/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
Showing posts with label states. Show all posts
Showing posts with label states. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
State Income Taxes Push Many Working-Poor Families Deeper Into Poverty
/PRNewswire/ -- Thirteen states taxed working-poor families deeper into poverty last year, according to a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In some of those states, poor families faced several hundred dollars in state income taxes -- a significant amount for a family struggling to make ends meet, the report said.
Moreover, while some states implemented tax reductions for low-income working families in 2009 (usually enacted before the recession), progress has since ground to a halt because of state budget problems. In fact, some states have enacted or are considering reductions in tax credits for low-income working families, according to a companion report.
"States' budget challenges are real, but so are the challenges that hard-working families are facing in today's tough economy," said Nicholas Johnson, director of the Center's State Fiscal Project. "States have better ways to balance their budgets than to make their tax codes tougher on low-income workers."
Some States Tax Families Well Below Poverty Line
The report found that in tax year 2009:
-- In 13 of the 42 states that levy income taxes, two-parent families of
four with incomes below the federal poverty line are liable for income
tax;
-- In 11 states, poor single-parent families of three pay income tax;
-- And 25 states impose income tax on families of four just above the
poverty line.
These findings are based on the poverty line for 2009: $21,947 for a family of four and $17,102 for a family of three. While families below the poverty line don't pay state income tax in most states, they do pay other taxes such as sales, gas, excise, and property taxes.
Some states levy income tax on working families in severe poverty. For example, Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Montana, and Ohio tax two-parent families of four earning less than three-quarters of the poverty line ($16,460).
In some states, poor families face several hundred dollars in income tax. In 2009, for example, a two-parent family of four with income at the poverty line owed $468 in Alabama, $266 in Hawaii, and $225 in Montana, according to the report.
Recession Threatens Recent Progress
The number of states levying income tax on working-poor families of four declined from 16 in 2008 to 13 in 2009; the taxes levied by those remaining 13 states also declined. But in the face of state budget problems, this progress has ground to a halt and some states have recently taken steps to cut back their credits, according to the companion report. For example:
-- Virginia enacted a cut to its EITC that would raise taxes by $6
million on an estimated 114,000 low-income working families. (This
cut might be reversed before it takes effect.)
-- Minnesota cut back a renters' credit affecting 300,000 low- and
moderate-income households and eliminated a gas tax credit.
-- Georgia is considering eliminating $22 million in wage support for 1
million workers earning less than $20,000 per year.
Similar measures have been proposed in New Jersey, the District of Columbia, and Montgomery County, Maryland.
Raising taxes on low-income working families is not the best option for raising state revenue, the report explains. Some states are considering such measures alongside proposals to cut taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations, which likely would neither strengthen the economy nor create jobs. States would be better off maintaining their low-income tax credits -- which families spend quickly and locally, giving the economy a needed boost -- while canceling other tax cuts and raising new revenue from higher-income families and profitable corporations.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Moreover, while some states implemented tax reductions for low-income working families in 2009 (usually enacted before the recession), progress has since ground to a halt because of state budget problems. In fact, some states have enacted or are considering reductions in tax credits for low-income working families, according to a companion report.
"States' budget challenges are real, but so are the challenges that hard-working families are facing in today's tough economy," said Nicholas Johnson, director of the Center's State Fiscal Project. "States have better ways to balance their budgets than to make their tax codes tougher on low-income workers."
Some States Tax Families Well Below Poverty Line
The report found that in tax year 2009:
-- In 13 of the 42 states that levy income taxes, two-parent families of
four with incomes below the federal poverty line are liable for income
tax;
-- In 11 states, poor single-parent families of three pay income tax;
-- And 25 states impose income tax on families of four just above the
poverty line.
These findings are based on the poverty line for 2009: $21,947 for a family of four and $17,102 for a family of three. While families below the poverty line don't pay state income tax in most states, they do pay other taxes such as sales, gas, excise, and property taxes.
Some states levy income tax on working families in severe poverty. For example, Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Montana, and Ohio tax two-parent families of four earning less than three-quarters of the poverty line ($16,460).
In some states, poor families face several hundred dollars in income tax. In 2009, for example, a two-parent family of four with income at the poverty line owed $468 in Alabama, $266 in Hawaii, and $225 in Montana, according to the report.
Recession Threatens Recent Progress
The number of states levying income tax on working-poor families of four declined from 16 in 2008 to 13 in 2009; the taxes levied by those remaining 13 states also declined. But in the face of state budget problems, this progress has ground to a halt and some states have recently taken steps to cut back their credits, according to the companion report. For example:
-- Virginia enacted a cut to its EITC that would raise taxes by $6
million on an estimated 114,000 low-income working families. (This
cut might be reversed before it takes effect.)
-- Minnesota cut back a renters' credit affecting 300,000 low- and
moderate-income households and eliminated a gas tax credit.
-- Georgia is considering eliminating $22 million in wage support for 1
million workers earning less than $20,000 per year.
Similar measures have been proposed in New Jersey, the District of Columbia, and Montgomery County, Maryland.
Raising taxes on low-income working families is not the best option for raising state revenue, the report explains. Some states are considering such measures alongside proposals to cut taxes for wealthy individuals and corporations, which likely would neither strengthen the economy nor create jobs. States would be better off maintaining their low-income tax credits -- which families spend quickly and locally, giving the economy a needed boost -- while canceling other tax cuts and raising new revenue from higher-income families and profitable corporations.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Obama Administration Grants Relief to States on Payments to Medicarefor Part D Costs
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today announced $4.3 billion in financial relief to states by reducing the amount they will have to pay the federal government to offset the cost of Medicare coverage for prescription drugs for state residents eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid.
“We believe today’s action will help states as they struggle to maintain Medicaid and other budget priorities in these difficult economic times,” said Secretary Sebelius. “This relief will help states continue to provide critical health care services to the nearly 60 million beneficiaries who depend upon it.”
This temporary financial boost to states is made possible by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). That law granted a significant, yet temporary, increase in the amount states receive from the federal government to help pay for their Medicaid programs. The increase was to the federal share of Medicaid costs, referred to as federal medical assistance percentage payments (FMAP).
In a call with state governors today, Secretary Sebelius reported that HHS will apply the ARRA increased FMAP to so-called clawback payments. The clawback payment is the amount states pay to the federal government as required by the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). It is intended to offset some of the added expense to Medicare Part D of assuming drug costs for residents dually eligible for both programs. Prior to MMA, state Medicaid programs covered prescription drug costs for these beneficiaries. Because Medicaid is a state/federal matching program, the higher FMAP under ARRA results in a temporary reduction of the states’ share of spending and therefore in their clawback obligation.
This temporary adjustment in the clawback payments will be applied for the period October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010. In his 2011 budget, President Obama calls for the FMAP increase established in ARRA to be extended through June 30, 2011.
“In asking Congress to extend the increased FMAP in his 2011 budget proposal, the President recognizes both the critical role Medicaid plays in the health of our most vulnerable citizens and difficulties states are experiencing given the economic downturn,” Secretary Sebelius said.
States make clawback payments monthly and CMS is currently reprogramming its billing system to calculate the new, reduced payments owed by states. The savings, which are retroactive to October 2008, will be deducted from what they otherwise would have owed going forward.
The table below shows each state’s estimated savings. Column B shows the state’s obligation under the pre-ARRA formula with column C showing the newly calculated payment, column D the total estimated savings to the state.
“We believe today’s action will help states as they struggle to maintain Medicaid and other budget priorities in these difficult economic times,” said Secretary Sebelius. “This relief will help states continue to provide critical health care services to the nearly 60 million beneficiaries who depend upon it.”
This temporary financial boost to states is made possible by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). That law granted a significant, yet temporary, increase in the amount states receive from the federal government to help pay for their Medicaid programs. The increase was to the federal share of Medicaid costs, referred to as federal medical assistance percentage payments (FMAP).
In a call with state governors today, Secretary Sebelius reported that HHS will apply the ARRA increased FMAP to so-called clawback payments. The clawback payment is the amount states pay to the federal government as required by the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). It is intended to offset some of the added expense to Medicare Part D of assuming drug costs for residents dually eligible for both programs. Prior to MMA, state Medicaid programs covered prescription drug costs for these beneficiaries. Because Medicaid is a state/federal matching program, the higher FMAP under ARRA results in a temporary reduction of the states’ share of spending and therefore in their clawback obligation.
This temporary adjustment in the clawback payments will be applied for the period October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010. In his 2011 budget, President Obama calls for the FMAP increase established in ARRA to be extended through June 30, 2011.
“In asking Congress to extend the increased FMAP in his 2011 budget proposal, the President recognizes both the critical role Medicaid plays in the health of our most vulnerable citizens and difficulties states are experiencing given the economic downturn,” Secretary Sebelius said.
States make clawback payments monthly and CMS is currently reprogramming its billing system to calculate the new, reduced payments owed by states. The savings, which are retroactive to October 2008, will be deducted from what they otherwise would have owed going forward.
The table below shows each state’s estimated savings. Column B shows the state’s obligation under the pre-ARRA formula with column C showing the newly calculated payment, column D the total estimated savings to the state.
| State (A) | Total Q1 FY 09 Thru Q1 FY 11 Clawback Based on Reg. FMAP (B) | Total Q1 FY 09 Thru Q1 FY 11 Clawback Based on ARRA FMAP (C) | Total State Savings/Fed. Cost Q1 FY 09 Thru Q1 FY 11 (D) |
| Alabama | $150,247,579 | $106,425,199 | $43,822,379 |
| Alaska | $48,317,314 | $38,286,755 | $10,030,558 |
| Arizona | $153,759,854 | $108,954,983 | $44,804,871 |
| Arkansas | $87,089,886 | $62,440,556 | $24,649,330 |
| California | $2,913,864,100 | $2,238,430,401 | $675,433,698 |
| Colorado | $192,319,003 | $150,066,687 | $42,252,316 |
| Connecticut | $296,665,054 | $230,615,556 | $66,049,498 |
| Delaware | $34,099,374 | $26,386,737 | $7,712,637 |
| District of Columbia | $25,602,876 | $17,959,629 | $7,643,248 |
| Florida | $1,015,370,655 | $732,819,868 | $282,550,787 |
| Georgia | $256,830,737 | $186,189,524 | $70,641,213 |
| Hawaii | $60,409,856 | $43,814,638 | $16,595,218 |
| Idaho | $46,562,615 | $32,122,245 | $14,440,370 |
| Illinois | $875,508,052 | $675,854,129 | $199,653,923 |
| Indiana | $209,694,287 | $151,629,223 | $58,065,064 |
| Iowa | $162,359,071 | $127,106,244 | $35,252,826 |
| Kansas | $113,478,227 | $89,157,121 | $24,321,107 |
| Kentucky | $182,471,045 | $127,408,848 | $55,062,197 |
| Louisiana | $203,392,153 | $126,178,376 | $77,213,777 |
| Maine | $103,581,677 | $75,744,571 | $27,837,106 |
| Maryland | $238,997,062 | $187,197,783 | $51,799,278 |
| Massachusetts | $612,833,627 | $480,102,616 | $132,731,011 |
| Michigan | $386,791,612 | $285,445,457 | $101,346,155 |
| Minnesota | $360,083,533 | $278,777,119 | $81,306,414 |
| Mississippi | $102,735,712 | $65,989,013 | $36,746,699 |
| Missouri | $407,283,149 | $299,443,677 | $107,839,472 |
| Montana | $28,771,325 | $20,110,737 | $8,660,588 |
| Nebraska | $95,393,763 | $76,664,267 | $18,729,497 |
| Nevada | $62,310,316 | $45,031,768 | $17,278,548 |
| New Hampshire | $71,136,363 | $56,982,733 | $14,153,631 |
| New Jersey | $696,147,055 | $543,196,366 | $152,950,689 |
| New Mexico | $47,436,153 | $33,768,936 | $13,667,217 |
| New York | $1,882,163,731 | $1,474,399,935 | $407,763,796 |
| North Carolina | $552,941,188 | $400,670,852 | $152,270,335 |
| North Dakota | $22,440,556 | $18,259,530 | $4,181,026 |
| Ohio | $581,726,147 | $430,246,974 | $151,479,172 |
| Oklahoma | $154,134,582 | $106,156,483 | $47,978,098 |
| Oregon | $147,332,690 | $108,155,974 | $39,176,716 |
| Pennsylvania | $1,000,611,930 | $771,650,285 | $228,961,645 |
| Rhode Island | $97,366,309 | $74,159,944 | $23,206,365 |
| South Carolina | $168,667,834 | $117,154,008 | $51,513,826 |
| South Dakota | $31,593,895 | $25,104,607 | $6,489,288 |
| Tennessee | $442,828,611 | $321,494,820 | $121,333,791 |
| Texas | $777,317,414 | $567,316,054 | $210,001,360 |
| Utah | $57,174,136 | $39,826,114 | $17,348,022 |
| Vermont | $49,485,228 | $36,881,632 | $12,603,596 |
| Virginia | $390,311,646 | $304,575,535 | $85,736,111 |
| Washington | $359,451,673 | $273,090,100 | $86,361,573 |
| West Virginia | $71,905,352 | $48,544,797 | $23,360,555 |
| Wisconsin | $476,178,882 | $358,970,479 | $117,208,403 |
| Wyoming | $23,393,068 | $18,935,147 | $4,457,921 |
| TOTAL | $17,528,567,954 | $13,215,895,031 | $4,312,672,922 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)