/PRNewswire/ -- Following continued attacks by anti-hunting groups to ban traditional ammunition (ammunition containing lead-core components) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976, Representative Lynn A. Westmoreland (R-Georgia-3) became an original co-sponsor of bipartisan legislation (H.R. 1558) to clarify the longstanding exemption of ammunition and ammunition components under the act. The Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act is being championed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry. The act also calls for lead fishing tackle, similarly under attack from anti-hunting groups, to be exempt from the TSCA.
"We applaud and thank Rep. Westmoreland for co-sponsoring this common-sense measure," said NSSF President and CEO Stephen L. Sanetti. "This bill will continue to ensure that America's hunters and shooters can choose for themselves the best ammunition to use, instead of unnecessarily mandating the universal use of expensive alternatives."
Last fall the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considered a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) – a leading anti-hunting organization – to ban all traditional ammunition under the TSCA. Though the EPA correctly rejected the petition, a decision that is now being challenged in court by the CBD, the attack demonstrated the need to preserve and protect the rights of all sportsmen to choose their own ammunition and fishing tackle, based on their own circumstances and budget. Traditional ammunition and fishing tackle are significantly less expensive than alternative ammunition and fishing tackle. This is of great importance to sportsmen in these difficult economic times.
A ban on traditional ammunition would have a negative impact on wildlife conservation. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of the ammunition (11 percent) is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding in the United States and the financial backbone of the North American Model of wildlife conservation. Since the firearms and ammunition excise tax began in 1937, more than $6.4 billion has been collected from firearms and ammunition manufacturers benefiting wildlife restoration and hunter education. Fewer hunters mean fewer dollars for wildlife.
"Wildlife management is the proper jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 50 state wildlife agencies," said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. "But no one should be misled about what's truly at stake here. A ban on traditional ammunition will not only affect hunters and sportsmen, but law enforcement, military, self-defense and target shooters who may never go afield. This is precisely why all Americans, not just gun owners, have a vested interest in the passage of the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act."
The higher costs associated with alternative ammunition will price everyday consumers out of the market. This is evidenced by the low 1 percent market share of alternative ammunition. This would lead to fewer hunters taking to the field and shooting ranges across the United States being needlessly closed.
"The economic growth of America's firearms and ammunition industry continues to be a bright spot in our country's still ailing economy," continued Keane. "Passing this important legislation will help to ensure that our industry, which is responsible for more than 183,000 well-paying jobs and has an economic impact of more than $27.8 billion annually, continues to shine."
-----
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 legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Friday, April 22, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Ron and Rand Paul Introduce “Audit the Fed” Legislation in House and Senate
(BUSINESS WIRE)--Congressman Ron Paul and his son, Senator Rand Paul, today (January 26) introduced companion legislation in both chambers of the United States Congress to require a full and thorough audit of the Federal Reserve.
The bills, both titled The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011, but known better as “Audit the Fed,” are numbered H.R. 459 in the House and S. 202 in the Senate and continue the efforts championed by Ron Paul last year that won 320 co-sponsors before passing the House and 32 cosponsors in the Senate before falling short on a floor vote.
H.R. 459 starts the session with 56 original bipartisan cosponsors, while Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) are original cosponsors for S. 202.
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011 would open up the Fed’s funding facilities, such as the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, Term Securities Lending Facility, and Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility to Congressional oversight and audit by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office. Additionally, audits would include discount window operations, open market operations, and agreements with foreign central banks such as ongoing dollar swap operations with European central banks.
Public polling conducted by Rasmussen Reports in December 2010 indicated that 74 percent of the American People demand transparency at the Fed and support a full audit as called for in the Audit the Fed legislation. In 2009 and 2010, Campaign for Liberty generated over 2.5 million grassroots contacts to federal lawmakers in support of Audit the Fed.
“The Federal Reserve and its loose money, easy credit policies are the culprit for so many of the dire economic problems we face. Americans continue to demand transparency at the Federal Reserve, and Campaign for Liberty is proud to lead the fight to make this legislation the Law of the Land,” said Campaign for Liberty President John Tate. “All across the country, grassroots citizens are uniting behind Ron and Rand Paul and will demand this audit, this year.”
-----
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 bills, both titled The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011, but known better as “Audit the Fed,” are numbered H.R. 459 in the House and S. 202 in the Senate and continue the efforts championed by Ron Paul last year that won 320 co-sponsors before passing the House and 32 cosponsors in the Senate before falling short on a floor vote.
H.R. 459 starts the session with 56 original bipartisan cosponsors, while Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) are original cosponsors for S. 202.
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011 would open up the Fed’s funding facilities, such as the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, Term Securities Lending Facility, and Term Asset-Backed Securities Lending Facility to Congressional oversight and audit by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office. Additionally, audits would include discount window operations, open market operations, and agreements with foreign central banks such as ongoing dollar swap operations with European central banks.
Public polling conducted by Rasmussen Reports in December 2010 indicated that 74 percent of the American People demand transparency at the Fed and support a full audit as called for in the Audit the Fed legislation. In 2009 and 2010, Campaign for Liberty generated over 2.5 million grassroots contacts to federal lawmakers in support of Audit the Fed.
“The Federal Reserve and its loose money, easy credit policies are the culprit for so many of the dire economic problems we face. Americans continue to demand transparency at the Federal Reserve, and Campaign for Liberty is proud to lead the fight to make this legislation the Law of the Land,” said Campaign for Liberty President John Tate. “All across the country, grassroots citizens are uniting behind Ron and Rand Paul and will demand this audit, this year.”
-----
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, January 24, 2011
Mayors, Martin Luther King III and Family Members of Gun Violence Victims Urge Congress to Fulfill Intent of Historic 1968 Gun Law and Fix Nation's Broken Background Check System
/PRNewswire/ -- The bi-partisan coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, led by New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, was joined by Martin Luther King III and dozens of survivors and family members of gun violence victims to launch a national campaign urging Congress to take two simple but critical steps to fix our nation's broken background check system: 1) fulfill the letter of the historic 1968 gun law and ensure that all names of people prohibited from buying a gun are in the background check system; and 2) fulfill the intent of the historic 1968 gun law by subjecting every gun sale to a background check.
"The time has clearly come to finally fulfill the intent of the common sense gun law passed after the 1968 assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bobby Kennedy, by creating a loophole-free background check system for the sale of firearms," said Mayor Bloomberg. "Every day, 34 Americans are murdered with guns – and most of them are purchased or possessed illegally."
"There are those who fail to truly read the 2nd amendment," said Mayor Menino. "They ignore the need for a common sense approach to guns in our communities. The best way to respond to the heinous acts of violence we have seen in our nation's history is to prevent them from ever happening again. Lax screening in response to these tragic shootings is no virtue."
"For decades we have tolerated senseless gun violence, which has struck down too many of our fellow citizens, particularly our young people," said Martin Luther King III, President and CEO of the King Center. "If we want to create a nonviolent society, we must enforce our public safety laws to keep the angry and dangerous few from destroying the peace and harmony of the many. I wholeheartedly join Mayor Bloomberg in calling on the President and Congress to finally deliver on the long unfilled promise to make sure that every gun buyer passes a background check. It is unconscionable to do anything less."
"President Kennedy and Senator Robert Kennedy, my uncle and my father, dedicated their lives to serving their country," said Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland and eldest child of Robert F. Kennedy. "But because of assassins armed with guns, they both made the ultimate sacrifice, and their lives of service were cut short. The 34 Americans whose lives are cut short by a gun each day may not be presidents or senators, but each life is a future cut short, a life of accomplishments left undone, and a family torn apart. We owe a duty to each victim to make their life, and their sacrifice, a part of the national movement to fix our gun background check system so it is thorough, complete and comprehensive."
"We've learned from recent shootings that it is vital that the federal gun background check system have accurate and complete information on people prohibited from possessing firearms," said former Attorney General Michael Mukasey. "President Bush supported and Congress passed a piece of the necessary reform in 2007 after Virginia Tech, and it has had a significant impact by more than tripling the number of mental health records in the system. But it is clear, particularly after Tucson, that it was just one step on a longer path toward the effective and comprehensive background check system we need. I applaud America's mayors for their efforts to build a better system."
"As Governor of Vermont, I received an A-rating from the NRA and I strongly support the right of law-abiding Americans to own a gun," said Howard Dean. "I also believe with equal strength that felons, drug abusers, and the mentally ill have no right to guns. In fact, that's been the law in our country for 43 years since the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. What we need now is a background check system that works to enforce the law – one that ensures that every record is in the system that belongs there and that every gun buyer goes through a background check. I stand with America's mayors in their effort to make the system work."
Historic 1968 Legislation
In 1968, after the assassinations of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Congress, at the urging of President Johnson, passed a law establishing the common-sense concept that certain categories of people including convicted felons, the mentally ill, and known drug abusers should not be allowed to possess or purchase guns.
Because no system was created for actually translating its intent into reality, the effectiveness of the 1968 act was undermined. It was not until 1993, when President Clinton signed the Brady Bill, that a national instant background check system, designed to prevent mentally unbalanced people from obtaining firearms, was created to help enforce the 1968 law.
It has become clear that the Brady Bill was not enough to fulfill the intent of the historic 1968 gun law. The Columbine High School shooters used guns that were purchased without a background check at a gun show. The Virginia Tech shooter passed a background check when he should have failed it due to his record of mental health problems.
In April 2007, after the Virginia Tech massacre which claimed the lives of 32 people, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Act to submit all the required records into the background check system. Congress has failed to provide enough funding to support these efforts. In FY 2010, Congress allocated $20 million to support state initiatives to submit records to the background check system, only 5% of the $375 million authorized by the NICS Improvement Act.
Millions of records of individuals who are prohibited by law from buying guns are still missing from the database. Ten states have not submitted any mental health records to NICS and 18 states have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records.
Two Simple Ideas
Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan coalition of more than 550 mayors, proposes that the U.S. fulfill the intent of the 1968 law by fixing the broken background check system.
First, the system should contain all the records of felony convictions, domestic violence incidents, drug history, and determinations of mental illness that would prevent those categories of troubled people from buying guns. The new Congress should set a goal of getting this job finished within three years.
Second, Congress should subject every gun sale to a background check by closing the loopholes that permit guns to be sold without them. Licensed gun dealers are covered by the Brady Bill. But "occasional sellers," for example those that sell firearms at gun shows, through classified ads or even on the internet, do not have to conduct background checks. The only way to prevent guns from falling into the hands of violent criminals, the mentally unstable, and other already prohibited dangerous persons is through a comprehensive national background check system with no loopholes. Reasonable exceptions would include, for example, transfers of guns within families, or by wills, or to people who have a valid state-issued gun permit issued within the last five years that meets or exceeds the Federal background check standard.
The Mayor and Martin Luther King III were joined by a number of survivors and family members of gun violence victims to call attention to the fact that 34 people in the United States lose their lives to gun violence every day. Among them were: Tom Mauser, father of Daniel Mauser, a victim of the 1999 Columbine High School tragedy; Omar and Randa Samaha, whose sister was shot and killed at Virginia Tech in 2007; Lynnette Alameddine, whose son was killed at Virginia Tech in 2007; Lori Haas, whose daughter survived 2 gun shots in the back of the head at Virginia Tech; and Jeannette Richardson, whose son was killed in the front yard of her home in Virginia in 2003; Toby Hoover, whose husband, Dale Stone, was shot in 1973 in Ohio; Sally Sheasby, whose son was shot and killed in Ohio in 2005; Deborah Sohovich, whose son was shot and killed in Columbus, Ohio; Rebecca Pryor, whose friend was shot and killed in Pennsylvania; Rev. Donald and Kim Odom, parents of Steven Odom who was shot and killed in 2007; and Bryan Miller, brother of Mike Miller, an FBI agent who was shot and killed in 1994 and director of public advocacy for Heeding God's Call.
New York City area family members and survivors include: Steven and Patty McDonald, Steven is a NYPD police officer who was shot in the line of duty, his wife, Patty McDonald, is the Mayor of Malverne, NY; Vada Vasquez, a student at Bronx Latin High School who was shot as she walked home from school in 2009; Tatyana Timoshenko, mother of Russel Timoshenko, an NYPD officer who was shot and killed in 2007; Kenny McLaughlin, a teacher at Grand Street Campus High School in Brooklyn, who was shot during a 1996 mugging in Brooklyn; Arlene and Jack Locicero, parents of Amy Locicero Federici, who was shot and killed in the 1993 Long Island Rail Road massacre; Gloria Cruz, whose 10-year niece was shot and killed, and established the Bronx chapter of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence; Devorah Halberstam , whose son was murdered in 1994 in a terrorist attack on the Brooklyn Bridge; and Shaina Harrison, whose cousin was shot and killed in 2009 and is working with New Yorkers Against Gun Violence.
Also, joining the group was Rev. James Coen, Pastor of the Oak Ridge Presbyterian Church, where Phyllis Schneck, one of the Tucson victims was an active member.
www.fixgunc h ecks.org
Mayors Against Illegal Guns today launched a new online advocacy campaign, www.fixgunchecks.org to call attention to the glaring problems in our nation's gun background check system, and allow citizens to join a movement to fix it.
Poll Finds Strong Support for Common Sense Improvements
The week after the Tucson shooting Mayors Against Illegal Guns released the results of a poll conducted jointly by Momentum Analysis, a polling firm with Democratic clients, and American Viewpoint, a polling firm with Republican clients. The poll reveals that Americans and gun owners strongly support a sensible approach to gun laws that protects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans while also keeping criminals and other dangerous people from accessing firearms.
The poll of over 1,000 registered voters was conducted the week after the Tucson shooting. According to the poll, 90 percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners support fixing gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns. Also according to the poll, 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from.
-----
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 time has clearly come to finally fulfill the intent of the common sense gun law passed after the 1968 assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bobby Kennedy, by creating a loophole-free background check system for the sale of firearms," said Mayor Bloomberg. "Every day, 34 Americans are murdered with guns – and most of them are purchased or possessed illegally."
"There are those who fail to truly read the 2nd amendment," said Mayor Menino. "They ignore the need for a common sense approach to guns in our communities. The best way to respond to the heinous acts of violence we have seen in our nation's history is to prevent them from ever happening again. Lax screening in response to these tragic shootings is no virtue."
"For decades we have tolerated senseless gun violence, which has struck down too many of our fellow citizens, particularly our young people," said Martin Luther King III, President and CEO of the King Center. "If we want to create a nonviolent society, we must enforce our public safety laws to keep the angry and dangerous few from destroying the peace and harmony of the many. I wholeheartedly join Mayor Bloomberg in calling on the President and Congress to finally deliver on the long unfilled promise to make sure that every gun buyer passes a background check. It is unconscionable to do anything less."
"President Kennedy and Senator Robert Kennedy, my uncle and my father, dedicated their lives to serving their country," said Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland and eldest child of Robert F. Kennedy. "But because of assassins armed with guns, they both made the ultimate sacrifice, and their lives of service were cut short. The 34 Americans whose lives are cut short by a gun each day may not be presidents or senators, but each life is a future cut short, a life of accomplishments left undone, and a family torn apart. We owe a duty to each victim to make their life, and their sacrifice, a part of the national movement to fix our gun background check system so it is thorough, complete and comprehensive."
"We've learned from recent shootings that it is vital that the federal gun background check system have accurate and complete information on people prohibited from possessing firearms," said former Attorney General Michael Mukasey. "President Bush supported and Congress passed a piece of the necessary reform in 2007 after Virginia Tech, and it has had a significant impact by more than tripling the number of mental health records in the system. But it is clear, particularly after Tucson, that it was just one step on a longer path toward the effective and comprehensive background check system we need. I applaud America's mayors for their efforts to build a better system."
"As Governor of Vermont, I received an A-rating from the NRA and I strongly support the right of law-abiding Americans to own a gun," said Howard Dean. "I also believe with equal strength that felons, drug abusers, and the mentally ill have no right to guns. In fact, that's been the law in our country for 43 years since the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. What we need now is a background check system that works to enforce the law – one that ensures that every record is in the system that belongs there and that every gun buyer goes through a background check. I stand with America's mayors in their effort to make the system work."
Historic 1968 Legislation
In 1968, after the assassinations of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Congress, at the urging of President Johnson, passed a law establishing the common-sense concept that certain categories of people including convicted felons, the mentally ill, and known drug abusers should not be allowed to possess or purchase guns.
Because no system was created for actually translating its intent into reality, the effectiveness of the 1968 act was undermined. It was not until 1993, when President Clinton signed the Brady Bill, that a national instant background check system, designed to prevent mentally unbalanced people from obtaining firearms, was created to help enforce the 1968 law.
It has become clear that the Brady Bill was not enough to fulfill the intent of the historic 1968 gun law. The Columbine High School shooters used guns that were purchased without a background check at a gun show. The Virginia Tech shooter passed a background check when he should have failed it due to his record of mental health problems.
In April 2007, after the Virginia Tech massacre which claimed the lives of 32 people, Congress passed the NICS Improvement Act to submit all the required records into the background check system. Congress has failed to provide enough funding to support these efforts. In FY 2010, Congress allocated $20 million to support state initiatives to submit records to the background check system, only 5% of the $375 million authorized by the NICS Improvement Act.
Millions of records of individuals who are prohibited by law from buying guns are still missing from the database. Ten states have not submitted any mental health records to NICS and 18 states have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records.
Two Simple Ideas
Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan coalition of more than 550 mayors, proposes that the U.S. fulfill the intent of the 1968 law by fixing the broken background check system.
First, the system should contain all the records of felony convictions, domestic violence incidents, drug history, and determinations of mental illness that would prevent those categories of troubled people from buying guns. The new Congress should set a goal of getting this job finished within three years.
Second, Congress should subject every gun sale to a background check by closing the loopholes that permit guns to be sold without them. Licensed gun dealers are covered by the Brady Bill. But "occasional sellers," for example those that sell firearms at gun shows, through classified ads or even on the internet, do not have to conduct background checks. The only way to prevent guns from falling into the hands of violent criminals, the mentally unstable, and other already prohibited dangerous persons is through a comprehensive national background check system with no loopholes. Reasonable exceptions would include, for example, transfers of guns within families, or by wills, or to people who have a valid state-issued gun permit issued within the last five years that meets or exceeds the Federal background check standard.
The Mayor and Martin Luther King III were joined by a number of survivors and family members of gun violence victims to call attention to the fact that 34 people in the United States lose their lives to gun violence every day. Among them were: Tom Mauser, father of Daniel Mauser, a victim of the 1999 Columbine High School tragedy; Omar and Randa Samaha, whose sister was shot and killed at Virginia Tech in 2007; Lynnette Alameddine, whose son was killed at Virginia Tech in 2007; Lori Haas, whose daughter survived 2 gun shots in the back of the head at Virginia Tech; and Jeannette Richardson, whose son was killed in the front yard of her home in Virginia in 2003; Toby Hoover, whose husband, Dale Stone, was shot in 1973 in Ohio; Sally Sheasby, whose son was shot and killed in Ohio in 2005; Deborah Sohovich, whose son was shot and killed in Columbus, Ohio; Rebecca Pryor, whose friend was shot and killed in Pennsylvania; Rev. Donald and Kim Odom, parents of Steven Odom who was shot and killed in 2007; and Bryan Miller, brother of Mike Miller, an FBI agent who was shot and killed in 1994 and director of public advocacy for Heeding God's Call.
New York City area family members and survivors include: Steven and Patty McDonald, Steven is a NYPD police officer who was shot in the line of duty, his wife, Patty McDonald, is the Mayor of Malverne, NY; Vada Vasquez, a student at Bronx Latin High School who was shot as she walked home from school in 2009; Tatyana Timoshenko, mother of Russel Timoshenko, an NYPD officer who was shot and killed in 2007; Kenny McLaughlin, a teacher at Grand Street Campus High School in Brooklyn, who was shot during a 1996 mugging in Brooklyn; Arlene and Jack Locicero, parents of Amy Locicero Federici, who was shot and killed in the 1993 Long Island Rail Road massacre; Gloria Cruz, whose 10-year niece was shot and killed, and established the Bronx chapter of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence; Devorah Halberstam , whose son was murdered in 1994 in a terrorist attack on the Brooklyn Bridge; and Shaina Harrison, whose cousin was shot and killed in 2009 and is working with New Yorkers Against Gun Violence.
Also, joining the group was Rev. James Coen, Pastor of the Oak Ridge Presbyterian Church, where Phyllis Schneck, one of the Tucson victims was an active member.
www.fixgunc h ecks.org
Mayors Against Illegal Guns today launched a new online advocacy campaign, www.fixgunchecks.org to call attention to the glaring problems in our nation's gun background check system, and allow citizens to join a movement to fix it.
Poll Finds Strong Support for Common Sense Improvements
The week after the Tucson shooting Mayors Against Illegal Guns released the results of a poll conducted jointly by Momentum Analysis, a polling firm with Democratic clients, and American Viewpoint, a polling firm with Republican clients. The poll reveals that Americans and gun owners strongly support a sensible approach to gun laws that protects the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans while also keeping criminals and other dangerous people from accessing firearms.
The poll of over 1,000 registered voters was conducted the week after the Tucson shooting. According to the poll, 90 percent of Americans and 90 percent of gun owners support fixing gaps in government databases that are meant to prevent the mentally ill, drug abusers and others from buying guns. Also according to the poll, 86 percent of Americans and 81 percent of gun owners support requiring all gun buyers to pass a background check, no matter where they buy the gun and no matter who they buy it from.
-----
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, January 7, 2011
Taxing the Internet
Remember the days when state taxes were not paid when you ordered that favorite item online? It seems like times are changing. How soon before all states tax the internet? What do you think about this?
Internet Tax Bill Passed in Illinois
/PRNewswire/ -- The Internet Tax Bill (HB 3659) was passed in the Illinois Senate on January 5, by the House of Representatives on January 6 and brought to the Governor, who may sign it into a law as early as Friday, January 7.
The tax legislation relates to out-of-state merchants like Amazon.com and Overstock.com that do not have a physical presence in Illinois but have relationships with Illinois advertisers and publishers like CouponCabin.com. By this law, these merchants are deemed to have a presence (nexus) in Illinois and are therefore required to collect Illinois sales tax.
The goal of this is to increase tax revenue for the state, but what has happened in the four states that have passed similar laws (New York, Colorado, North Carolina and Rhode Island) is that instead of collecting sales tax, these merchants have severed their relationships with publishers in that state. Twelve other states have rejected similar legislation.
Statement from Scott Kluth, Founder and President of CouponCabin.com:
"Needless to say, we are disappointed by the passing of the legislation today. It was disheartening that both Houses passed this bill in 30 hours without a full and fair opportunity for the voice of Illinois small businesses to be heard. CouponCabin has been rapidly growing for the past several years; in fact, in November, we were only 12% behind Groupon's monthly traffic. For the third straight year, our staff has doubled in size and has already grown by 12% in the first week of 2011. Unfortunately, this bill will do significant harm to our growth by cutting our business by nearly one-third. Chicago has been an amazing home for CouponCabin for more than seven years. We are grounded in the community with our business and our charitable work and have no plans to leave. We hope the State will see that this bill will fail to achieve its revenue-raising goal, and instead cause drastic hardship for small businesses like ours. We know from other states' experience that the tax revenue does not materialize. Should this bill become a law, Internet affiliate jobs will be lost with no increase in state revenue. The other states that have passed this are moving to repeal it for this exact reason. We hope consideration will be given to the impact on small businesses before this bill becomes a law."
------
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
Internet Tax Bill Passed in Illinois
/PRNewswire/ -- The Internet Tax Bill (HB 3659) was passed in the Illinois Senate on January 5, by the House of Representatives on January 6 and brought to the Governor, who may sign it into a law as early as Friday, January 7.
The tax legislation relates to out-of-state merchants like Amazon.com and Overstock.com that do not have a physical presence in Illinois but have relationships with Illinois advertisers and publishers like CouponCabin.com. By this law, these merchants are deemed to have a presence (nexus) in Illinois and are therefore required to collect Illinois sales tax.
The goal of this is to increase tax revenue for the state, but what has happened in the four states that have passed similar laws (New York, Colorado, North Carolina and Rhode Island) is that instead of collecting sales tax, these merchants have severed their relationships with publishers in that state. Twelve other states have rejected similar legislation.
Statement from Scott Kluth, Founder and President of CouponCabin.com:
"Needless to say, we are disappointed by the passing of the legislation today. It was disheartening that both Houses passed this bill in 30 hours without a full and fair opportunity for the voice of Illinois small businesses to be heard. CouponCabin has been rapidly growing for the past several years; in fact, in November, we were only 12% behind Groupon's monthly traffic. For the third straight year, our staff has doubled in size and has already grown by 12% in the first week of 2011. Unfortunately, this bill will do significant harm to our growth by cutting our business by nearly one-third. Chicago has been an amazing home for CouponCabin for more than seven years. We are grounded in the community with our business and our charitable work and have no plans to leave. We hope the State will see that this bill will fail to achieve its revenue-raising goal, and instead cause drastic hardship for small businesses like ours. We know from other states' experience that the tax revenue does not materialize. Should this bill become a law, Internet affiliate jobs will be lost with no increase in state revenue. The other states that have passed this are moving to repeal it for this exact reason. We hope consideration will be given to the impact on small businesses before this bill becomes a law."
------
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, December 6, 2010
One Nation Divided Over Health-Care Reform
/PRNewswire/ -- Americans remain deeply divided over the nation's new health-care reform package, with 40 percent of adults wanting to repeal all or most of the legislation while 31 percent favor keeping all or most of the reforms.
Another 29 percent aren't sure what should be done.
Those are several key findings in a new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll released today.
The conflicting views reflect divisions in Congress, where Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives in January following election gains at the polls last month. Many GOP representatives have pledged to dismantle—or, at the very least, curtail—the controversial legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama in March.
But the poll also uncovered an intriguing paradox: Many of those who want the health-reform law repealed favor keeping many of its key components.
Specifically, nearly two-thirds of poll respondents like that the law prevents insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Sixty percent want to keep the provision of tax credits for small businesses that provide their employees with health insurance. While just over half support the law for allowing children to remain on their parents insurance until they are 26.
The poll released today surveyed 2,019 adults online between November 19-23, 2010 by Harris Interactive, one of the world's leading custom market research firms, and HealthDay, a leading producer and syndicator of health news.
"Additional poll results indicate that many Americans want to repeal the bill not because they dislike the specifics, but because they feel it is an expensive expansion of an already big government," said Humphrey Taylor, chairman of The Harris Poll, Harris Interactive's long-running public opinion poll. He continues, "81% believe it will it result in higher taxes, could lead to rationing of health care (74%), and reduce the quality of care they will receive (77%)."
Perhaps part of the explanation for this paradox was seen in a previous HealthDay/Harris Interactive poll which discovered that Americans have little knowledge of the specifics of the more than 2,500-page law. "There's a substantial gap in the general public understanding [but] the more informed people are, the more they understand," said Thomas R. Oliver, professor of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison.
"I think this suggests that as the public becomes more familiar with the law and how it will benefit them and their families, support will probably climb," said Sara Collins, vice president for Affordable Health Insurance at The Commonwealth Fund. She continues, "There's just a lag while immediate provisions are rolling out like young adult coverage."
The complete findings of the newest joint Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll are available. HealthDay's news report is available here. Full data on the poll and its methodology are available at Harris Interactive.
Methodology
This survey was conducted online within the United States November 19 to 23, 2010 among 2,019 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents' propensity to be online.
All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words "margin of error" as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.
Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.
-----
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
Another 29 percent aren't sure what should be done.
Those are several key findings in a new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll released today.
The conflicting views reflect divisions in Congress, where Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives in January following election gains at the polls last month. Many GOP representatives have pledged to dismantle—or, at the very least, curtail—the controversial legislation signed into law by President Barack Obama in March.
But the poll also uncovered an intriguing paradox: Many of those who want the health-reform law repealed favor keeping many of its key components.
Specifically, nearly two-thirds of poll respondents like that the law prevents insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Sixty percent want to keep the provision of tax credits for small businesses that provide their employees with health insurance. While just over half support the law for allowing children to remain on their parents insurance until they are 26.
The poll released today surveyed 2,019 adults online between November 19-23, 2010 by Harris Interactive, one of the world's leading custom market research firms, and HealthDay, a leading producer and syndicator of health news.
"Additional poll results indicate that many Americans want to repeal the bill not because they dislike the specifics, but because they feel it is an expensive expansion of an already big government," said Humphrey Taylor, chairman of The Harris Poll, Harris Interactive's long-running public opinion poll. He continues, "81% believe it will it result in higher taxes, could lead to rationing of health care (74%), and reduce the quality of care they will receive (77%)."
Perhaps part of the explanation for this paradox was seen in a previous HealthDay/Harris Interactive poll which discovered that Americans have little knowledge of the specifics of the more than 2,500-page law. "There's a substantial gap in the general public understanding [but] the more informed people are, the more they understand," said Thomas R. Oliver, professor of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison.
"I think this suggests that as the public becomes more familiar with the law and how it will benefit them and their families, support will probably climb," said Sara Collins, vice president for Affordable Health Insurance at The Commonwealth Fund. She continues, "There's just a lag while immediate provisions are rolling out like young adult coverage."
The complete findings of the newest joint Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll are available. HealthDay's news report is available here. Full data on the poll and its methodology are available at Harris Interactive.
Methodology
This survey was conducted online within the United States November 19 to 23, 2010 among 2,019 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents' propensity to be online.
All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words "margin of error" as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.
Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.
-----
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
Saturday, July 31, 2010
House Passage of Melancon Amended Bill to Provide $1.2 Billion for Gulf Restoration Praised
/PRNewswire/ -- Five conservation groups praised the U.S. House of Representatives for passing a bill July 30 that includes an amendment authored by Congressman Charlie Melancon (D-La.) that would provide up to $1.2 billion in funding for Gulf Coast restoration projects. The amendment provides funding for a "Gulf Coast Restoration Program" in Title V of the Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources Act (CLEAR Act/H.R. 3534). The amendment is fully paid for by a portion of BP's penalties for violating the Clean Water Act (CWA), so it doesn't increase the deficit.
"The BP oil spill has imperiled the Gulf Coast and its impacts will be felt for years to come by the communities, wildlife, and the environment," said a joint statement by the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Environmental Defense Fund, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, National Audubon Society, and National Wildlife Federation. "Much of the oil in the marshes simply can't be cleaned up. Congressman Melancon's amendment recognizes that the long term solution to cleaning the marshes is to bring self-sustaining health back to this ecosystem through long-term investments in restoration. We thank Louisiana Congressmen Melancon and Steve Scalise (R-La.) for working together to ensure bipartisan support for this amendment, and we're grateful to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar, Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) and the House leadership for their help to pass the amendment."
HR 3534 creates a restoration task force, comprising the five Gulf Coast governors and representatives of relevant federal agencies. Nine months after the legislation's enactment into law, the task force must submit a detailed Gulf of Mexico Restoration plan. Upon completion, the plan will be submitted to Congress, which will then fund listed projects. The funded projects will be large-scale restoration projects, endorsed by the Gulf Coast governors and federal agency heads.
"These projects will benefit all regions of the Gulf Coast and provide a restoration framework that will restore water quality, protect people, wildlife and reintroduce resilience into the coastal wetlands in the face of the oil spill," the groups concluded. "Nearly five years ago, our nation learned during Hurricane Katrina the important role Gulf Coast wetlands play in protecting people and communities from devastating storms. Now, in the face of the BP spill, America has come to understand the importance of a healthy Gulf ecosystem to wildlife, the economy, and the culture of the region."
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"The BP oil spill has imperiled the Gulf Coast and its impacts will be felt for years to come by the communities, wildlife, and the environment," said a joint statement by the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Environmental Defense Fund, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation, National Audubon Society, and National Wildlife Federation. "Much of the oil in the marshes simply can't be cleaned up. Congressman Melancon's amendment recognizes that the long term solution to cleaning the marshes is to bring self-sustaining health back to this ecosystem through long-term investments in restoration. We thank Louisiana Congressmen Melancon and Steve Scalise (R-La.) for working together to ensure bipartisan support for this amendment, and we're grateful to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar, Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) and the House leadership for their help to pass the amendment."
HR 3534 creates a restoration task force, comprising the five Gulf Coast governors and representatives of relevant federal agencies. Nine months after the legislation's enactment into law, the task force must submit a detailed Gulf of Mexico Restoration plan. Upon completion, the plan will be submitted to Congress, which will then fund listed projects. The funded projects will be large-scale restoration projects, endorsed by the Gulf Coast governors and federal agency heads.
"These projects will benefit all regions of the Gulf Coast and provide a restoration framework that will restore water quality, protect people, wildlife and reintroduce resilience into the coastal wetlands in the face of the oil spill," the groups concluded. "Nearly five years ago, our nation learned during Hurricane Katrina the important role Gulf Coast wetlands play in protecting people and communities from devastating storms. Now, in the face of the BP spill, America has come to understand the importance of a healthy Gulf ecosystem to wildlife, the economy, and the culture of the region."
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Rep. Chris Smith's New Bill is Necessary to Restore Abortion Funding Neutrality
/PRNewswire/ -- D.C. Family Research Council Action today praised U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) for introducing bipartisan legislation to codify federal abortion funding restrictions that have been greatly undermined this year. With passage of a health care law that will fund and subsidize abortion, and with efforts by pro-abortion senators to open up military bases to abortion, Rep. Smith is introducing legislation to enact a government-wide abortion funding ban.
Family Research Council Action Senior Vice President Tom McClusky praised the bill with the following comments:
"In the last year, we have seen President Obama and pro-abortion congressional leaders make repeated attempts to eviscerate the long-agreed line on federal funding of abortion. They began by enacting the abortion funding health care law and are now advancing an abortion agenda that includes turning our military hospitals into abortion facilities.
"The American people have responded swiftly and emphatically that their hard earned dollars should not be used to pay for other peoples abortions. We applaud Congressman Smith and numerous Members on both sides of the aisle for responding to the concerns of the American people by introducing a measure that applies an abortion funding ban across the federal government.
"The American people, regardless of their views of abortion's legality, should not be forced to pay for someone's abortion. The Smith bill would protect the American taxpayer and restore the traditional ban on government funding of elective abortion.
"Despite recent claims by the Department of Health and Human Services that it will not fund abortion, even the non-partisan Congressional Research Service agreed yesterday that there is no statutory prohibition on funding abortion in the high risk pools. Both pro-life and pro-abortion groups agree that the courts are likely to require federal abortion funding unless the law says differently which is why passage of Congressman Smith's abortion funding neutrality bill is so essential.
"We applaud all the Democrats and Republicans cosponsoring the Smith abortion funding ban, and urge all Americans to support this commonsense effort to restore government funding neutrality on abortion," concluded McClusky.
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Family Research Council Action Senior Vice President Tom McClusky praised the bill with the following comments:
"In the last year, we have seen President Obama and pro-abortion congressional leaders make repeated attempts to eviscerate the long-agreed line on federal funding of abortion. They began by enacting the abortion funding health care law and are now advancing an abortion agenda that includes turning our military hospitals into abortion facilities.
"The American people have responded swiftly and emphatically that their hard earned dollars should not be used to pay for other peoples abortions. We applaud Congressman Smith and numerous Members on both sides of the aisle for responding to the concerns of the American people by introducing a measure that applies an abortion funding ban across the federal government.
"The American people, regardless of their views of abortion's legality, should not be forced to pay for someone's abortion. The Smith bill would protect the American taxpayer and restore the traditional ban on government funding of elective abortion.
"Despite recent claims by the Department of Health and Human Services that it will not fund abortion, even the non-partisan Congressional Research Service agreed yesterday that there is no statutory prohibition on funding abortion in the high risk pools. Both pro-life and pro-abortion groups agree that the courts are likely to require federal abortion funding unless the law says differently which is why passage of Congressman Smith's abortion funding neutrality bill is so essential.
"We applaud all the Democrats and Republicans cosponsoring the Smith abortion funding ban, and urge all Americans to support this commonsense effort to restore government funding neutrality on abortion," concluded McClusky.
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Friday, July 23, 2010
NACD Concerned with Toxic Chemicals Safety Act
/PRNewswire/ -- The National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) is deeply concerned with the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act (H.R. 5820) and the impact it will have on the entire United States economy. H.R. 5820 mandates a series of new standards and regulations that would be simply unworkable for chemical distributors and their customers, increasing costs for consumers while sacrificing jobs.
"NACD had hoped that lawmakers would work towards creating a true risk-based system that would continue to encourage innovation and growth in our nation's chemical industry while emphasizing the safety of our nation's citizens," said NACD President Chris Jahn. "While NACD appreciates the introduction of H.R. 5820 as one step in this process, the legislation introduced unfortunately creates a system far too burdensome and unworkable for the chemical distribution industry and its customers."
"We applaud Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Bobby Rush (D-IL) for taking this step towards modernizing our nation's chemical management system, and thank them for reaching out to industry groups like NACD," said Jahn. "However, we hope that is just a first of many steps that will continue in this Congress and the next towards reforming our nation's chemical safety laws."
In particular, NACD is greatly concerned with the treatment of mixtures and products containing mixtures, as well as a lack of adequate protection of confidential business information.
"As a result of H.R. 5820, not only would chemical distribution companies be significantly impacted, but their customers as well," said Jahn. "NACD members distribute products to over 750,000 industrial customers, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and personal care, food and beverage, and textiles. All customers of chemical distribution companies would feel the negative effects of this legislation."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"NACD had hoped that lawmakers would work towards creating a true risk-based system that would continue to encourage innovation and growth in our nation's chemical industry while emphasizing the safety of our nation's citizens," said NACD President Chris Jahn. "While NACD appreciates the introduction of H.R. 5820 as one step in this process, the legislation introduced unfortunately creates a system far too burdensome and unworkable for the chemical distribution industry and its customers."
"We applaud Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Bobby Rush (D-IL) for taking this step towards modernizing our nation's chemical management system, and thank them for reaching out to industry groups like NACD," said Jahn. "However, we hope that is just a first of many steps that will continue in this Congress and the next towards reforming our nation's chemical safety laws."
In particular, NACD is greatly concerned with the treatment of mixtures and products containing mixtures, as well as a lack of adequate protection of confidential business information.
"As a result of H.R. 5820, not only would chemical distribution companies be significantly impacted, but their customers as well," said Jahn. "NACD members distribute products to over 750,000 industrial customers, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and personal care, food and beverage, and textiles. All customers of chemical distribution companies would feel the negative effects of this legislation."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Friday, June 4, 2010
Statement by the President on the Extension of Benefits to Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Federal Employees
“Last year, I issued a Presidential Memorandum that instructed the Office of Personnel Management and the Secretary of State to extend certain available benefits they had identified to gay & lesbian federal employees and their families under their respective jurisdictions. Among those benefits were long-term care insurance and expanded sick leave for civil service employees and medical care abroad, eligibility for employment at posts, cost-of-living adjustments abroad and medical evacuation for domestic partners of foreign service members. In that same Memorandum, I called upon the federal agencies to undertake a comprehensive review and to identify any additional benefits that could be extended to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees under existing law. That process has now concluded, and I am proud to announce that earlier today, I signed a Memorandum that requires Executive agencies to take immediate action to extend to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees a number of meaningful benefits, from family assistance services to hardship transfers to relocation expenses. It also requires agencies that extend any new benefits to employees’ opposite-sex spouses to make those benefits available on equal terms to employees’ same-sex domestic partners to the extent permitted by law.
While this Memorandum is an important step on the path to equality, my Administration continues to be prevented by existing Federal law from providing same-sex domestic partners with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. That is why, today, I renew my call for swift passage of an important piece of legislation pending in both Houses of Congress—the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. This legislation, championed by Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, would extend to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees the full range of benefits currently enjoyed by Federal employees’ opposite-sex spouses. I look forward to signing it into law.”
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
While this Memorandum is an important step on the path to equality, my Administration continues to be prevented by existing Federal law from providing same-sex domestic partners with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. That is why, today, I renew my call for swift passage of an important piece of legislation pending in both Houses of Congress—the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act. This legislation, championed by Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, would extend to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees the full range of benefits currently enjoyed by Federal employees’ opposite-sex spouses. I look forward to signing it into law.”
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Senate Fix Needed to Meet White House Promise That Financial Reform Won't Weaken State Insurance Regulation
/PRNewswire/ -- Financial reform legislation must be amended to preserve states' ability to protect insurance consumers and bring the bill in line with White House comments yesterday targeting potential industry loopholes in financial reform, said Consumer Watchdog today.
White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer blogged a list of the '10 Most Wanted Lobbyist Loopholes' in the financial reform bill yesterday. He warned against efforts to exempt the insurance industry from new information collection requirements and notes that the bill does not change states' authority to regulate insurance. However language in the legislation currently under consideration in the Senate would grant the Treasury Department broad new authority to preempt state insurance laws and regulations on behalf of foreign insurance companies.
Pfeiffer wrote: "Insurance is regulated by the states, not the federal government - and this bill doesn't change that. But this bill would give the Treasury Department the ability to collect information from insurance companies so that it can help identify emerging risks before they blow up the financial system - like AIG."
Consumer advocates point to language in the main Senate proposal that would allow federal preemption of state insurance laws and are calling for an amendment to bring the bill in line with White House position on this issue.
"The Senate bill would allow Treasury to roll back strong state insurance protections on behalf of foreign insurance firms. It must be amended to meet White House assurances that state oversight of insurance will not be harmed. Insurance deregulation should not be the end result of the Senate's financial re-regulation package," said Carmen Balber, Washington Director for Consumer Watchdog.
An amendment offered by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and supported by Consumer Watchdog would narrow the broad scope of insurance preemption in the bill to help preserve state insurance regulation and give Congress and the states more input into insurance agreements negotiated by Treasury.
The current Senate provisions would allow Treasury to negotiate new insurance policy through international agreements and behind closed doors, with no input from Congress, state regulators or insurance consumers. Treasury need not consider states' regulatory goals, potential gaps in insurance regulation, or protect insurance consumers in negotiating such agreements. Agreements could then be used to preempt state insurance protections, including capital, solvency and other prudential laws, on behalf of foreign insurers. The states would have no authority to challenge unilateral preemption decisions by Treasury on the merits. Even state laws that treat all insurance companies equally could be subject to preemption. And the current language threatens to subject state insurance laws to preemption under deregulatory constraints contained in existing trade agreements.
"A Senate fix is necessary to preserve states' ability to protect insurance consumers," said Balber.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer blogged a list of the '10 Most Wanted Lobbyist Loopholes' in the financial reform bill yesterday. He warned against efforts to exempt the insurance industry from new information collection requirements and notes that the bill does not change states' authority to regulate insurance. However language in the legislation currently under consideration in the Senate would grant the Treasury Department broad new authority to preempt state insurance laws and regulations on behalf of foreign insurance companies.
Pfeiffer wrote: "Insurance is regulated by the states, not the federal government - and this bill doesn't change that. But this bill would give the Treasury Department the ability to collect information from insurance companies so that it can help identify emerging risks before they blow up the financial system - like AIG."
Consumer advocates point to language in the main Senate proposal that would allow federal preemption of state insurance laws and are calling for an amendment to bring the bill in line with White House position on this issue.
"The Senate bill would allow Treasury to roll back strong state insurance protections on behalf of foreign insurance firms. It must be amended to meet White House assurances that state oversight of insurance will not be harmed. Insurance deregulation should not be the end result of the Senate's financial re-regulation package," said Carmen Balber, Washington Director for Consumer Watchdog.
An amendment offered by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and supported by Consumer Watchdog would narrow the broad scope of insurance preemption in the bill to help preserve state insurance regulation and give Congress and the states more input into insurance agreements negotiated by Treasury.
The current Senate provisions would allow Treasury to negotiate new insurance policy through international agreements and behind closed doors, with no input from Congress, state regulators or insurance consumers. Treasury need not consider states' regulatory goals, potential gaps in insurance regulation, or protect insurance consumers in negotiating such agreements. Agreements could then be used to preempt state insurance protections, including capital, solvency and other prudential laws, on behalf of foreign insurers. The states would have no authority to challenge unilateral preemption decisions by Treasury on the merits. Even state laws that treat all insurance companies equally could be subject to preemption. And the current language threatens to subject state insurance laws to preemption under deregulatory constraints contained in existing trade agreements.
"A Senate fix is necessary to preserve states' ability to protect insurance consumers," said Balber.
-----
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
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Senate Jobs Bill Does Not Require that Employers Hire American Workers
/PRNewswire/ -- A $15 billion package of tax credits and exemptions for employers who create new jobs is expected to gain approval by the Senate this week. However, the bill, intended to help millions of unemployed American workers find jobs, includes no verification mechanism to ensure that newly created jobs will actually be filled by legal U.S. workers. Moreover, it does not prevent employers from claiming tax credits and exemptions if the workers they hire are illegal aliens, charges the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
The legislation, authored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), does not require employers to use the federal E-Verify system to ensure that the workers being hired are legally eligible to work in the United States. Under an executive order issued by President Bush and implemented by President Obama, all federal contractors are already required to use E-Verify and the same requirement could easily have be applied to employers claiming tax credits and exemptions. In 2009, Sen. Reid stripped an E-Verify requirement from the $787 billion stimulus package that had been approved by the House when the bill went before a conference committee.
"It is unconscionable that while some 25 million Americans are unemployed or relegated to part-time work, the Senate is refusing to include protections that would guarantee that newly-created jobs are filled by Americans who desperately need them," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "The failure to include E-Verify protections in the bill is not an oversight on the part of Sen. Reid. He has consistently blocked efforts to prevent employers who receive government contracts or tax benefits from hiring illegal aliens instead of legal U.S. workers."
Under the Senate legislation, employers who fill newly created jobs with illegal aliens or guest workers would be entitled to the same tax credits and exemptions as employers who hire out-of-work Americans. Even if the employer were subsequently prosecuted for employing illegal aliens, the employer could legitimately claim these tax benefits for hiring them.
Because Sen. Reid has barred any amendments from being considered when the bill goes to the Senate floor, it will be virtually impossible for members to add E-Verify protections for American workers. "The excuse being offered for not including E-Verify in the legislation and barring its inclusion in the final language is laughable," Stein said. "Opponents of inclusion of an E-Verify provision claim it is unnecessary because existing laws already bar employers from hiring illegal aliens. This claim ignores the fact that an estimated 8 million illegal aliens already hold jobs in the U.S.
"Unemployed Americans have a right to expect that they will be the beneficiaries of any jobs created as a result of this bill. American taxpayers who will be footing the bill for this and other legislation have a right to expect that their money will help put Americans back to work," Stein continued. "These expectations could be easily fulfilled by requiring the use of E-Verify and barring employers who do not hire legal U.S. workers from receiving tax benefits - something Reid and Senate Democrats are refusing to do."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
The legislation, authored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), does not require employers to use the federal E-Verify system to ensure that the workers being hired are legally eligible to work in the United States. Under an executive order issued by President Bush and implemented by President Obama, all federal contractors are already required to use E-Verify and the same requirement could easily have be applied to employers claiming tax credits and exemptions. In 2009, Sen. Reid stripped an E-Verify requirement from the $787 billion stimulus package that had been approved by the House when the bill went before a conference committee.
"It is unconscionable that while some 25 million Americans are unemployed or relegated to part-time work, the Senate is refusing to include protections that would guarantee that newly-created jobs are filled by Americans who desperately need them," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "The failure to include E-Verify protections in the bill is not an oversight on the part of Sen. Reid. He has consistently blocked efforts to prevent employers who receive government contracts or tax benefits from hiring illegal aliens instead of legal U.S. workers."
Under the Senate legislation, employers who fill newly created jobs with illegal aliens or guest workers would be entitled to the same tax credits and exemptions as employers who hire out-of-work Americans. Even if the employer were subsequently prosecuted for employing illegal aliens, the employer could legitimately claim these tax benefits for hiring them.
Because Sen. Reid has barred any amendments from being considered when the bill goes to the Senate floor, it will be virtually impossible for members to add E-Verify protections for American workers. "The excuse being offered for not including E-Verify in the legislation and barring its inclusion in the final language is laughable," Stein said. "Opponents of inclusion of an E-Verify provision claim it is unnecessary because existing laws already bar employers from hiring illegal aliens. This claim ignores the fact that an estimated 8 million illegal aliens already hold jobs in the U.S.
"Unemployed Americans have a right to expect that they will be the beneficiaries of any jobs created as a result of this bill. American taxpayers who will be footing the bill for this and other legislation have a right to expect that their money will help put Americans back to work," Stein continued. "These expectations could be easily fulfilled by requiring the use of E-Verify and barring employers who do not hire legal U.S. workers from receiving tax benefits - something Reid and Senate Democrats are refusing to do."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act Reaches Majority of Majority in US House
/PRNewswire/ -- On Thursday, the House Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826), championed by House Democratic Caucus Chairman John B. Larson (D-Conn.), gained its 134th co-sponsor, pushing the number of supporters to more than half of the Democratic Caucus. This high level of support is a sign of the growing momentum for changing the way campaigns are financed in this country, according to Public Campaign and Common Cause.
"The country needs both parties to work to solve the political crisis created by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, and the bipartisan solution that has the broadest support within Congress is Fair Elections," said Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign. "Not only is it the best policy response to the escalating cost to run for office, it will take candidates off the fundraising treadmill and encourage them to seek support from voters back home. This bill is democracy-in-action."
"The Supreme Court has left no room for doubt that we need a campaign finance system that makes elected officials beholden to the people they're supposed to represent instead of the wealthy special interests," said Common Cause President Bob Edgar. "The Fair Elections Now Act would do that."
In the two weeks since the Citizens United decision was released, the groups have stormed the Hill, working with others to mount a significant campaign to:
-- Organize a letter of 41 top business executives to House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
urging them to include Fair Elections in any legislative package.
-- Deliver 177,716 petition signatures to district and Capitol Hill
offices for both House members and Senators.
-- Place nearly 5,000 calls to targeted congressional offices.
-- Line up more than 200 faith leaders, including prominent individuals
within denominations, to sign a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Majority
Leader Reid to urge that the response to Citizens United include Fair
Elections.
-- Brief more than 100 congressional offices on Fair Elections.
-- Launched a "fax" day today, when thousands of faxes will be sent to
targeted congressional offices.
"Over the past two weeks, we have brought Americans' concerns about the big money-dominated system directly to Congress," said David Donnelly, campaign manager of the joint effort. "From business executives to faith leaders to ordinary Americans, everyone is sick of the time Congress spends courting Wall Street and other special interests. We will continue to direct the voices of concerned and angry Americans to urge our elected officials to act in the people's interest and pass Fair Elections."
The Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826) would create a voluntary system that blends limited public funds with a 4 to 1 match on donations of $100 or less. Candidates would be freed from the eternal chase for big campaign checks, able to spend their time talking with voters and addressing our country's challenges. With Fair Elections, candidates would need to rely solely on their grassroots base of support and not Wall Street lobbyists or PACs. Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is the sponsor of companion legislation in the Senate.
The 134 co-sponsors represent a broad, ideologically diverse array of the House, with strong support across caucuses and party lines. Supporters include 66 percent of new members, 62 percent of Democratic women, and half of all Congressional Black Caucus members.
To learn more about the Fair Elections Now Act and view the full list of House co-sponsors, visit http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/.
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to restoring the core values of American democracy, reinventing an open, honest, and accountable government that works for the public interest, and empowering ordinary people to make their voices heard.
Public Campaign is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"The country needs both parties to work to solve the political crisis created by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, and the bipartisan solution that has the broadest support within Congress is Fair Elections," said Nick Nyhart, president and CEO of Public Campaign. "Not only is it the best policy response to the escalating cost to run for office, it will take candidates off the fundraising treadmill and encourage them to seek support from voters back home. This bill is democracy-in-action."
"The Supreme Court has left no room for doubt that we need a campaign finance system that makes elected officials beholden to the people they're supposed to represent instead of the wealthy special interests," said Common Cause President Bob Edgar. "The Fair Elections Now Act would do that."
In the two weeks since the Citizens United decision was released, the groups have stormed the Hill, working with others to mount a significant campaign to:
-- Organize a letter of 41 top business executives to House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
urging them to include Fair Elections in any legislative package.
-- Deliver 177,716 petition signatures to district and Capitol Hill
offices for both House members and Senators.
-- Place nearly 5,000 calls to targeted congressional offices.
-- Line up more than 200 faith leaders, including prominent individuals
within denominations, to sign a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Majority
Leader Reid to urge that the response to Citizens United include Fair
Elections.
-- Brief more than 100 congressional offices on Fair Elections.
-- Launched a "fax" day today, when thousands of faxes will be sent to
targeted congressional offices.
"Over the past two weeks, we have brought Americans' concerns about the big money-dominated system directly to Congress," said David Donnelly, campaign manager of the joint effort. "From business executives to faith leaders to ordinary Americans, everyone is sick of the time Congress spends courting Wall Street and other special interests. We will continue to direct the voices of concerned and angry Americans to urge our elected officials to act in the people's interest and pass Fair Elections."
The Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826) would create a voluntary system that blends limited public funds with a 4 to 1 match on donations of $100 or less. Candidates would be freed from the eternal chase for big campaign checks, able to spend their time talking with voters and addressing our country's challenges. With Fair Elections, candidates would need to rely solely on their grassroots base of support and not Wall Street lobbyists or PACs. Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is the sponsor of companion legislation in the Senate.
The 134 co-sponsors represent a broad, ideologically diverse array of the House, with strong support across caucuses and party lines. Supporters include 66 percent of new members, 62 percent of Democratic women, and half of all Congressional Black Caucus members.
To learn more about the Fair Elections Now Act and view the full list of House co-sponsors, visit http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/.
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to restoring the core values of American democracy, reinventing an open, honest, and accountable government that works for the public interest, and empowering ordinary people to make their voices heard.
Public Campaign is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to sweeping campaign reform that aims to dramatically reduce the role of big special interest money in American politics.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Pelosi Statement on Senate Passage of Pay-As-You-Go Legislation
/PRNewswire/ -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today after the Senate voted to approve pay-as-you-go legislation:
"Today the Senate joined the House in taking a critical step toward ensuring fiscal discipline for the long term by passing pay-as-you-go budget rules into law.
"Strict pay-as-you-go budget rules created record surpluses in the late 1990s. And when this standard was abandoned under President Bush, it created record deficits. One of the first actions Democrats took when we assumed the majority in 2007 was to make pay-as-you-go fiscal discipline the rule of the House. Now it will be the law of the land, and our future generations will benefit. Like every American family, Congress cannot make spending commitments it cannot afford.
"As the President made clear last night, we must make tough decisions to get our fiscal house in order after a decade of failing to do so. We can strengthen our nation without undermining our future; with pay-as-you-go spending rules, we will."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"Today the Senate joined the House in taking a critical step toward ensuring fiscal discipline for the long term by passing pay-as-you-go budget rules into law.
"Strict pay-as-you-go budget rules created record surpluses in the late 1990s. And when this standard was abandoned under President Bush, it created record deficits. One of the first actions Democrats took when we assumed the majority in 2007 was to make pay-as-you-go fiscal discipline the rule of the House. Now it will be the law of the land, and our future generations will benefit. Like every American family, Congress cannot make spending commitments it cannot afford.
"As the President made clear last night, we must make tough decisions to get our fiscal house in order after a decade of failing to do so. We can strengthen our nation without undermining our future; with pay-as-you-go spending rules, we will."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Friday, January 15, 2010
Georgia’s Kidney Care Community Praises Introduction of Legislation to Improve Patient Access to Quality Kidney Dialysis and Transplant Care
(BUSINESS WIRE)--Members of Georgia’s kidney care community – including patients, physicians, providers, and kidney transplant groups – today applauded State Senators Don Thomas (R-Dalton) and Ed Harbison (D-Columbus) for introducing bipartisan legislation to help approximately 2,000 Georgians suffering from kidney failure who are having difficulty accessing health insurance for their dialysis care or needed transplant medications. If enacted, this legislation could result in a positive fiscal impact of approximately $20 million over five years for Georgia’s Medicaid system. In addition to helping people with kidney failure, the legislation will also help any Georgia citizen who is under 65 and has Medicare as a result of a disability.
“I am proud to introduce legislation today that would provide thousands of Georgians with the financial assistance needed to access life-saving kidney care.”
Secondary coverage – known as Medigap insurance – is designed to help patients pay for medical expenses that Medicare does not cover, such as co-insurance, deductibles and co-pays. Under current federal law, only Medicare beneficiaries over the age of 65 are able to purchase this insurance as secondary coverage; however, patients under the age of 65 do not have this same option. This coverage provides patients with essential access to needed medical treatments, including kidney transplant, without cost being a barrier to care. Medigap coverage protects patients from having to “spend down” their income to become eligible for state Medicaid assistance. The legislation (S.B. 316) would provide Georgia end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients under the age of 65 and those deemed disabled access to Medigap coverage.
“I fully understand the vital role dialysis and transplant care play in the lives of individuals affected by this disease,” said Sen. Don Thomas. “I am proud to introduce legislation today that would provide thousands of Georgians with the financial assistance needed to access life-saving kidney care.”
Under current Medicare law, two populations qualify for coverage: individuals over the age of 65, and those under 65 who meet certain conditions, including the diagnosis of ESRD, also known as kidney failure. While Medicare covers most medical costs, it requires patients to pay deductibles and co-pays, which most patients pay for with the assistance of secondary insurance. However, more than 2,000 kidney patients in Georgia under age 65 have no secondary insurance coverage and cannot afford Medicare deductibles and co-pays. As a result, they often experience financial delays and roadblocks for critical medical services because of the upfront payments that are required and are forced to turn to the Medicaid program for support. To qualify for Medicaid, patients have to impoverish themselves, and often their families as well, to qualify. This, in turn, leads to severe health risks for patients who are unable to afford drugs or who forego treatment, which can result in emergency care and a higher cost to Georgia’s taxpayers.
In addition to granting coverage assistance to patients who are unable to pay expensive deductibles and co-pays, this legislation will lead to significant decreases in Medicaid spending for ESRD patients under the age of 65, resulting in approximately $20 million in Medicaid savings for Georgia taxpayers over five years.
“The ability to acquire Medigap insurance will significantly improve kidney care patients’ access to care across Georgia,” said Chad Lennox, executive director of Dialysis Patient Citizens, a national nonprofit patient organization. “No patient or family should have to jeopardize their financial future in order to receive the care they need, which is why we fully support this legislation. All dialysis and kidney transplant patients deserve the same level of access to care.”
If passed, Georgia will join 29 other states across the country that have already passed similar reforms. Most recently, the Florida Legislature unanimously passed the “The Alonzo Mourning Access to Care Act” – named for NBA All Star Alonzo Mourning who received a kidney transplant in 2003 – which will allow Florida’s ESRD patients and those disabled under age 65 to purchase Medigap insurance as secondary coverage for their kidney care.
“Access to quality dialysis and transplant care is absolutely critical to the more than 14,000 chronic kidney disease patients across the state of Georgia,” said Marlin R. Gottschalk, vice-president and legislative coordinator for the Georgia Association of Kidney Patients, a patient advocacy and support group. “Kidney disease knows no boundaries in terms of age, race or economic condition, so we must work together to ensure that policies are put in place that allow all patients, of every age, to access the coverage they need to receive quality medical care.”
To view the legislation, please visit http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/sum/sb316.htm.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
“I am proud to introduce legislation today that would provide thousands of Georgians with the financial assistance needed to access life-saving kidney care.”
Secondary coverage – known as Medigap insurance – is designed to help patients pay for medical expenses that Medicare does not cover, such as co-insurance, deductibles and co-pays. Under current federal law, only Medicare beneficiaries over the age of 65 are able to purchase this insurance as secondary coverage; however, patients under the age of 65 do not have this same option. This coverage provides patients with essential access to needed medical treatments, including kidney transplant, without cost being a barrier to care. Medigap coverage protects patients from having to “spend down” their income to become eligible for state Medicaid assistance. The legislation (S.B. 316) would provide Georgia end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients under the age of 65 and those deemed disabled access to Medigap coverage.
“I fully understand the vital role dialysis and transplant care play in the lives of individuals affected by this disease,” said Sen. Don Thomas. “I am proud to introduce legislation today that would provide thousands of Georgians with the financial assistance needed to access life-saving kidney care.”
Under current Medicare law, two populations qualify for coverage: individuals over the age of 65, and those under 65 who meet certain conditions, including the diagnosis of ESRD, also known as kidney failure. While Medicare covers most medical costs, it requires patients to pay deductibles and co-pays, which most patients pay for with the assistance of secondary insurance. However, more than 2,000 kidney patients in Georgia under age 65 have no secondary insurance coverage and cannot afford Medicare deductibles and co-pays. As a result, they often experience financial delays and roadblocks for critical medical services because of the upfront payments that are required and are forced to turn to the Medicaid program for support. To qualify for Medicaid, patients have to impoverish themselves, and often their families as well, to qualify. This, in turn, leads to severe health risks for patients who are unable to afford drugs or who forego treatment, which can result in emergency care and a higher cost to Georgia’s taxpayers.
In addition to granting coverage assistance to patients who are unable to pay expensive deductibles and co-pays, this legislation will lead to significant decreases in Medicaid spending for ESRD patients under the age of 65, resulting in approximately $20 million in Medicaid savings for Georgia taxpayers over five years.
“The ability to acquire Medigap insurance will significantly improve kidney care patients’ access to care across Georgia,” said Chad Lennox, executive director of Dialysis Patient Citizens, a national nonprofit patient organization. “No patient or family should have to jeopardize their financial future in order to receive the care they need, which is why we fully support this legislation. All dialysis and kidney transplant patients deserve the same level of access to care.”
If passed, Georgia will join 29 other states across the country that have already passed similar reforms. Most recently, the Florida Legislature unanimously passed the “The Alonzo Mourning Access to Care Act” – named for NBA All Star Alonzo Mourning who received a kidney transplant in 2003 – which will allow Florida’s ESRD patients and those disabled under age 65 to purchase Medigap insurance as secondary coverage for their kidney care.
“Access to quality dialysis and transplant care is absolutely critical to the more than 14,000 chronic kidney disease patients across the state of Georgia,” said Marlin R. Gottschalk, vice-president and legislative coordinator for the Georgia Association of Kidney Patients, a patient advocacy and support group. “Kidney disease knows no boundaries in terms of age, race or economic condition, so we must work together to ensure that policies are put in place that allow all patients, of every age, to access the coverage they need to receive quality medical care.”
To view the legislation, please visit http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2009_10/sum/sb316.htm.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Pelosi and Hoyer Announce 72-Hour Online Posting of Health Insurance Reform Legislation
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer issued the following statement today on health insurance reform legislation:
"The House Democratic Leadership is committed to having the final health insurance reform legislation online for 72 hours before the House votes, for all Members and the American people to review. We will continue the transparent process this landmark legislation has had for months."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"The House Democratic Leadership is committed to having the final health insurance reform legislation online for 72 hours before the House votes, for all Members and the American people to review. We will continue the transparent process this landmark legislation has had for months."
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
The 'Big 3' Fixes for the Weakened Senate Health Reform Bill to Block Full Insurance Co. Take-Over of Health System
/PRNewswire/ -- Consumer Watchdog condemned the removal of the Medicare buy-in provision for those over 55 and the public option from the U.S. Senate health reform bill. But the group said that the Senate must still make three essential fixes to the greatly weakened bill to prevent ceding the entire health care system to the insurance industry.
Without the changes, said the consumer advocacy group, the legislation will fail even to provide basic consumer protections of cost containment, access to necessary care, and protection against bankruptcy when patients get sick and need coverage the most.
Consumer Watchdog said that it is essential that the bill be fixed now because there is a growing belief that a conference committee will be bypassed altogether, and instead the House of Representatives will be pushed to approve the Senate bill with no amendments. The three key fixes, detailed below, are:
1. Remove Provisions that Would Pre-empt More Protective State Laws
2. Bar Insurers From Placing Annual Limits on Medical Payments
3. Make Health Insurance Rate Regulation Real
"If health care reform is really about consumers and patients, then Senators must make these fixes before they pass the bill," said Jerry Flanagan, health policy director of Consumer Watchdog. "Current provisions of the Senate bill requiring Americans to buy insurance policies, while gutting state laws and ineffectively capping what insurers can charge for bare bones coverage, add up to a dream bill for insurance companies."
"Eliminating the public option, pre-empting state health benefit laws and avoiding tough rate oversight is an insurance company hat trick - the top three legislative goals of the insurance industry of the last twenty years," said Flanagan. "If health reform is going to be worth anything to consumers, Senators must fight back on these three points. Without them, health reform is little more than a scheme for health insurers to increase profits at the expense of patients and taxpayers."
The three changes that the U.S. Senate must make to HR 3590 are:
1. Remove Provisions that Would Pre-empt More Protective State Laws
For 60 years, states have been responsible for the oversight of health insurance. States have traditionally been the laboratories of innovation in health care and insurance reform. States also have a greater ability to respond quickly to local needs.
However, provisions in the current bill could replace hard-fought "Patients Bill of Rights" laws with new, weaker federal protections.
For example, section 1333 on page 219 of the Senate bill allow health insurers to avoid strong state patient protection laws under so-called "nationwide plans" and multistate "compacts." Under these provisions, health insurers that sell policies in more than one state would only be regulated by the state where the policy was "written or issued." Therefore, if an insurer "issues" all of its policies from Wyoming, then the laws of Wyoming would control policies sold to consumers in states with more protective laws like California, New York, Texas or Virginia.
Insurers would certainly elect to issue their policies from the states with the weakest laws. As a result, new federal minimum coverage requirements would become the norm. Coverage of AIDS/HIV testing, reconstructive surgery, home health care services, and child delivery and mastectomy minimum hospital stays, for instance, would likely be lost.
The Senate health reform bill should be modeled on existing federal health care laws, which provide for a federal-state partnership rather than federal pre-emption of more protective state standards. Minimum federal standards should set a floor, not a ceiling, on state health care protections. Read Consumer Watchdog's analyses of the pre-emption provisions and the group's letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=31197
Read the Los Angeles Times coverage of the pre-emption provisions:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=31200
2. Bar Insurers From Placing Annual Limits on Medical Payments
A cornerstone of national health reform is to ensure that patients get the care their doctor prescribes when they are sick and need treatment the most. An essential element to reach that objective is to bar insurance companies from placing annual limits on how much health care a patient can receive.
Current caps mean that patients with serious illnesses, including many cancers, can be left without coverage in the midst of treatment. As a result, patients face bankruptcy even though they have insurance. In fact, a Harvard Medical School study released this year found that 62% of U.S. bankruptcies were caused by big medical bills, while 78% of those declaring bankruptcy had insurance.
A loophole in the Senate bill would allow health insurers to impose unspecified "reasonable" annual limits on the annual dollar value of benefits that patient can receive this year. This is a major departure from previous version of the Senate bill, and the House legislation, which bar any annual caps.
The Senate bill cites section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code, which regulates Health Savings Accounts. That section does not define "reasonable" annual limits. As a result, health insurers will be left to define "reasonable" as they see fit. However, for an insurance company, a "reasonable" limit on annual health care costs is one that increases shareholder profits by cutting off access to necessary care.
3. Make Health Insurance Rate Regulation Real
Requiring insurance companies to justify rate increases and seek "prior approval" for those increases are essential components to controlling skyrocketing health insurance premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs.
Page 37, section 2794 of HR 3590 provides some additional transparency on insurance premiums and takes some first steps toward limits on insurance company gouging, but does not provide real protections for Americans by, for instance, requiring insurers to seek approval before imposing premium and rate increases.
Consumer Watchdog, which pioneered the most successful insurance premium regulation law in the nation, Proposition 103, calls on the Senate to adopt amendments reflecting key provisions of California's landmark insurance reform law, including:
-- Mandatory justification of any rate increase (including premiums,
deductibles, co-pays), not merely justifications of "unreasonable"
premium increases.
-- Mandatory prior approval, which means requiring insurers to seek
permission from government regulators, in addition to justifying rate
increases, before imposing rate increases. Since 1988, California's
Proposition 103 has saved drivers $62 billion while fostering a
competitive and profitable insurance market.
-- An intervenor system that provides consumers a forum to challenge
unnecessary or excessive rate increases. Since 2003, Consumer Watchdog
has saved the state's consumers $1.7 billion by challenging
unnecessary premium increases using the public intervention process.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Without the changes, said the consumer advocacy group, the legislation will fail even to provide basic consumer protections of cost containment, access to necessary care, and protection against bankruptcy when patients get sick and need coverage the most.
Consumer Watchdog said that it is essential that the bill be fixed now because there is a growing belief that a conference committee will be bypassed altogether, and instead the House of Representatives will be pushed to approve the Senate bill with no amendments. The three key fixes, detailed below, are:
1. Remove Provisions that Would Pre-empt More Protective State Laws
2. Bar Insurers From Placing Annual Limits on Medical Payments
3. Make Health Insurance Rate Regulation Real
"If health care reform is really about consumers and patients, then Senators must make these fixes before they pass the bill," said Jerry Flanagan, health policy director of Consumer Watchdog. "Current provisions of the Senate bill requiring Americans to buy insurance policies, while gutting state laws and ineffectively capping what insurers can charge for bare bones coverage, add up to a dream bill for insurance companies."
"Eliminating the public option, pre-empting state health benefit laws and avoiding tough rate oversight is an insurance company hat trick - the top three legislative goals of the insurance industry of the last twenty years," said Flanagan. "If health reform is going to be worth anything to consumers, Senators must fight back on these three points. Without them, health reform is little more than a scheme for health insurers to increase profits at the expense of patients and taxpayers."
The three changes that the U.S. Senate must make to HR 3590 are:
1. Remove Provisions that Would Pre-empt More Protective State Laws
For 60 years, states have been responsible for the oversight of health insurance. States have traditionally been the laboratories of innovation in health care and insurance reform. States also have a greater ability to respond quickly to local needs.
However, provisions in the current bill could replace hard-fought "Patients Bill of Rights" laws with new, weaker federal protections.
For example, section 1333 on page 219 of the Senate bill allow health insurers to avoid strong state patient protection laws under so-called "nationwide plans" and multistate "compacts." Under these provisions, health insurers that sell policies in more than one state would only be regulated by the state where the policy was "written or issued." Therefore, if an insurer "issues" all of its policies from Wyoming, then the laws of Wyoming would control policies sold to consumers in states with more protective laws like California, New York, Texas or Virginia.
Insurers would certainly elect to issue their policies from the states with the weakest laws. As a result, new federal minimum coverage requirements would become the norm. Coverage of AIDS/HIV testing, reconstructive surgery, home health care services, and child delivery and mastectomy minimum hospital stays, for instance, would likely be lost.
The Senate health reform bill should be modeled on existing federal health care laws, which provide for a federal-state partnership rather than federal pre-emption of more protective state standards. Minimum federal standards should set a floor, not a ceiling, on state health care protections. Read Consumer Watchdog's analyses of the pre-emption provisions and the group's letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=31197
Read the Los Angeles Times coverage of the pre-emption provisions:
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/patients/articles/?storyId=31200
2. Bar Insurers From Placing Annual Limits on Medical Payments
A cornerstone of national health reform is to ensure that patients get the care their doctor prescribes when they are sick and need treatment the most. An essential element to reach that objective is to bar insurance companies from placing annual limits on how much health care a patient can receive.
Current caps mean that patients with serious illnesses, including many cancers, can be left without coverage in the midst of treatment. As a result, patients face bankruptcy even though they have insurance. In fact, a Harvard Medical School study released this year found that 62% of U.S. bankruptcies were caused by big medical bills, while 78% of those declaring bankruptcy had insurance.
A loophole in the Senate bill would allow health insurers to impose unspecified "reasonable" annual limits on the annual dollar value of benefits that patient can receive this year. This is a major departure from previous version of the Senate bill, and the House legislation, which bar any annual caps.
The Senate bill cites section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code, which regulates Health Savings Accounts. That section does not define "reasonable" annual limits. As a result, health insurers will be left to define "reasonable" as they see fit. However, for an insurance company, a "reasonable" limit on annual health care costs is one that increases shareholder profits by cutting off access to necessary care.
3. Make Health Insurance Rate Regulation Real
Requiring insurance companies to justify rate increases and seek "prior approval" for those increases are essential components to controlling skyrocketing health insurance premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs.
Page 37, section 2794 of HR 3590 provides some additional transparency on insurance premiums and takes some first steps toward limits on insurance company gouging, but does not provide real protections for Americans by, for instance, requiring insurers to seek approval before imposing premium and rate increases.
Consumer Watchdog, which pioneered the most successful insurance premium regulation law in the nation, Proposition 103, calls on the Senate to adopt amendments reflecting key provisions of California's landmark insurance reform law, including:
-- Mandatory justification of any rate increase (including premiums,
deductibles, co-pays), not merely justifications of "unreasonable"
premium increases.
-- Mandatory prior approval, which means requiring insurers to seek
permission from government regulators, in addition to justifying rate
increases, before imposing rate increases. Since 1988, California's
Proposition 103 has saved drivers $62 billion while fostering a
competitive and profitable insurance market.
-- An intervenor system that provides consumers a forum to challenge
unnecessary or excessive rate increases. Since 2003, Consumer Watchdog
has saved the state's consumers $1.7 billion by challenging
unnecessary premium increases using the public intervention process.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Monday, December 14, 2009
Congressional Support for Right to Repair Reaches 51
/PRNewswire/ -- Congressional support of the Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act (HR 2057) has reached 51, it was announced today by Kathleen Schmatz, president and CEO of the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA).
Reps. Brian Bilbray (R-CA), Donna Christensen (D-VI), Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Collin Peterson (DFL-MN) and Laura Richardson (D-CA) are the most recent co-sponsors of the Right to Repair Act, which has gained steady support since its introduction.
"We applaud these seven members of Congress for backing this critical piece of pro-consumer and pro-small business legislation," said Schmatz. "Every single person who owns or operates a vehicle stands to suffer economically if the Right to Repair Act is not passed."
A new study conducted by John Dunham and Associates for the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA) and the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality (CARE) shows that consumers greatly benefit from a competitive vehicle repair marketplace. According to the study, independent auto repair shops save American consumers nearly $26 billion annually or $360 per family. The data is available not only by state, but by congressional district, and can be viewed at www.guerrillaeconomics.biz/righttorepair.
"This new study shows that the automotive aftermarket and its independent repair shops are a central part of the U.S. economy. With the significant dollars at stake, it's not hard to figure out why the car manufacturers want to retain control of the non-proprietary repair information, tools and software needed by independent repair shops to service late model vehicles," said Ray Pohlman, president of the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality (CARE). "Passage of the Right to Repair Act will prevent a vehicle repair monopoly by ensuring that consumers have safe and affordable choices when it comes to auto repair."
About Right to Repair:
The Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act, which was introduced by Reps. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and George Miller (D-CA), would require car companies to make the same service information and tools capabilities that they provide to their franchised dealer networks available to independent repair shops. The legislation further provides car companies with strong protections for their trade secrets unless that information is provided to the franchised new car dealers. The bill clarifies the responsibilities of the Federal Trade Commission in enforcing the bill's requirements. For more information about the Right to Repair Act, visit www.righttorepair.org.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Reps. Brian Bilbray (R-CA), Donna Christensen (D-VI), Elijah Cummings (D-MD), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Collin Peterson (DFL-MN) and Laura Richardson (D-CA) are the most recent co-sponsors of the Right to Repair Act, which has gained steady support since its introduction.
"We applaud these seven members of Congress for backing this critical piece of pro-consumer and pro-small business legislation," said Schmatz. "Every single person who owns or operates a vehicle stands to suffer economically if the Right to Repair Act is not passed."
A new study conducted by John Dunham and Associates for the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association (AAIA) and the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality (CARE) shows that consumers greatly benefit from a competitive vehicle repair marketplace. According to the study, independent auto repair shops save American consumers nearly $26 billion annually or $360 per family. The data is available not only by state, but by congressional district, and can be viewed at www.guerrillaeconomics.biz/righttorepair.
"This new study shows that the automotive aftermarket and its independent repair shops are a central part of the U.S. economy. With the significant dollars at stake, it's not hard to figure out why the car manufacturers want to retain control of the non-proprietary repair information, tools and software needed by independent repair shops to service late model vehicles," said Ray Pohlman, president of the Coalition for Auto Repair Equality (CARE). "Passage of the Right to Repair Act will prevent a vehicle repair monopoly by ensuring that consumers have safe and affordable choices when it comes to auto repair."
About Right to Repair:
The Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act, which was introduced by Reps. Edolphus Towns (D-NY), Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and George Miller (D-CA), would require car companies to make the same service information and tools capabilities that they provide to their franchised dealer networks available to independent repair shops. The legislation further provides car companies with strong protections for their trade secrets unless that information is provided to the franchised new car dealers. The bill clarifies the responsibilities of the Federal Trade Commission in enforcing the bill's requirements. For more information about the Right to Repair Act, visit www.righttorepair.org.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Snowe, Landrieu Introduce Legislation to Bolster Small Business Participation in International Trade
/PRNewswire/ -- U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship Ranking Member Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) and Chair Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) last night introduced two bipartisan measures to strengthen and improve support for American entrepreneurs seeking opportunities to expand their business, create new jobs and compete in the international market. The Small Business Export Enhancement and International Trade Act (S. 2862) and the Small Business Trade Representation Act (S. 2861) will ensure small businesses have access to the resources and tools needed to explore new export opportunities in emerging markets or expand their current export business.
"Small businesses face particular challenges in exporting, and the bills that Chair Landrieu and I have introduced will take great strides toward ensuring their greater participation in international trade," said Ranking Member Snowe. "By improving and bolstering critical Small Business Administration (SBA) lending and assistance programs, we will be giving our nation's entrepreneurs a helping hand in surviving, diversifying, and competing effectively in the international marketplace. Additionally, the Small Business Trade Representation Act would once and for all establish an Assistant United States Trade Representative for Small Business, a critical position that will help ensure American small businesses are at the forefront of trade policy considerations."
"Building upon legislation that I have introduced in the last three Congresses, including, S. 1196 the Small Business International Trade Enhancements Act of 2009 that I introduced in June of this year, this bipartisan legislation will ensure that small businesses seeking to export their goods and services will have access to the resources they need to successfully expand into foreign markets," Chair Landrieu said. "With health premiums increasing more each year and cash registers at home not ringing like they used to, exporting has become a practical solution for small firms. Expanding opportunities for small business trade is not only vital to the financial security of our entrepreneurs, it is vital to the recovery of our economy."
The Small Business Export Enhancement and International Trade Act contains several crucial provisions, including ones to:
-- Establish an SBA Associate Administrator for International Trade to
carry out the Agency's international trade programs and formulate its
trade and export policy;
-- Bolster the number of SBA export finance specialists assigned to
Export Assistance Centers;
-- Raise, from $2 million to $5 million, the maximum amount of an
International Trade Loan or Export Working Capital Program loan;
-- Establish in statute an Export Express program and expand the maximum
loan size from $250,000 to $500,000; and
-- Create a State Trade and Export Promotion (STEP) Grant Program to
increase the number of small businesses that export and increase the
value of the exports by small businesses.
Additionally, the Small Business Trade Representation Act would create an Assistant United States Trade Representative for Small Business whose responsibility would be to ensure that small businesses are represented in trade negotiations and in U.S. trade policy.
The provisions in these bills come from both S. 1208, the Small Business Export Opportunity Development Act, introduced by Senator Snowe, and S. 1196, the Small Business International Trade Enhancements Act of 2009, introduced by Senator Landrieu.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"Small businesses face particular challenges in exporting, and the bills that Chair Landrieu and I have introduced will take great strides toward ensuring their greater participation in international trade," said Ranking Member Snowe. "By improving and bolstering critical Small Business Administration (SBA) lending and assistance programs, we will be giving our nation's entrepreneurs a helping hand in surviving, diversifying, and competing effectively in the international marketplace. Additionally, the Small Business Trade Representation Act would once and for all establish an Assistant United States Trade Representative for Small Business, a critical position that will help ensure American small businesses are at the forefront of trade policy considerations."
"Building upon legislation that I have introduced in the last three Congresses, including, S. 1196 the Small Business International Trade Enhancements Act of 2009 that I introduced in June of this year, this bipartisan legislation will ensure that small businesses seeking to export their goods and services will have access to the resources they need to successfully expand into foreign markets," Chair Landrieu said. "With health premiums increasing more each year and cash registers at home not ringing like they used to, exporting has become a practical solution for small firms. Expanding opportunities for small business trade is not only vital to the financial security of our entrepreneurs, it is vital to the recovery of our economy."
The Small Business Export Enhancement and International Trade Act contains several crucial provisions, including ones to:
-- Establish an SBA Associate Administrator for International Trade to
carry out the Agency's international trade programs and formulate its
trade and export policy;
-- Bolster the number of SBA export finance specialists assigned to
Export Assistance Centers;
-- Raise, from $2 million to $5 million, the maximum amount of an
International Trade Loan or Export Working Capital Program loan;
-- Establish in statute an Export Express program and expand the maximum
loan size from $250,000 to $500,000; and
-- Create a State Trade and Export Promotion (STEP) Grant Program to
increase the number of small businesses that export and increase the
value of the exports by small businesses.
Additionally, the Small Business Trade Representation Act would create an Assistant United States Trade Representative for Small Business whose responsibility would be to ensure that small businesses are represented in trade negotiations and in U.S. trade policy.
The provisions in these bills come from both S. 1208, the Small Business Export Opportunity Development Act, introduced by Senator Snowe, and S. 1196, the Small Business International Trade Enhancements Act of 2009, introduced by Senator Landrieu.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Snowe, Landrieu Introduce Legislation to Make Permanent Critical Small Business Tax Deduction
/PRNewswire/ -- U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship Ranking Member Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) and Chair Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) today introduced legislation to make permanent the enhanced Section 179 expensing limits enacted in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Specifically, the bill will aid small businesses by allowing them to deduct up to $250,000 of the cost of qualifying property in the year it is purchased, rather than to recover such outlays through depreciation deductions over a number of years.
"Small businesses continue to struggle as a result of the current recession, and many are having trouble finding capital to make job-creating new investments," said Ranking Member Snowe. "Our bill will permanently allow small businesses to expense up to $250,000 of new investments, enabling them to acquire vital new facilities and equipment. By permitting small businesses to deduct more of their equipment purchases today, they will retain substantial savings instead of waiting a period of years to recover their costs through depreciation. Additionally, this change would simultaneously save small firms the vital time currently required to comply with complex and confusing depreciation rules."
"The $250,000 expensing limit put into place in the Recovery Act has produced a positive economic impact for the nation's small businesses," Chair Landrieu said. "By making this limit permanent, small business owners will have a valuable incentive to make investments in business assets critical to business growth and important to remaining competitive in the global marketplace."
The ARRA signed into law in February set the maximum amount that a taxpayer may expense in 2009 at $250,000. Subsequently, under current law, the maximum amount that may be expensed will be approximately $133,000 in 2010 and $25,000 in 2011. The Snowe-Landrieu bill would permanently set the maximum amount at $250,000.
Ranking Member Snowe has previously introduced legislation to raise the expensing limit to $200,000 in both 2007 and 2008. Both she and Chair Landrieu successfully advocated for the language that was included in the ARRA.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
"Small businesses continue to struggle as a result of the current recession, and many are having trouble finding capital to make job-creating new investments," said Ranking Member Snowe. "Our bill will permanently allow small businesses to expense up to $250,000 of new investments, enabling them to acquire vital new facilities and equipment. By permitting small businesses to deduct more of their equipment purchases today, they will retain substantial savings instead of waiting a period of years to recover their costs through depreciation. Additionally, this change would simultaneously save small firms the vital time currently required to comply with complex and confusing depreciation rules."
"The $250,000 expensing limit put into place in the Recovery Act has produced a positive economic impact for the nation's small businesses," Chair Landrieu said. "By making this limit permanent, small business owners will have a valuable incentive to make investments in business assets critical to business growth and important to remaining competitive in the global marketplace."
The ARRA signed into law in February set the maximum amount that a taxpayer may expense in 2009 at $250,000. Subsequently, under current law, the maximum amount that may be expensed will be approximately $133,000 in 2010 and $25,000 in 2011. The Snowe-Landrieu bill would permanently set the maximum amount at $250,000.
Ranking Member Snowe has previously introduced legislation to raise the expensing limit to $200,000 in both 2007 and 2008. Both she and Chair Landrieu successfully advocated for the language that was included in the ARRA.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)