Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle issued the following statement today:
"Yesterday, Republicans and Democrats in Congress joined hands to renew several provisions of the Patriot Act. These provisions are unconstitutional and violate our right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
"These provisions should be repealed, and if they're not repealed, they ought to be ruled unconstitutional by the courts.
"Anyone who believes that Democrats care more about civil liberties than Republicans ought to be disillusioned by this renewal. It has become painfully clear that the Obama administration is indistinguishable from the George W. Bush administration.
"The plain injustice of these search provisions is compounded by the secrecy that surrounds them. In some cases, Americans -- even members of Congress -- aren't permitted to know the legal interpretations that govern how these searches may be implemented. And of course there is the infamous 'library records' provision, which prohibits targets from telling anyone that they were ordered to turn over records to the government.
"I don't believe that these violations of our rights are making us any safer. I think it's security theater. And I'm certainly reminded of Benjamin Franklin's words, 'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'
"Our Constitution guarantees our rights. It doesn't make an exception for 'fear of terrorists.' It's time to end these violations of our rights, and repeal the Patriot Act.
"We can never perfectly protect ourselves from foreigners who hate us. One useful thing we can do is to try to stop antagonizing foreigners. Our government should stop invading and bombing their countries and stationing troops in them. It's time for a non-interventionist foreign policy."
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obama. Show all posts
Friday, May 27, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
Top Scientists Say Obama's Forest Rules Leave Water, Wildlife at Risk
/PRNewswire-/ -- More than 400 scientists, lawmakers and the nation's top conservation leaders today asked the Obama administration to set clear standards for water and wildlife protection in sweeping new rules that would apply to 193 million acres of national forest lands.
The call comes at the end of a 90-day public review period, along with more than 300,000 comments from people across the country urging the administration to develop a stronger policy.
A chief complaint raised by the scientists and environment groups is the absence of concrete standards for forest managers to follow, such as a minimum buffer of undisturbed land around rivers and streams or a mandate to maintain healthy fish and wildlife populations and their habitat. The leaders of conservation groups also noted that in its fine print, the rule lacks a clear commitment to apply the best available science.
"Without measurable standards and effective monitoring, forest planning will too often fail to comply with the broader purpose and intent of the National Forest System and the National Forest Management Act," said a letter from 405 scientists. Last month, an analysis from the Society for Conservation Biology, an international scientists' association, raised some of the same concerns.
National forests are a source of drinking water for about 124 million Americans. According to a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture report, these areas and grasslands sustain 223,000 jobs in rural areas and contribute $14.5 billion annually to the U.S. economy.
"The Obama administration's proposal lacks firm protections for water quality and wildlife," said Jane Danowitz, U.S. Public Lands director for the Pew Environment Group. "Forty percent of Americans rely on our national forests for drinking water, and those forests host more rare species than even our national park system. It's critical that the administration backs up the good guidance in its proposal with clear standards for water and wildlife protection."
A bi-partisan group of 62 U.S. Representatives wrote to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack today, calling for more specific safeguards. "The course set by these sweeping new rules will determine the future of our national forests for generations to come – it is essential that we get this right. . . . [W]e believe the proposal goes in the wrong direction by rolling back longstanding protections for wildlife. . . . It is vital that the final rule include a strong standard for wildlife conservation that is meaningful, measurable and non-discretionary."
A letter from the nation's 13 largest conservation groups to the administration today urged that the rule
* protect water resources through mandatory minimum buffer zones of at least 100 feet along streams and other water bodies that limit harmful activities;
* maintain viable populations of all fish, wildlife and other species, well distributed across their existing ranges on national forest lands; and
* require decision-making to "conform" to the best available science rather than to "take it into account."
The Obama administration's new forest policy is being developed under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the law that governs most activity on Forest Service lands. The final rule, expected by the end of the year, would replace current NFMA regulations originally developed in 1982 and would apply to national forests and grasslands in 44 states.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
The call comes at the end of a 90-day public review period, along with more than 300,000 comments from people across the country urging the administration to develop a stronger policy.
A chief complaint raised by the scientists and environment groups is the absence of concrete standards for forest managers to follow, such as a minimum buffer of undisturbed land around rivers and streams or a mandate to maintain healthy fish and wildlife populations and their habitat. The leaders of conservation groups also noted that in its fine print, the rule lacks a clear commitment to apply the best available science.
"Without measurable standards and effective monitoring, forest planning will too often fail to comply with the broader purpose and intent of the National Forest System and the National Forest Management Act," said a letter from 405 scientists. Last month, an analysis from the Society for Conservation Biology, an international scientists' association, raised some of the same concerns.
National forests are a source of drinking water for about 124 million Americans. According to a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture report, these areas and grasslands sustain 223,000 jobs in rural areas and contribute $14.5 billion annually to the U.S. economy.
"The Obama administration's proposal lacks firm protections for water quality and wildlife," said Jane Danowitz, U.S. Public Lands director for the Pew Environment Group. "Forty percent of Americans rely on our national forests for drinking water, and those forests host more rare species than even our national park system. It's critical that the administration backs up the good guidance in its proposal with clear standards for water and wildlife protection."
A bi-partisan group of 62 U.S. Representatives wrote to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack today, calling for more specific safeguards. "The course set by these sweeping new rules will determine the future of our national forests for generations to come – it is essential that we get this right. . . . [W]e believe the proposal goes in the wrong direction by rolling back longstanding protections for wildlife. . . . It is vital that the final rule include a strong standard for wildlife conservation that is meaningful, measurable and non-discretionary."
A letter from the nation's 13 largest conservation groups to the administration today urged that the rule
* protect water resources through mandatory minimum buffer zones of at least 100 feet along streams and other water bodies that limit harmful activities;
* maintain viable populations of all fish, wildlife and other species, well distributed across their existing ranges on national forest lands; and
* require decision-making to "conform" to the best available science rather than to "take it into account."
The Obama administration's new forest policy is being developed under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the law that governs most activity on Forest Service lands. The final rule, expected by the end of the year, would replace current NFMA regulations originally developed in 1982 and would apply to national forests and grasslands in 44 states.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Friday, April 8, 2011
Requiring Employees To Work During Shutdown Violates Law, Lawsuit Charges
/PRNewswire/ -- Ordering federal employees to work during a government shutdown violates the U.S. Constitution, according to a lawsuit filed today by the nation's largest federal employee union.
The American Federation of Government Employees filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew and Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry are named as defendants.
The lawsuit contends that the Obama administration is violating the U.S. Constitution's Appropriations Clause and Thirteenth Amendment by requiring federal civilian employees to work without pay during a period of lapsed federal appropriations.
"Hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be required to work during a shutdown, and there's no guarantee that Congress will keep the administration's promise to pay those employees once the shutdown is over," AFGE National President John Gage said.
Section 1341 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code prohibits federal and D.C. government workers from spending or obligating funds that have not already been appropriated by Congress.
The administration claims that it can require certain employees to work during a shutdown under Section 1342 of Title 31, which includes a clause covering "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property."
However, AFGE's lawsuit contends that this section of U.S. Code is not a valid exception to the prohibition on incurring debts during a shutdown because it is not an appropriations law and does not empower federal agencies to force Congress to pay for debts incurred during a shutdown.
"The Constitution requires an appropriation by Congress before federal dollars can be spent, no exceptions," Gage said. "Without an appropriation, the agencies simply can't spend money or incur debts by forcing employees to work."
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union, representing 625,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
The American Federation of Government Employees filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew and Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry are named as defendants.
The lawsuit contends that the Obama administration is violating the U.S. Constitution's Appropriations Clause and Thirteenth Amendment by requiring federal civilian employees to work without pay during a period of lapsed federal appropriations.
"Hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be required to work during a shutdown, and there's no guarantee that Congress will keep the administration's promise to pay those employees once the shutdown is over," AFGE National President John Gage said.
Section 1341 of Title 31 of the U.S. Code prohibits federal and D.C. government workers from spending or obligating funds that have not already been appropriated by Congress.
The administration claims that it can require certain employees to work during a shutdown under Section 1342 of Title 31, which includes a clause covering "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property."
However, AFGE's lawsuit contends that this section of U.S. Code is not a valid exception to the prohibition on incurring debts during a shutdown because it is not an appropriations law and does not empower federal agencies to force Congress to pay for debts incurred during a shutdown.
"The Constitution requires an appropriation by Congress before federal dollars can be spent, no exceptions," Gage said. "Without an appropriation, the agencies simply can't spend money or incur debts by forcing employees to work."
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union, representing 625,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Small Business Group Responds to President Obama's State of the Union
/PRNewswire -- In response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address, the nation's leading organization dedicated to promoting entrepreneurship and protecting small business issued the following response:
"Entrepreneurs are heartened to hear that President Obama wants to make the U.S. the best place on earth to do business. Indeed, across the globe, nations are cutting taxes, simplifying their tax systems and reducing regulations to make it easier to start up and grow a business. Developed and emerging countries alike have quickly adapted to the competitive environment and are reaping rewards in their aggressive efforts to attract capital and business investment. President Obama has awoken to this realization, and mere rhetoric alone will not change the competitive dynamic. Entrepreneurs and investors must now see dramatic changes on the policy front. This means, immediately locking in a pro-growth tax system, restraining the regulatory tide that is sweeping over every sector of our economy and reducing government spending," said Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) President & CEO Karen Kerrigan.
SBE Council chief economist Raymond J. Keating added: "While the President's pro-business rhetoric is encouraging, other specifics in his speech were disappointing. First, his explicit call for a tax increase on upper-income earners showed that he still fails to grasp that such a tax hike on entrepreneurs and investors would be bad for the economy. Second, his call, in effect, for higher taxes on oil companies in order to subsidize other energy sources reveals a desire for politics to overrule markets, with the result being higher costs in the end. And third, he took one step forward on trade, by urging Congress to approve the South Korea trade deal, but two steps back by failing to push ahead now with the Panama and Colombia accords."
Kerrigan concluded: "We look forward to working with President Obama and Congress in the critical areas of reducing regulation and simplifying the tax system. Leadership and action are desperately needed on these issues if the U.S. is to become more competitive in the global economy. Furthermore, small business owners have substantive ideas for improving the health care overhaul bill that was enacted into law. We only hope the Administration will listen to our solutions this time around."
SBE Council is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy and research organization dedicated to protecting small business and promoting entrepreneurship. For more information, please visit: www.sbecouncil.org .
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
"Entrepreneurs are heartened to hear that President Obama wants to make the U.S. the best place on earth to do business. Indeed, across the globe, nations are cutting taxes, simplifying their tax systems and reducing regulations to make it easier to start up and grow a business. Developed and emerging countries alike have quickly adapted to the competitive environment and are reaping rewards in their aggressive efforts to attract capital and business investment. President Obama has awoken to this realization, and mere rhetoric alone will not change the competitive dynamic. Entrepreneurs and investors must now see dramatic changes on the policy front. This means, immediately locking in a pro-growth tax system, restraining the regulatory tide that is sweeping over every sector of our economy and reducing government spending," said Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) President & CEO Karen Kerrigan.
SBE Council chief economist Raymond J. Keating added: "While the President's pro-business rhetoric is encouraging, other specifics in his speech were disappointing. First, his explicit call for a tax increase on upper-income earners showed that he still fails to grasp that such a tax hike on entrepreneurs and investors would be bad for the economy. Second, his call, in effect, for higher taxes on oil companies in order to subsidize other energy sources reveals a desire for politics to overrule markets, with the result being higher costs in the end. And third, he took one step forward on trade, by urging Congress to approve the South Korea trade deal, but two steps back by failing to push ahead now with the Panama and Colombia accords."
Kerrigan concluded: "We look forward to working with President Obama and Congress in the critical areas of reducing regulation and simplifying the tax system. Leadership and action are desperately needed on these issues if the U.S. is to become more competitive in the global economy. Furthermore, small business owners have substantive ideas for improving the health care overhaul bill that was enacted into law. We only hope the Administration will listen to our solutions this time around."
SBE Council is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy and research organization dedicated to protecting small business and promoting entrepreneurship. For more information, please visit: www.sbecouncil.org .
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Libertarian response to State of the Union and Republicans
This evening (January 25), Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict spoke in response to the addresses from President Barack Obama and Congressman Paul Ryan.
A transcript of Mr. Benedict's speech follows:
Good evening and thank you for your interest in the State of our Union.
My name is Wes Benedict. I'm the executive director of the Libertarian National Committee here in Washington, DC. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace.
Tonight we heard from President Barack Obama and a response from Republican Congressman Paul Ryan.
President Obama says he wants a freeze in non-security, discretionary spending. In the unlikely event that happens, it won't really matter, because to make a real dent in the deficit, it's necessary to cut spending on the military and entitlements. The president promised big government in the past, and he delivered. I expect more of the same.
However, Obama has truly been a hypocrite on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a candidate, he promised to end them. Tonight we heard more hollow promises. The fact is, as president, he has kept those wars going, and has greatly escalated the war in Afghanistan. As a percentage of GDP, military spending is higher now than it was during any year of the George W. Bush administration.
Unlike President Obama, Libertarians would bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and reduce the military budget.
On the Republican side, I found Congressman Paul Ryan's hypocrisy appalling. He claims to want big cuts in government spending. But he didn't seem to be too worried about cutting spending when Republicans were in charge. He supported the huge Medicare expansion in 2003, and the expensive No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. He supports the expensive War on Drugs. In 2008, he put hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk by voting for the massive TARP bailout, and he even voted to spend billions on the GM and Chrysler bailout.
Just one month ago, Congressman Ryan voted for the tax compromise that included a big increase in unemployment spending, and even extensions of government spending on ethanol.
Republicans don't want to cut spending -- they want to talk about cutting spending.
Congressman Paul Ryan is a perfect example of why Republicans are bad for America.
Republicans' plans for Social Security and Medicare are little more than a distraction. It's time for someone to have the guts to tell seniors the truth: You were promised way too much, and now we've got to make major cuts. I'm asking retirees to think about the enormous debts piling up on your children and grandchildren.
Libertarians would stop spending billions on bailouts, the War on Drugs, federal education programs, and we would end mandatory Social Security and Medicare.
Today, America is a country that attracts hardworking immigrants from Mexico and around the world, leaving countries that are less free and prosperous. Libertarians welcome these immigrants warmly. But I often wonder if -- in 20 years -- America will still be a great place to live, or if it will be another declining civilization fraught with poverty and abuse that your children want to leave.
The future of America may depend on the Libertarian Party steering us towards liberty and away from tyranny.
The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest party, and one of the most successful alternative parties in American history.
We are recruiting bold, principled men and women dedicated to freedom to fill leadership positions and to run for office as Libertarians.
You don't have to agree with every single Libertarian position to join the Libertarian Party. You can still make a difference and help us move our country towards freedom.
The Libertarian Party has more information at our website, LP.org. Please visit LP.org and join the Libertarian Party today.
Thank you and good night.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
A transcript of Mr. Benedict's speech follows:
Good evening and thank you for your interest in the State of our Union.
My name is Wes Benedict. I'm the executive director of the Libertarian National Committee here in Washington, DC. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace.
Tonight we heard from President Barack Obama and a response from Republican Congressman Paul Ryan.
President Obama says he wants a freeze in non-security, discretionary spending. In the unlikely event that happens, it won't really matter, because to make a real dent in the deficit, it's necessary to cut spending on the military and entitlements. The president promised big government in the past, and he delivered. I expect more of the same.
However, Obama has truly been a hypocrite on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a candidate, he promised to end them. Tonight we heard more hollow promises. The fact is, as president, he has kept those wars going, and has greatly escalated the war in Afghanistan. As a percentage of GDP, military spending is higher now than it was during any year of the George W. Bush administration.
Unlike President Obama, Libertarians would bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and reduce the military budget.
On the Republican side, I found Congressman Paul Ryan's hypocrisy appalling. He claims to want big cuts in government spending. But he didn't seem to be too worried about cutting spending when Republicans were in charge. He supported the huge Medicare expansion in 2003, and the expensive No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. He supports the expensive War on Drugs. In 2008, he put hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk by voting for the massive TARP bailout, and he even voted to spend billions on the GM and Chrysler bailout.
Just one month ago, Congressman Ryan voted for the tax compromise that included a big increase in unemployment spending, and even extensions of government spending on ethanol.
Republicans don't want to cut spending -- they want to talk about cutting spending.
Congressman Paul Ryan is a perfect example of why Republicans are bad for America.
Republicans' plans for Social Security and Medicare are little more than a distraction. It's time for someone to have the guts to tell seniors the truth: You were promised way too much, and now we've got to make major cuts. I'm asking retirees to think about the enormous debts piling up on your children and grandchildren.
Libertarians would stop spending billions on bailouts, the War on Drugs, federal education programs, and we would end mandatory Social Security and Medicare.
Today, America is a country that attracts hardworking immigrants from Mexico and around the world, leaving countries that are less free and prosperous. Libertarians welcome these immigrants warmly. But I often wonder if -- in 20 years -- America will still be a great place to live, or if it will be another declining civilization fraught with poverty and abuse that your children want to leave.
The future of America may depend on the Libertarian Party steering us towards liberty and away from tyranny.
The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest party, and one of the most successful alternative parties in American history.
We are recruiting bold, principled men and women dedicated to freedom to fill leadership positions and to run for office as Libertarians.
You don't have to agree with every single Libertarian position to join the Libertarian Party. You can still make a difference and help us move our country towards freedom.
The Libertarian Party has more information at our website, LP.org. Please visit LP.org and join the Libertarian Party today.
Thank you and good night.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG @FayetteFP
Monday, November 29, 2010
Pelosi Statement on Passage of the Physician Payment and Therapy Relief Act
/PRNewswire/ -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today after the House passed bipartisan legislation blocking the 23 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors, scheduled for December 1, for one month, while a longer-term fix is negotiated. The Senate passed the bill on November 18, and it now goes to President Obama for his signature into law:
"Today, the House of Representatives acted to ensure that America's seniors and military families can continue receiving the care they need and deserve from their doctors. This fully paid-for legislation provides doctors with the stability and support to continue providing vital services to all of their patients in the Medicare and TRICARE systems for the next month, while leaders from both parties work together on a longer-term solution before we adjourn.
"In taking this vote, Members of Congress have taken a clear stand on the side of seniors, service members, and the physicians and medical professionals who treat them."
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP
"Today, the House of Representatives acted to ensure that America's seniors and military families can continue receiving the care they need and deserve from their doctors. This fully paid-for legislation provides doctors with the stability and support to continue providing vital services to all of their patients in the Medicare and TRICARE systems for the next month, while leaders from both parties work together on a longer-term solution before we adjourn.
"In taking this vote, Members of Congress have taken a clear stand on the side of seniors, service members, and the physicians and medical professionals who treat them."
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Judicial Watch Sues Justice Department to Obtain All Communications with ACLU Regarding Obama Administration Lawsuit Challenging Arizona's SB 1070
/PRNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today announced that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) for information regarding the DOJ's decision to file a lawsuit against Arizona over the state's tough new illegal immigration law, SB 1070. Judicial Watch seeks documents pertaining to the Obama administration's contacts with third party organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in making the decision to file the lawsuit.
Judicial Watch specifically seeks the following documents through its FOIA request originally filed on June 17, 2010:
Any and all communications between the Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), concerning, regarding, or relating to Arizona's "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act," also referred to as "Arizona SB 1070."
Judicial Watch also seeks "any and all communications between the Department of Justice and any third parties," related to the SB 1070 lawsuit.
On May 17, 2010, a coalition of "civil rights groups," including the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit against the State of Arizona over SB 1070. According to the ACLU's press release announcing the lawsuit, this coalition included: "…the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice."
"The American people ought to know if the Obama Justice Department is being run by radical leftist organizations such as the ACLU. I suspect that the Obama Justice Department is making decisions on behalf of its leftist allies, instead of in the public interest," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This is a simple request for information. The Obama administration should stop stonewalling and release these basic documents on its decision to attack Arizona over its get-tough illegal immigration law."
Judicial Watch represents Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of SB 1070, in the Obama administration's lawsuit challenging the Arizona law. Visit www.JudicialWatch.org to access Judicial Watch's FOIA lawsuit against the Obama Justice Department.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP
Judicial Watch specifically seeks the following documents through its FOIA request originally filed on June 17, 2010:
Any and all communications between the Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), concerning, regarding, or relating to Arizona's "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act," also referred to as "Arizona SB 1070."
Judicial Watch also seeks "any and all communications between the Department of Justice and any third parties," related to the SB 1070 lawsuit.
On May 17, 2010, a coalition of "civil rights groups," including the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit against the State of Arizona over SB 1070. According to the ACLU's press release announcing the lawsuit, this coalition included: "…the ACLU, MALDEF, National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), ACLU of Arizona, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) – a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice."
"The American people ought to know if the Obama Justice Department is being run by radical leftist organizations such as the ACLU. I suspect that the Obama Justice Department is making decisions on behalf of its leftist allies, instead of in the public interest," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This is a simple request for information. The Obama administration should stop stonewalling and release these basic documents on its decision to attack Arizona over its get-tough illegal immigration law."
Judicial Watch represents Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, author of SB 1070, in the Obama administration's lawsuit challenging the Arizona law. Visit www.JudicialWatch.org to access Judicial Watch's FOIA lawsuit against the Obama Justice Department.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP
Monday, September 20, 2010
President Obama Goes Back on Campaign Promise with Jobs Bill
/PRNewswire/ -- The Small Business Jobs Act being pushed by President Obama contains a loophole that will legalize contracting fraud while protecting large fraudulent businesses from prosecution, and stands in stark contradiction to a campaign promise made by President Obama.
In February of 2008, President Obama stated, "It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants." (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/26/the_american_small_business_le.php) President Obama made this statement to address ongoing fraud and abuse in federal small business contracting programs that cost small businesses over $100 billion a year in missed contract opportunities. Federal law currently mandates that a minimum of 23 percent of all federal contract dollars go to small businesses.
Since 2003, there have been over a dozen federal investigations, which have found Fortune 500 firms and thousands of large companies around the world as the actual recipients of federal small business contracts. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Inspector General has listed this problem as the number one management challenge facing the agency for the past five consecutive years and referred to this problem as, "One of the most important challenges facing the Small Business Administration and the entire Federal government today." (http://www.asbl.com/documentlibrary.html)
Section 1341 of H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs Act, contains specific language that will allow the SBA to develop policies and procedures to protect large businesses that have misrepresented themselves as small businesses from prosecution for felony contracting fraud. Section 16(d) of the Small Business Act prescribes a penalty of up to ten years in prison and a fine of not more than $500,000 per occurrence for firms that have misrepresented themselves as small businesses.
Some of the firms that have received government small business contracts include: Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace (BAE), Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, SAIC, Titan Industries, Raytheon, Dell Computer, Xerox, French firm Thales Communications, Italian firm Finmeccanica SpA, and Ssangyong Corporation headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. Textron, a Fortune 500 firm, received over $775 million in federal small business contracts in a single year.
"It is unbelievable that President Obama is going to create a loophole to benefit the corporate giants he promised to kick out of federal small business contracting programs," ASBL President Lloyd Chapman said. "When you see President Obama on television, I want every American to realize that his administration is giving over $1 million a minute in small business contracts to some of the largest companies in the world."
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
In February of 2008, President Obama stated, "It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants." (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/26/the_american_small_business_le.php) President Obama made this statement to address ongoing fraud and abuse in federal small business contracting programs that cost small businesses over $100 billion a year in missed contract opportunities. Federal law currently mandates that a minimum of 23 percent of all federal contract dollars go to small businesses.
Since 2003, there have been over a dozen federal investigations, which have found Fortune 500 firms and thousands of large companies around the world as the actual recipients of federal small business contracts. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Inspector General has listed this problem as the number one management challenge facing the agency for the past five consecutive years and referred to this problem as, "One of the most important challenges facing the Small Business Administration and the entire Federal government today." (http://www.asbl.com/documentlibrary.html)
Section 1341 of H.R. 5297, the Small Business Jobs Act, contains specific language that will allow the SBA to develop policies and procedures to protect large businesses that have misrepresented themselves as small businesses from prosecution for felony contracting fraud. Section 16(d) of the Small Business Act prescribes a penalty of up to ten years in prison and a fine of not more than $500,000 per occurrence for firms that have misrepresented themselves as small businesses.
Some of the firms that have received government small business contracts include: Rolls-Royce, British Aerospace (BAE), Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, SAIC, Titan Industries, Raytheon, Dell Computer, Xerox, French firm Thales Communications, Italian firm Finmeccanica SpA, and Ssangyong Corporation headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. Textron, a Fortune 500 firm, received over $775 million in federal small business contracts in a single year.
"It is unbelievable that President Obama is going to create a loophole to benefit the corporate giants he promised to kick out of federal small business contracting programs," ASBL President Lloyd Chapman said. "When you see President Obama on television, I want every American to realize that his administration is giving over $1 million a minute in small business contracts to some of the largest companies in the world."
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Statement by Governor Jan Brewer: ObamaCare is Wrong for Arizona and Wrong for America - Federal Hearing Tuesday
/Standard Newswire/ -- "Arizona has a long and proud history of fighting the Washington, D.C. elite's insatiable appetite for bigger government at the cost of States' rights. The battle over the Affordable Care Act better known as "ObamaCare" is the latest round. Once again, the feds have gone too far.
"The cost of ObamaCare places unsustainable burdens on our federal government, our state government, and on American families. Further, the scheme is based on the unconstitutional mandate that every American buy health insurance. For these reasons, the State of Arizona, at my direction, has joined nineteen other states in challenging ObamaCare in federal court in the Northern District of Florida.
"Shortly after the states filed their suit, President Obama directed his counsel at the Department of Justice to file a motion to dismiss the case. The federal district court in Florida will hear arguments this Tuesday, September 14, on whether the states' challenge to ObamaCare may move forward. I have no doubt that Arizona and the other states will ultimately prevail in striking down the most oppressive provisions of ObamaCare. The Act is simply unreasonable, unsustainable and unconstitutional.
"The costs of ObamaCare are indefensibly high and unsustainable. The current federal budget deficit will exceed $1.3 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the ten year deficit is another $6.2 trillion. This is not the time for America to be expanding entitlement programs, and thereby shackling our country to ever expanding debt obligations. Instead, the federal government should follow Arizona's example and cut spending. America needs a long-term plan that will balance our federal budget and bring stability to our economy.
"In addition to burdening the federal budget, the Act unconstitutionally imposes staggering new costs and obligations on the states. It transforms Medicaid from a federal-state partnership to reimburse needy persons' medical costs into a vast federally-mandated program to benefit millions of persons with incomes above the poverty line. While the states previously had discretion to manage their programs consistent with the needs of their citizens - indeed, Arizona's own Medicaid program, AHCCCS, is a model nationwide - the Act now limits state flexibility and turns the states into an administrative arm of the federal government. It also compels the states to assume responsibility not only for cost reimbursement but for the provision of the healthcare services. These changes will add more than $1 billion per year in costs to an already overstrained state budget.
"ObamaCare also forces private insurance plans to expand coverage. While some of these changes may seem fair on the surface, ultimately the costs of these changes are borne by families. According to the Wall Street Journal, coverage changes demanded by ObamaCare could increase some premiums as much as 9 percent. Many Arizonans have already been told by their employers to expect high increases in their insurance premiums that will dramatically impact their household budgets.
"Ultimately, the law is unconstitutional. It represents an unprecedented intrusion on the sovereignty of the states and the freedom of their citizens. Congress is using its authority under the Commerce Clause to require citizens to purchase health insurance or face a stiff penalty. This overreaching application of the Commerce Clause cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
"Congress's commerce power extends to regulation of activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, but it may not be used to compel individuals to enter a marketplace. Likewise, Congress's power to tax does not authorize it to compel persons to buy specific insurance products. By enacting ObamaCare, Congress has seized powers denied it under the Tenth Amendment, in violation of the Constitution's federalist structure and individual rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments.
"ObamaCare is a key point upon which Attorney General Goddard and I differ. I asked the Attorney General as the Arizona chief legal officer to join his colleagues in the other states in reviewing the constitutionality of the proposed law as it was making its way through Congress last year. He said no. Once it passed, I asked him to join the other states in challenging the law. He said no. In fact, Mr. Goddard recently argued that Arizona is "better off" with ObamaCare. Realizing that Congress has crossed the constitutional line and Attorney General Goddard was going to do nothing to protect Arizona's citizens, I called the Arizona Legislature into special session to remove his authority to speak for the state on this matter. The Legislature, without pause, authorized me to join the multistate suit on behalf of the citizens of Arizona.
"In addition to ObamaCare's constitutional deficiencies, citizens simply do not support the law's mandate that they purchase insurance or incur federal penalties. Just weeks ago Missouri voters rejected any federal mandate to purchase health insurance with the measure passing with more than 70 percent of the vote. On November 2, 2010, Arizona citizens will vote on Proposition 106, which is similar to Missouri's new law. I support Proposition 106 and have every reason to believe that Arizona voters will overwhelmingly pass this measure and, when they do, a clear message will be sent to the president and Congress that this type of overreaching by the federal government will no longer be tolerated.
"When these cases are ultimately decided in favor of the states on the merits, it will be a great day for the citizens who have the right to set their own health care policies and the states who have constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty to establish their own policies in the area of health care."
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"The cost of ObamaCare places unsustainable burdens on our federal government, our state government, and on American families. Further, the scheme is based on the unconstitutional mandate that every American buy health insurance. For these reasons, the State of Arizona, at my direction, has joined nineteen other states in challenging ObamaCare in federal court in the Northern District of Florida.
"Shortly after the states filed their suit, President Obama directed his counsel at the Department of Justice to file a motion to dismiss the case. The federal district court in Florida will hear arguments this Tuesday, September 14, on whether the states' challenge to ObamaCare may move forward. I have no doubt that Arizona and the other states will ultimately prevail in striking down the most oppressive provisions of ObamaCare. The Act is simply unreasonable, unsustainable and unconstitutional.
"The costs of ObamaCare are indefensibly high and unsustainable. The current federal budget deficit will exceed $1.3 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the ten year deficit is another $6.2 trillion. This is not the time for America to be expanding entitlement programs, and thereby shackling our country to ever expanding debt obligations. Instead, the federal government should follow Arizona's example and cut spending. America needs a long-term plan that will balance our federal budget and bring stability to our economy.
"In addition to burdening the federal budget, the Act unconstitutionally imposes staggering new costs and obligations on the states. It transforms Medicaid from a federal-state partnership to reimburse needy persons' medical costs into a vast federally-mandated program to benefit millions of persons with incomes above the poverty line. While the states previously had discretion to manage their programs consistent with the needs of their citizens - indeed, Arizona's own Medicaid program, AHCCCS, is a model nationwide - the Act now limits state flexibility and turns the states into an administrative arm of the federal government. It also compels the states to assume responsibility not only for cost reimbursement but for the provision of the healthcare services. These changes will add more than $1 billion per year in costs to an already overstrained state budget.
"ObamaCare also forces private insurance plans to expand coverage. While some of these changes may seem fair on the surface, ultimately the costs of these changes are borne by families. According to the Wall Street Journal, coverage changes demanded by ObamaCare could increase some premiums as much as 9 percent. Many Arizonans have already been told by their employers to expect high increases in their insurance premiums that will dramatically impact their household budgets.
"Ultimately, the law is unconstitutional. It represents an unprecedented intrusion on the sovereignty of the states and the freedom of their citizens. Congress is using its authority under the Commerce Clause to require citizens to purchase health insurance or face a stiff penalty. This overreaching application of the Commerce Clause cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
"Congress's commerce power extends to regulation of activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, but it may not be used to compel individuals to enter a marketplace. Likewise, Congress's power to tax does not authorize it to compel persons to buy specific insurance products. By enacting ObamaCare, Congress has seized powers denied it under the Tenth Amendment, in violation of the Constitution's federalist structure and individual rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments.
"ObamaCare is a key point upon which Attorney General Goddard and I differ. I asked the Attorney General as the Arizona chief legal officer to join his colleagues in the other states in reviewing the constitutionality of the proposed law as it was making its way through Congress last year. He said no. Once it passed, I asked him to join the other states in challenging the law. He said no. In fact, Mr. Goddard recently argued that Arizona is "better off" with ObamaCare. Realizing that Congress has crossed the constitutional line and Attorney General Goddard was going to do nothing to protect Arizona's citizens, I called the Arizona Legislature into special session to remove his authority to speak for the state on this matter. The Legislature, without pause, authorized me to join the multistate suit on behalf of the citizens of Arizona.
"In addition to ObamaCare's constitutional deficiencies, citizens simply do not support the law's mandate that they purchase insurance or incur federal penalties. Just weeks ago Missouri voters rejected any federal mandate to purchase health insurance with the measure passing with more than 70 percent of the vote. On November 2, 2010, Arizona citizens will vote on Proposition 106, which is similar to Missouri's new law. I support Proposition 106 and have every reason to believe that Arizona voters will overwhelmingly pass this measure and, when they do, a clear message will be sent to the president and Congress that this type of overreaching by the federal government will no longer be tolerated.
"When these cases are ultimately decided in favor of the states on the merits, it will be a great day for the citizens who have the right to set their own health care policies and the states who have constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty to establish their own policies in the area of health care."
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Obama, Congress: Fix 10 Health Care Loopholes and Repel Insurer Attempts to Undermine New Consumer Protections, Says Consumer Watchdog
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Consumer Watchdog called on President Obama and Congress in a letter sent today to fix ten problem areas in the new federal health reform law that, if not addressed, will be exploited by health insurers and drug companies looking to charge more for less health care.
Download the letter here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/HealthReformLoopholes.pdf
In the letter sent today, Consumer Watchdog wrote:
"The enactment of broad health reform into law is, as you know, only the start of providing health coverage to all Americans at a fair price. Not only must the White House and Congress close loopholes in the newly enacted law, but the White House must also strongly repel efforts already under way by insurers and other corporate interests to undermine Department of Health and Human Services regulations while they are being written. . . .
"Key questions left unanswered in the legislation--including the scope of health benefits that insurers must provide under the new law--will be addressed over the next months and years by federal regulators. Congress must stand ready to continuously clarify and strengthen the law against efforts to nullify its broad and progressive intent. . . .
"Consumers will brook no excuses for failure by the White House or Congress to strongly defend newly won consumer protections, fill dangerous loopholes in the new law, and ward off an onslaught of well-funded lobbyists."
The ten loopholes and problem areas are (see letter at link above for more details):
* Lack of Insurer Rate Regulation. The federal law fails to adequately limit what insurers can charge American families and business owners for coverage, even though tens of millions of Americans are required to purchase private health insurance policies. Without the strongest possible review and prior approval of health insurance rates insurers will be able to raise rates nearly without limit and use rate-setting as a vehicle for continuing to cherry-pick the healthiest customers.
* Weakening of benefits. Pre-emption of stronger state benefit requirements by so-called Nationwide and Multi-state plans will threaten the survivability of the state Exchanges and eliminate key health and consumer protections in many states. This is a "race to the bottom" provision that may allow insurers to sell highly profitable bare-bones policies under the guise of cutting costs. Consumers who fall seriously ill would suffer the consequences.
* States Rights to Innovate. Under the current law, states must wait until 2017 for waivers from the federal government to use federal Medicaid, Medicare, tax subsidies and other funds to support state alternatives to the private insurance market, whether that be by adopting a state single-payer model or a state "public option." If the federal government will require all Americans to purchase private insurance by 2014 or face tax fines, then by 2014 the federal government must also give states the right to use their share of federal funds to support alternate, state-based health reform.
* Medicare Advantage pushback. Private, for-profit Medicare Advantage systems will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on glossy marketing to attract a higher percentage of healthier seniors into such plans. The result could be a lobbying coup that prevents cuts in Medicare Advantage overpayments, cripples efforts to stabilize Medicare costs and may even push traditional Medicare into an economic death spiral.
* Pharmaceutical price spiral. Pharmaceutical companies' large and unwarranted recent price increases on heavily used drugs have already eliminated any cost savings from an industry promise to "reduce" Medicare drug prices by $8 billion a year. Further Congressional action is needed to allow direct bargaining for drugs by Medicare, which is the only way to steadily curb drug prices.
* Continued rescission. The federal law allows insurers to define the terms of future coverage rescissions when customers fall seriously ill in the fine print of their policies. The law limits rescission of health policies to instances of fraud or "intentional misrepresentation," however no new regulatory oversight of rescission is provided to ensure that omissions or errors are indeed fraudulent or intentional, rather than innocent mistakes.
* No legal accountability for insurers that deny care. Patients who have health coverage paid for in part or full by employers cannot hold insurers legally accountable for denying medically necessary treatments.
* Definition of medical expenses. Consumer Watchdog has called on the Obama Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") to probe insurance giant WellPoint Inc. in light of a message to its investors describing how WellPoint would simply re-label administrative costs as "medical care" in response to the new health reform law. HHS must narrowly define what constitutes medical care to block gaming of the new medical loss ratio requirement by health insurers.
* Inadequate Federal Fallback. Consumer Watchdog advocates for frontline state enforcement with strong federal fallback if states fail to act. States are the local cops on the beat and can respond faster to local threats and with greater knowledge of the local market. But there should be pathways for federal regulators to become fully aware of the failure of state fraud enforcement through public intervenor groups and reporting requirements that tip federal regulators to local inaction.
* Sick kids. The ink was hardly dry on the health reform law when the insurance industry started saying that no matter what Congress thought it passed and no matter what President Obama said, they did not have provide coverage to sick children right away. The main private insurer lobbying group, Americans Health Insurance Plans, has since said it will not fight the new coverage of previously excluded children and conditions, but the provision must also be clearly stated in regulations implementing the law.
Consumer Watchdog is a nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization with offices in Washington, D.C. and Santa Monica, CA. Find us on the web at: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Download the letter here: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/HealthReformLoopholes.pdf
In the letter sent today, Consumer Watchdog wrote:
"The enactment of broad health reform into law is, as you know, only the start of providing health coverage to all Americans at a fair price. Not only must the White House and Congress close loopholes in the newly enacted law, but the White House must also strongly repel efforts already under way by insurers and other corporate interests to undermine Department of Health and Human Services regulations while they are being written. . . .
"Key questions left unanswered in the legislation--including the scope of health benefits that insurers must provide under the new law--will be addressed over the next months and years by federal regulators. Congress must stand ready to continuously clarify and strengthen the law against efforts to nullify its broad and progressive intent. . . .
"Consumers will brook no excuses for failure by the White House or Congress to strongly defend newly won consumer protections, fill dangerous loopholes in the new law, and ward off an onslaught of well-funded lobbyists."
The ten loopholes and problem areas are (see letter at link above for more details):
* Lack of Insurer Rate Regulation. The federal law fails to adequately limit what insurers can charge American families and business owners for coverage, even though tens of millions of Americans are required to purchase private health insurance policies. Without the strongest possible review and prior approval of health insurance rates insurers will be able to raise rates nearly without limit and use rate-setting as a vehicle for continuing to cherry-pick the healthiest customers.
* Weakening of benefits. Pre-emption of stronger state benefit requirements by so-called Nationwide and Multi-state plans will threaten the survivability of the state Exchanges and eliminate key health and consumer protections in many states. This is a "race to the bottom" provision that may allow insurers to sell highly profitable bare-bones policies under the guise of cutting costs. Consumers who fall seriously ill would suffer the consequences.
* States Rights to Innovate. Under the current law, states must wait until 2017 for waivers from the federal government to use federal Medicaid, Medicare, tax subsidies and other funds to support state alternatives to the private insurance market, whether that be by adopting a state single-payer model or a state "public option." If the federal government will require all Americans to purchase private insurance by 2014 or face tax fines, then by 2014 the federal government must also give states the right to use their share of federal funds to support alternate, state-based health reform.
* Medicare Advantage pushback. Private, for-profit Medicare Advantage systems will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on glossy marketing to attract a higher percentage of healthier seniors into such plans. The result could be a lobbying coup that prevents cuts in Medicare Advantage overpayments, cripples efforts to stabilize Medicare costs and may even push traditional Medicare into an economic death spiral.
* Pharmaceutical price spiral. Pharmaceutical companies' large and unwarranted recent price increases on heavily used drugs have already eliminated any cost savings from an industry promise to "reduce" Medicare drug prices by $8 billion a year. Further Congressional action is needed to allow direct bargaining for drugs by Medicare, which is the only way to steadily curb drug prices.
* Continued rescission. The federal law allows insurers to define the terms of future coverage rescissions when customers fall seriously ill in the fine print of their policies. The law limits rescission of health policies to instances of fraud or "intentional misrepresentation," however no new regulatory oversight of rescission is provided to ensure that omissions or errors are indeed fraudulent or intentional, rather than innocent mistakes.
* No legal accountability for insurers that deny care. Patients who have health coverage paid for in part or full by employers cannot hold insurers legally accountable for denying medically necessary treatments.
* Definition of medical expenses. Consumer Watchdog has called on the Obama Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") to probe insurance giant WellPoint Inc. in light of a message to its investors describing how WellPoint would simply re-label administrative costs as "medical care" in response to the new health reform law. HHS must narrowly define what constitutes medical care to block gaming of the new medical loss ratio requirement by health insurers.
* Inadequate Federal Fallback. Consumer Watchdog advocates for frontline state enforcement with strong federal fallback if states fail to act. States are the local cops on the beat and can respond faster to local threats and with greater knowledge of the local market. But there should be pathways for federal regulators to become fully aware of the failure of state fraud enforcement through public intervenor groups and reporting requirements that tip federal regulators to local inaction.
* Sick kids. The ink was hardly dry on the health reform law when the insurance industry started saying that no matter what Congress thought it passed and no matter what President Obama said, they did not have provide coverage to sick children right away. The main private insurer lobbying group, Americans Health Insurance Plans, has since said it will not fight the new coverage of previously excluded children and conditions, but the provision must also be clearly stated in regulations implementing the law.
Consumer Watchdog is a nonpartisan consumer advocacy organization with offices in Washington, D.C. and Santa Monica, CA. Find us on the web at: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Obama Administration Grants Relief to States on Payments to Medicarefor Part D Costs
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today announced $4.3 billion in financial relief to states by reducing the amount they will have to pay the federal government to offset the cost of Medicare coverage for prescription drugs for state residents eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.
“We believe today’s action will help states as they struggle to maintain Medicaid and other budget priorities in these difficult economic times,” said Secretary Sebelius. “This relief will help states continue to provide critical health care services to the nearly 60 million beneficiaries who depend upon it.”
This temporary financial boost to states is made possible by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). That law granted a significant, yet temporary, increase in the amount states receive from the federal government to help pay for their Medicaid programs. The increase was to the federal share of Medicaid costs, referred to as federal medical assistance percentage payments (FMAP).
In a call with state governors today, Secretary Sebelius reported that HHS will apply the ARRA increased FMAP to so-called clawback payments. The clawback payment is the amount states pay to the federal government as required by the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). It is intended to offset some of the added expense to Medicare Part D of assuming drug costs for residents dually eligible for both programs. Prior to MMA, state Medicaid programs covered prescription drug costs for these beneficiaries. Because Medicaid is a state/federal matching program, the higher FMAP under ARRA results in a temporary reduction of the states’ share of spending and therefore in their clawback obligation.
This temporary adjustment in the clawback payments will be applied for the period October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010. In his 2011 budget, President Obama calls for the FMAP increase established in ARRA to be extended through June 30, 2011.
“In asking Congress to extend the increased FMAP in his 2011 budget proposal, the President recognizes both the critical role Medicaid plays in the health of our most vulnerable citizens and difficulties states are experiencing given the economic downturn,” Secretary Sebelius said.
States make clawback payments monthly and CMS is currently reprogramming its billing system to calculate the new, reduced payments owed by states. The savings, which are retroactive to October 2008, will be deducted from what they otherwise would have owed going forward.
The table below shows each state’s estimated savings. Column B shows the state’s obligation under the pre-ARRA formula with column C showing the newly calculated payment, column D the total estimated savings to the state.
“We believe today’s action will help states as they struggle to maintain Medicaid and other budget priorities in these difficult economic times,” said Secretary Sebelius. “This relief will help states continue to provide critical health care services to the nearly 60 million beneficiaries who depend upon it.”
This temporary financial boost to states is made possible by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). That law granted a significant, yet temporary, increase in the amount states receive from the federal government to help pay for their Medicaid programs. The increase was to the federal share of Medicaid costs, referred to as federal medical assistance percentage payments (FMAP).
In a call with state governors today, Secretary Sebelius reported that HHS will apply the ARRA increased FMAP to so-called clawback payments. The clawback payment is the amount states pay to the federal government as required by the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). It is intended to offset some of the added expense to Medicare Part D of assuming drug costs for residents dually eligible for both programs. Prior to MMA, state Medicaid programs covered prescription drug costs for these beneficiaries. Because Medicaid is a state/federal matching program, the higher FMAP under ARRA results in a temporary reduction of the states’ share of spending and therefore in their clawback obligation.
This temporary adjustment in the clawback payments will be applied for the period October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010. In his 2011 budget, President Obama calls for the FMAP increase established in ARRA to be extended through June 30, 2011.
“In asking Congress to extend the increased FMAP in his 2011 budget proposal, the President recognizes both the critical role Medicaid plays in the health of our most vulnerable citizens and difficulties states are experiencing given the economic downturn,” Secretary Sebelius said.
States make clawback payments monthly and CMS is currently reprogramming its billing system to calculate the new, reduced payments owed by states. The savings, which are retroactive to October 2008, will be deducted from what they otherwise would have owed going forward.
The table below shows each state’s estimated savings. Column B shows the state’s obligation under the pre-ARRA formula with column C showing the newly calculated payment, column D the total estimated savings to the state.
| State (A) | Total Q1 FY 09 Thru Q1 FY 11 Clawback Based on Reg. FMAP (B) | Total Q1 FY 09 Thru Q1 FY 11 Clawback Based on ARRA FMAP (C) | Total State Savings/Fed. Cost Q1 FY 09 Thru Q1 FY 11 (D) |
| Alabama | $150,247,579 | $106,425,199 | $43,822,379 |
| Alaska | $48,317,314 | $38,286,755 | $10,030,558 |
| Arizona | $153,759,854 | $108,954,983 | $44,804,871 |
| Arkansas | $87,089,886 | $62,440,556 | $24,649,330 |
| California | $2,913,864,100 | $2,238,430,401 | $675,433,698 |
| Colorado | $192,319,003 | $150,066,687 | $42,252,316 |
| Connecticut | $296,665,054 | $230,615,556 | $66,049,498 |
| Delaware | $34,099,374 | $26,386,737 | $7,712,637 |
| District of Columbia | $25,602,876 | $17,959,629 | $7,643,248 |
| Florida | $1,015,370,655 | $732,819,868 | $282,550,787 |
| Georgia | $256,830,737 | $186,189,524 | $70,641,213 |
| Hawaii | $60,409,856 | $43,814,638 | $16,595,218 |
| Idaho | $46,562,615 | $32,122,245 | $14,440,370 |
| Illinois | $875,508,052 | $675,854,129 | $199,653,923 |
| Indiana | $209,694,287 | $151,629,223 | $58,065,064 |
| Iowa | $162,359,071 | $127,106,244 | $35,252,826 |
| Kansas | $113,478,227 | $89,157,121 | $24,321,107 |
| Kentucky | $182,471,045 | $127,408,848 | $55,062,197 |
| Louisiana | $203,392,153 | $126,178,376 | $77,213,777 |
| Maine | $103,581,677 | $75,744,571 | $27,837,106 |
| Maryland | $238,997,062 | $187,197,783 | $51,799,278 |
| Massachusetts | $612,833,627 | $480,102,616 | $132,731,011 |
| Michigan | $386,791,612 | $285,445,457 | $101,346,155 |
| Minnesota | $360,083,533 | $278,777,119 | $81,306,414 |
| Mississippi | $102,735,712 | $65,989,013 | $36,746,699 |
| Missouri | $407,283,149 | $299,443,677 | $107,839,472 |
| Montana | $28,771,325 | $20,110,737 | $8,660,588 |
| Nebraska | $95,393,763 | $76,664,267 | $18,729,497 |
| Nevada | $62,310,316 | $45,031,768 | $17,278,548 |
| New Hampshire | $71,136,363 | $56,982,733 | $14,153,631 |
| New Jersey | $696,147,055 | $543,196,366 | $152,950,689 |
| New Mexico | $47,436,153 | $33,768,936 | $13,667,217 |
| New York | $1,882,163,731 | $1,474,399,935 | $407,763,796 |
| North Carolina | $552,941,188 | $400,670,852 | $152,270,335 |
| North Dakota | $22,440,556 | $18,259,530 | $4,181,026 |
| Ohio | $581,726,147 | $430,246,974 | $151,479,172 |
| Oklahoma | $154,134,582 | $106,156,483 | $47,978,098 |
| Oregon | $147,332,690 | $108,155,974 | $39,176,716 |
| Pennsylvania | $1,000,611,930 | $771,650,285 | $228,961,645 |
| Rhode Island | $97,366,309 | $74,159,944 | $23,206,365 |
| South Carolina | $168,667,834 | $117,154,008 | $51,513,826 |
| South Dakota | $31,593,895 | $25,104,607 | $6,489,288 |
| Tennessee | $442,828,611 | $321,494,820 | $121,333,791 |
| Texas | $777,317,414 | $567,316,054 | $210,001,360 |
| Utah | $57,174,136 | $39,826,114 | $17,348,022 |
| Vermont | $49,485,228 | $36,881,632 | $12,603,596 |
| Virginia | $390,311,646 | $304,575,535 | $85,736,111 |
| Washington | $359,451,673 | $273,090,100 | $86,361,573 |
| West Virginia | $71,905,352 | $48,544,797 | $23,360,555 |
| Wisconsin | $476,178,882 | $358,970,479 | $117,208,403 |
| Wyoming | $23,393,068 | $18,935,147 | $4,457,921 |
| TOTAL | $17,528,567,954 | $13,215,895,031 | $4,312,672,922 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)