by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT
Daniel Henninger was spot on in his assessment of the Middlebury College in his article, “McCarthyism at Middlebury” in the Wall Street Journal. Students shockingly felt justified to attack Charles Murray, a conservative pundit, because he had a viewpoint that differed from their own. Henninger puts this incident into perspective; this display of recklessness might actually be a turning point in the madness that has infected liberals and college campuses under the guise of “correct speech.
We’ve seen this for several years now; in 2015, two Yale professors had to resign after encouraging adult students to stand up for the right to wear whatever Halloween costume he or she chose, even if it might offend another person; it was a response to a Yale policy trying to police Halloween costumes on campus. As Henninger pointed out in his article, “Numerous professors, including those at Yale’s top-rated law school, contacted [them] personally to say that it was too risky to speak their minds.” When even the faculty in higher education are afraid to speak their minds, we have a problem.
Even before that, in Spring 2013, a group of Swarthmore students outrageously violated the rights of the campus community. After being allowed to attend a board of trustees meeting to express their views, they then disrupted the meeting, preventing the duly elected Board from responding to their points and continuing the meeting. In their words, it was an effort “to smash ‘hegemonic power structures’ and silence other students”. Yet no action was taken against any of the students or faculty who participated in the abusive, illegal actions.
It is outrageous that the Middlebury incident occurred, but at this point, not entirely surprising anymore. What’s more, faculty and students at Middlebury participated in agitating the community before Charles Murray even arrived; they circulated a petition saying that Murray shouldn’t even be allowed to speak because his voice didn’t represent all people. In one sense, you can somewhat excuse the students who signed it, because they don’t always know better. But faculty? How can faculty at an institute of higher education believe and advocate that a different point of view is wrong in a college/university setting? What have we come to?
Middlebury can indeed serve as a turning point — but only if action is taken. These reckless participants need to be called out and reprimanded, or else such incidents will continue to occur.
by | ARTICLES, FED, GOVERNMENT, HEALTHCARE, IRS, LAW, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES
In response to Donald Trump’s Executive Order last week, the IRS altered its rules about tax returns and Obamacare’s “shared responsibility” penalty. This is one of the methods of paying for Obamacare, and if collection of the penalty is not being strictly enforced, it will contribute further to the already unstable financial state Obamacare is in.
From Reason.com:
How much difference does a single line on a tax form make? For Obamacare’s individual mandate, the answer might be quite a lot.
Following President Donald Trump’s executive order instructing agencies to provide relief from the health law, the Internal Revenue Service appears to be taking a more lax approach to the coverage requirement.
The health law’s individual mandate requires everyone to either maintain qualifying health coverage or pay a tax penalty, known as a “shared responsibility payment.” The IRS was set to require filers to indicate whether they had maintained coverage in 2016 or paid the penalty by filling out line 61 on their form 1040s. Alternatively, they could claim exemption from the mandate by filing a form 8965.
For most filers, filling out line 61 would be mandatory. The IRS would not accept 1040s unless the coverage box was checked, or the shared responsibility payment noted, or the exemption form included. Otherwise they would be labeled “silent returns” and rejected.
Instead, however, filling out that line will be optional.
Earlier this month, the IRS quietly altered its rules to allow the submission of 1040s with nothing on line 61. The IRS says it still maintains the option to follow up with those who elect not to indicate their coverage status, although it’s not clear what circumstances might trigger a follow up.
But what would have been a mandatory disclosure will instead be voluntary. Silent returns will no longer be automatically rejected. The change is a direct result of the executive order President Donald Trump issued in January directing the government to provide relief from Obamacare to individuals and insurers, within the boundaries of the law.
“The recent executive order directed federal agencies to exercise authority and discretion available to them to reduce potential burden,” the IRS said in a statement to Reason. “Consistent with that, the IRS has decided to make changes that would continue to allow electronic and paper returns to be accepted for processing in instances where a taxpayer doesn’t indicate their coverage status.”
The tax agency says the change will reduce the health law’s strain on taxpayers. “Processing silent returns means that taxpayer returns are not systemically rejected, allowing them to be processed and minimizing burden on taxpayers, including those expecting a refund,” the IRS statement said.
The change may seem minor. But it makes it clear that following Trump’s executive order, the agency’s trajectory is towards a less strict enforcement process.
Although the new policy leaves Obamacare’s individual mandate on the books, it may make it easier for individuals to go without coverage while avoiding the penalty. Essentially, if not explicitly, it is a weakening of the mandate enforcement mechanism.
“It’s hard to enforce something without information,” says Ryan Ellis, a Senior Fellow at the Conservative Reform Network.
The move has already raised questions about its legality. Federal law gives the administration broad authority to provide exemptions from the mandate. But “it does not allow the administration not to enforce the mandate, which it appears they may be doing here,” says Michael Cannon, health policy director at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Unless the Trump administration maintains the mandate is unconstitutional, the Constitution requires them to enforce it.”
“The mandate can only be weakened by Congress,” says Ellis. “This is a change to how the IRS is choosing to enforce it. They will count on voluntary disclosure of non-coverage rather than asking themselves.”
The IRS notes that taxpayers are still required to pay the mandate penalty, if applicable. “Legislative provisions of the ACA law are still in force until changed by the Congress, and taxpayers remain required to follow the law and pay what they may owe,” the agency statement said.
Ellis says the new policy doesn’t fully rise to the level of declining to enforce the law. “If the IRS turns a blind eye to people’s status, that isn’t quite not enforcing it,” he says. “It’s more like the IRS wanting to maintain plausible deniability.”
Tax software companies are already making note of the change. Drake Software, which provides services to tax professionals, recently sent out a notice explaining the change in policy. As of February 3, the notice said, the IRS “will now accept an e-filed return that does not indicate either full-year coverage or an individual shared responsibility payment or does not include an exemption on Form 8965, as required by IRS instructions, Form 1040, line 61.”
The mandate is a key component of Obamacare’s coverage scheme, which is built on what experts sometimes describe as a “three-legged stool.” The law requires health insurers to sell to all comers regardless of health history, and offers subsidies to lower income individuals in order to offset the cost of coverage. In order to prevent people from signing up for coverage only after getting sick, it also requires most individuals to maintain qualifying coverage or face a tax penalty. While defending the health law in court, the Obama administration maintained that the mandate was essential to the structure of the law, designed to make sure that people did not take advantage of its protections.
In a 2012 case challenging the law’s insurance requirement, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate was constitutional as a tax penalty. The IRS is in charge of collecting payments.
Some health policy experts have argued that the mandate was already too weak to be effective, as a result of the many exemptions that are included. A 2012 report by the consulting firm Milliman found that the mandate penalty offered only a modest financial incentives for families making 300-400 percent of the federal poverty line. More recently, health insurers have said that individuals signing up for coverage and then quickly dropping it after major health expenses is a key driver of losses, and rising health insurance premiums.
It’s too early to say whether the change will ultimately make any difference. But given the centrality of the mandate to the law’s coverage scheme and the unsteadiness of the law’s health insurance exchanges, with premiums rising and insurers scaling back participation, it is possible that even a marginal weakening of the mandate could cause further dysfunction. Health insurers have said the mandate is a priority, and asked for it to be strengthened. Weaker enforcement of the mandate could cause insurance carriers to further reduce participation in the exchanges. One major insurer, Humana, said today that it would completely exit Obamacare’s exchanges after this year.
It is also possible that congressional Republicans will make it moot by repealing much of the law, including its individual mandate, which, as a tax, can be taken down with just 51 Senate votes.
Regardless of its direct impact, however, the change may signal that the Trump administration intends to water down enforcement of the health law’s most controversial requirement, even if those steps are seemingly small. The Trump administration may not be tearing Obamacare down entirely, but it appears to be taking steps to weaken the law, however subtly, one line at a time.
by | ARTICLES, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, OBAMACARE, POLITICS
Following in the footsteps of several major insurance companies in the past two years, Humana announced today that it will not be participating in the Obamacare exchanges in 2018, citing rising costs and risk pools.
“The company said in a press release it has tried for the past several years to keep selling policies where it could offer “a viable product.” It said it increased premiums, exited markets and tightened provider networks in hopes of stabilizing its individual market business.
But an initial analysis of its 2017 consumer base found that it remained riskier than Humana could tolerate. So the company is exiting all 11 states where it sells individual policies, both on the Obamacare exchange and outside of it.
“We are again seeing signs of an unbalanced risk pool based on the results of the 2017 open enrollment period, therefore we’ve decided that we can’t continue to offer this coverage in 2018,” said Bruce Broussard, Humana’s chief executive, in a conference call with investors.”
This decision was done in conjunction with Humana’s possible merger with Aetna, which was canceled today as well. This in turn lead to the announcement of another merger breakup; in response to the Humana news, Cigna and Anthem decided not to pursue their changes as well.
Obamacare continues to spiral out of control. It’s telling that we have not heard any initial numbers regarding the amount of enrollees this year. Obamacare has consistently missed its target enrollment figures — some by nearly 50%. If we are going to repeal it, we need to replace it with something better.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, POLITICS, TAXES
When assets are seized during federal investigations, the proceeds can be shared with law enforcement agencies who participate with federal agencies during the process. This is called Equitable Sharing, and both the Justice Departments and Treasury Departments can do it. The funds received have rules that govern how they are spent.
Therefore it was surprising that a Power Point presentation created by the Justice Department in 2015 suggested a way to circumvent those rules; typically they don’t allow funds to be spent on salaries or raises but this presentation gave a clear way for an agency to get around that restriction. “The presentation advises that instead of using the seized funds money to fund raises, agencies can use it to cover routine costs — such as maintaining vehicle fleets — and then redirect money already budgeted for maintenance into salaries. The PowerPoint says redirecting money in that manner is acceptable “so long as your overall budget does not decrease.”
It appears the Virginia’s Attorney General, Mark Herring, took that suggestion to heart. The “AP raised questions about significant pay raises for several of Herring’s employees at a time when state workers’ pay was stagnant elsewhere. Some staff attorneys’ salaries rose as much as $15,000 in a year — one had a 30-percent increase.” This investigation revealed the existence of the Power Point presentation, and is the reason 64 attorney received a raise in their pay floor, with the median raise of $7,000.
“Virginia received more than $100 million in asset forfeiture money under a joint state-federal settlement with Abbott Laboratories for an anti-seizure drug’s off-label marketing. Herring spokesman Michael Kelly said raises were made possible in part by using some of the funds to pay allowable expenses involving the agency’s rent, vehicle maintenance and operational costs.
The Abbott settlement money was administered by the Treasury Department, but Kelly cited the PowerPoint as justification for using the funds to make raises possible. He said the PowerPoint was part of 2015 training for accountants in the state attorney general’s office.”
The AP noticed the pay raises in the Office of Attorney General and requested documents about the aberration; last year, the rest of the Commonwealth canceled pay raises that were scheduled for state employees when budget problems got difficult.
It is unfathomable that a state agency, under the guidance and direction of a federal agency, could move money around in a ploy to give themselves pay increases. If one state agency, as part of a training exercise for accountants, could conclude that this action was both just and allowable, how many other agency partners in the Equitable Sharing program have done this?
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, POLITICS, TAXES
The hostile New York City business environment has claimed a new victim: the legendary China Fun restaurant, which has been in operation for 25 years. A letter on left on the door of the restaurant on January 3, 2017, outlined the reasons:
“The climate for small businesses like ours in New York have become such that it’s difficult to justify taking risks and running — nevermind starting — a legitimate mom-and-pop business,” read a letter posted by the owners in the restaurant’s front door.
“The state and municipal governments, with their punishing rules and regulations, seems to believe that we should be their cash machine to pay for all that ails us in society.”
For 25 years, China Fun was renowned for its peerless soup dumplings and piquant General Tso’s chicken.
According to the NY Daily News, “the endless paperwork and constant regulation that forced the shutdown accumulated over the years.” Other reasons included: the requirement to provide an on-site break room, minimum wage increases, health insurance, business insurance, and onerous Health Department rules and regulations.
The government essentially acknowledges the burdens it places on small businesses; “free compliance advisors are available for on-sight consultation aimed at helping small businesses comply with regulations” are a part of the Small Business First initiative.
So instead of making it easier for a business to start, operate, and grow a business, NYC makes it easier to comply with overbearing regulation, rules, and taxes. Businesses go into business to make a product or provide a service — not to respond to government red tape. The loss of China Fun is a microcosm of the entirely hostile, anti-business environment that plagues the NYC government.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, TRUMP
Newt Gingrich warned that Trump’s “Drain the Swamp” verbiage was really a lot of bluster. His presidential appointments seems to be reflecting that — but is it really Trump’s fault? Or are his hands tied? Or a mix of both? Jay Cost over at The Weekly Standard, gives some insight into the history of presidential appointments and how the system works. It’s definitely worth a read in its entirety:
As a candidate, Donald Trump promised sweeping change in the way Washington functions. He would tell voters that the system is rigged, it’s broken, it’s run by losers, and only he could fix it. And yet, for all this rhetoric, it is striking how typical his presidential appointments have been: Jeff Sessions, Mike Pompeo, John Kelly, Rick Perry, Elaine Chao, Steve Mnuchin, Wilbur Ross, Andrew Puzder, Nikki Haley, Seema Verma. Most of these appointees are conservative, of course, but they are conventionally conservative. It is striking, indeed, that the most controversial appointment so far is Rex Tillerson to the State Department. He is an outsider to the ways of Washington but he is still the CEO of a company with $380 billion in total assets and 75,000 employees. A populist barbarian storming the establishment gate, Tillerson is not!
Little wonder that Politico reported last week, “Donald Trump’s White House-in-waiting is already being roiled by divisions, with the conservative outsiders who helped power his historic victory colliding with a Republican Party establishment muscling its way in.”
Something similar happened eight years ago. Barack Obama promised a major break with the previous practices of both parties. Still, his appointments were conventionally liberal: Hillary Clinton, Tim Geithner, Robert Gates (who was actually a holdover from the George W. Bush administration), Eric Holder, Ken Salazar, Tom Vilsack, Gary Locke, Kathleen Sebelius, and so on. Obama largely sampled from the upper echelon of Democratic politicians and policymakers in forming his cabinet—certainly an ideological change from the Bush era but not a fundamental break from past practices.
The system, as it turns out, is much more resilient than presidential candidates on the trail want voters to believe. Electing a new president certainly changes the course of public policy in Washington, but presidents are nevertheless constrained actors. Presidential candidates want us to think they have free rein to make over the government, but the truth is that the occupant of the Oval Office is boxed in from all sides, including in the appointment process.
Trump faces several challenges in using the appointment power to reshape the government. The first is Congress. The Senate possesses the constitutional authority to review certain appointments and reject those nominees it thinks are unfit. This could be why Trump passed over Rudy Giuliani for a cabinet appointment; he may have judged that the confirmation process would be a difficult one for the former mayor of New York City. This might also explain Trump’s decision to make Michael Flynn his national security adviser: The Senate does not review or confirm West Wing appointments.
Congress imposes broader constraints as well. The cabinet departments are, after all, legislative creations, and Congress has the power to write legislation regulating which employees are and are not subject to the appointment process. Starting with the passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act in 1883, Congress sharply curtailed the presidential nominating power, setting the overwhelming majority of executive department employees outside the discretion of the commander in chief. By and large, the same civil servants who worked under George W. Bush and Barack Obama will continue to work under Donald Trump, without worry that the president can dismiss them.
John F. Kennedy summarized the limits the president faces better than anybody:
The fact is that I think the Congress looks more powerful sitting here than it did when I was there in the Congress. . . . When you are in Congress, you are one of a hundred in the Senate or one of 435 in the House . . . but from here I look at . . . the collective power of the Congress . . . and it is a substantial power.
Executive appointments are just the tip of the iceberg. When Trump enters office, he will find Congress to be a potentially implacable foe on any matter where his will runs contrary to its own.
And Trump—or for that matter any outsider president looking to effect sweeping change—must confront the problem of asymmetric information. The federal government is so complicated that one must possess a great deal of technical, specialized information to manage it properly. The president typically does not possess that information, at least not outside a few policy domains (for instance, as Dwight Eisenhower did with the military). He must appoint officials who possess such knowledge. But where do people acquire this? They usually gain it from participating in the affairs of state—the very same affairs that the president has promised to alter.
There are, of course, experts who are nonetheless looking for big changes—for instance, Rep. Tom Price, whom Trump nominated to head the Department of Health and Human Services, and who came to Congress after a successful career as an orthopedic surgeon, is intent on rolling back Obamacare—but the president still faces a substantial challenge. Oftentimes, those whom he taps to change the system have been longtime participants in sustaining it. This problem is compounded when one considers the large number of lower-level appointments the president is authorized to make, where he can only afford to spend a small amount of face time with his nominees. Quite often, he is forced to trust that the people he has delegated responsibility to will, in turn, make good appointments.
Expertise, in other words, can create a subtle bias for the status quo, which was on full display in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. As Ron Suskind reports in Confidence Men, President Obama wanted to reorganize Citigroup in 2009 and instructed Treasury Secretary Geithner to put together a plan. But, per Suskind, Geithner never followed through. As one high-level banking executive explained to Suskind: “The president had us at a moment of real vulnerability. At that point, he could have ordered us to do just about anything and we would have rolled over. But he didn’t—he mostly wanted to help us out, to quell the mob. And the guy we figured we had to thank for that was Tim. He was our man in Washington.”
The irony is that the president, in many respects, is less able today to fulfill his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” than he was in George Washington’s time. The Senate constrains him, via its advisory role, as always. But now the vast bulk of the executive branch is outside his aegis, easily able to resist his political or ideological agenda. Moreover, the technical expertise required to manage the government means that the relative handful of appointments he does get to make is often from the “establishment” he ran against.
All of this runs contrary to the image of the presidency that candidates wish to cultivate on the campaign trail. They want voters to think of the president as a kind of superman—able to work his will on any policy issue that confronts him. But this is just not the case. The president, in truth, is a restricted government agent, just as all officials are in our system of checks and balances. In this nomination process, we are witnessing an early glimpse of how our system of government will constrain and frustrate Trump, just as it has his predecessors.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES, TRUMP
After telling the American electorate that he wants to repeal and replace Obamacare, Trump has now stated that he may not do this entirely. The way he worded his remarks indicates that he is willing to keep “ObamaCare’s preexisting condition and the 26 year old provision to stay on their parent’s plan” to remain.
These two provisions are not “Obamacare” provisions – they are provisions that could – and maybe should – be part of a new health care law. The new replacement for Obamacare could have provisions for people with preexisting conditions to get insurance and even keeping 26 year olds on the plan — but it should be funded in a new healthcare plan that is able to charge competitively using a Health Saving Account structure, with tort reform, interstate competition, no mandated coverage that people don’t want – and government subsidies for the needy – and not by mandates and intentional overcharges.
The fact that some provisions of ObamaCare are also in the new plan does NOT mean that part of ObamaCare remains. Socialism and Capitalism are not the same just because they both have a police force.
ObamaCare must go in its entirety.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS
Congress heard a report this week that evidenced interference by the Obama administration into Congressional process with regard to a piece of radiation legislation in 2014. The Administration appears to have used the Department of Energy to forward his particular climate change package while simultaneously remove opposing viewpoints and sour lawmakers on a certain bill that would possibly conflict with his agenda.
The Washington Free Beacon produced the overview; I have reprinted it below in its entirety so as to not leave out any pertinent details:
A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, released a wide-ranging report on Tuesday that shows how senior Obama administration officials retaliated against a leading scientist and plotted ways to block a congressional inquiry surrounding key research into the impact of radiation.
A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.
The report also provides evidence that the Obama administration worked to kill legislation in order to ensure that it could receive full funding for its own hotly contested climate change agenda.
The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body’s ability to perform critical oversight work.
“Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming,” Smith said in a statement. “In this staff report based on lengthy record before the committee, much has been revealed about how senior level agency officials under the Obama administration retaliated against a scientist who did not follow the party line.”
“Moving forward, the department needs to overhaul its management practices to ensure that Congress is provided the information it requires to legislate and that federal employees and scientists who provide that information do so without fear of retribution,” Smith said.
The report goes into Congress’ efforts to regulate the Low Dose Radiation Research Program, or LDRRP, which sought to test the impact of radiation on human beings. The program, started in the 1990s, was meant to support research into waste cleanup and the impact of nuclear weapons.
In mid-2014, lawmakers introduced legislation, the Low Dose Radiation Act of 2014, to help regulate the program and minimize harmful side effects.
During an October 2014 briefing with senior DoE staff on the matter, lawmakers heard testimony from Dr. Noelle Metting, the radiation research program’s manager.
Less than a month later, lawmakers discovered that Obama administration officials had “removed Dr. Metting from federal service for allegedly providing too much information in response to questions posed by” Congress during the briefing, the report states.
Congressional investigators later determined that the administration’s “actions to remove Dr. Metting were, in part, retaliation against Dr. Metting because she refused to conform to the predetermined remarks and talking points designed by Management to undermine the advancement of” the 2014 radiation act.
Emails unearthed during the investigation “show a sequence of events leading to a premeditated scheme by senior DoE employees ‘to squash the prospects of Senate support’” for the radiation act, a move that lawmakers claim was meant to help advance President Obama’s own climate change goals.
“The committee has learned that one of DoE’s stated purposes for Dr. Metting’s removal from federal service was her failure to confine the discussion at the briefing to pre-approved talking points,” according to the report. “The committee has also established that DoE management … failed to exercise even a minimal standard of care to avoid chilling other agency scientists as a result of the retaliation against Dr. Metting for her refusal to censor information from Congress.”
The investigation concluded that “DoE placed its own priorities to further the president’s Climate Action Plan before its constitutional obligations to be candid with Congress,” the report states. “The DoE’s actions constitute a reckless and calculated attack on the legislative process itself, which undermines the power of Congress to legislate. The committee further concludes that DoE’s disregard for separation of powers is not limited to a small group of employees, but rather is an institutional problem that must be corrected by overhauling its management practices with respect to its relationship with the Congress.”
These moves by the administration were part of an effort to secure full funding for the president’s climate change agenda, the report claims.
“Instead of working to understand the value of the LDRRP for emergency situations, DoE Management engaged in a campaign to terminate research programs that could divert funds from the president’s Climate Action Plan,” the report states.
Congress is recommending a full overhaul of the DoE’s management structure in order to ensure this type of situation does not occur again.
