension through January and a third would just extend dairy programs through January.

"Clearly, it is no longer possible to enact a five-year farm bill in this Congress.  Given this reality, the responsible thing to do – and the course of action I have long encouraged if a five-year bill was not possible – is to extend the 2008 legislation for one year. This provides certainty to our producers and critical disaster assistance to those affected by record drought conditions," said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) in a Sunday statement. 

"The legislation posted is the result of discussions with Ranking Member [Collin] Peterson [D-Minn.] and my colleagues in the Senate.  It is not perfect – no compromise ever is – but it is my sincere hope that it will pass the House and Senate and be signed by the President by January 1," he added.

The first bill abolishes existing dairy price supports in favor of a reformed system included in House and Senate draft farm bills that failed to pass both houses this year. The new dairy system is aimed at guaranteeing profit margins rather than supporting prices and is favored by milk producers who argue that the rising cost of inputs like feed makes the existing system too weak for dairy farmers.

The dairy changes may face significant opposition in the House. This summer Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), long a farm bill skeptic, described existing dairy programs as "Soviet-style." The changes may be key to getting House Agriculture Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and other rural Democrats to support a one-year extension, however. Peterson was instrumental in killing a one-year extension when House leaders tried to pass one in July.

Peterson instead favored a five-year bill that appears all-but-dead in this Congress. 

"These reforms are the primary reason that I am even willing to consider any extension." Peterson said Sunday, regarding the dairy program changes.

The Senate passed such a bill, as did the House Agriculture Committee, but the House never brought it to the floor. The House 2012 farm bill faced opposition from conservatives opposed to farm subsidies and liberals opposed to the $16 billion in cuts to food stamps contained in the House bill. 

On Friday, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) revealed to reporters that she was bowing to reality and working on a 2008 farm bill extension instead of continuing to push for a five-year bill to be included in a "fiscal cliff" grand bargain.

Lucas and Stabenow had hoped that the $23 billion to $35 billion in deficit savings in their farm bills could have been used as part of a broad debt deal to avoid the $500 billion in tax increases and spending cuts looming in January. It now appears that a mini-deal on the fiscal cliff focused only on turning off some of the tax increases will appear this week. 

“If a new farm bill is not passed in the next few days, Agriculture Committee leaders in both chambers and both parties have developed a responsible short-term farm bill extension that not only stops milk prices from spiking, but also prevents eventual damage to our entire agriculture economy. It is critical that we pass a five-year farm bill that gives farmers and ranchers the certainty they need to plan for the future. If a new farm bill doesn’t pass this Congress we’ll soon hold another mark-up and just keep working until one is enacted next year," Statebnow said in a statement Sunday.

Updated at 5:54 p.m.

View Comments

View the original article here

What Could Have Been: The Most Important Bills Blocked By Republicans In 2012

1. A minimum wage increase.

House Democrats proposed legislation in June that would have raised the national minimum wage to $10 an hour, but Republicans blocked it. The minimum wage is currently $7.25 an hour, even though it would need to be raised to $9.92 to match the borrowing power it had in 1968. If it was indexed to inflation, it would be $10.40 today.

2. Campaign finance transparency.

The DISCLOSE Act of 2012, repeatedly blocked by Congressional Republicans, would have allowed voters to know who was funding the attack ads that flooded the airways from secretive groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS.

3. The Buffett Rule.

Senate Republicans in April filibustered the Buffet Rule, which would have set a minimum tax on millionaires. Huge majorities of Americans consistently support the rule, which would raise tens of billions of dollars per year from Americans who have seen their incomes explode while their tax rates plummeted.

4. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

ENDA, which would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, has languished in Congress for decades, and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) “hasn’t thought much” about bringing it to a vote.

5. U.N. treaty to protect the equal rights of the disabled.

Republicans blocked ratification of the United Nations treaty to protect the rights of disabled people around the world, falsely claiming it would undermine parents of disabled children. In fact, the treaty would require other nations to revise their laws to resemble the Americans With Disabilities Act and had overwhelming support from veterans and disabilities groups. It failed by 5 votes.

6. The Paycheck Fairness Act.

It’s about to be 2013, and women are still getting paid less than men for the same job. This year the Paycheck Fairness Act came up for a vote again (previous efforts to pass the law have been unsuccessful), but the Senate GOP still couldn’t get it together to pass the legislation. Republicans oppose the measure, saying it helps trial lawyers instead of women. But the country’s female doctors, lawyers, and CEOs might be inclined to disagree.

View the original article here

Tech at Night: House passes key FCC reform, House and Senate SECURE IT bills deserve passage

FCC reform advances in the House. Greg Walden’s FCC Process Reform Act is a needed bill, so I’m glad that it went from committee to the floor, and took minimal modification in passing. I like that it got an extra poke at FCC being more closed on FOIA requests than even CIA.

Locking in the reforms is important, and CTIA is right in saying we need a “more transparent, predictable regulatory process.”

The SECURE IT cybersecurity alternative is also important. Ron Johnson is a key champion of the bill in the Senate, so you know it has conservative support. As it should, since the core of the bill is to enable important but voluntary information sharing. The bad guys online are already sharing data freely. The good guys must be able to share data and to be flexible on defense.

My own representative* Mary Bono Mack is backing a similar the bill in the House, so you know it has broad support across the spectrum of the GOP. Likewise John McCain’s driving the bill in the Senate instead of working with Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins tells you that the Democrats (plus Susan Collins) really aren’t interested in compromising on their attempts to empower government, including DHS. Naturally FCC loves the smell of expanding government in the morning, too. Smells like picking winners and losers.

George Soros-funded Public Knowledge is wrong on its push to impose Net Neutrality, er, Open Internet penalties on Comcast. Of course, as radical as PK is, it’s not surprising that Michael Copps is going directly from the FCC to that organization. I would have guessed Free Press, but Public Knowledge is just as out of the mainstream.

Good bill, bad bill: Good bill: outlaw UN regulation of the Internet. Bad bill: new American regulation of the Internet in the form of, get this, Facebook password regulation.

Spectrum: Getting government spectrum in use by the private sector is a great tool to add to our options in fixing the coming spectrum crunch. Blocking private spectrum transfers, as T-Mobile suddenly wants now that it’s Verizon and Comcast, not AT&T and T-Mobile, is not something we should be doing.

* Bono Mack has been my representative since Sonny died, and will be until Monday when I leave California for good, and move to Jim Moran’s district.

View the original article here