ex senator John Edwards as poster child for health insurance/tort reform ?
using John Edwards a sample of medical lawyers, didn't he make over $20 million in malpractice / medical lawsuits. that a hell of a lot of health care premiums that wound up in his sleezebag pocket.
Doesn't this highlight the need to limit and cap on medical settlements?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Documentary calls BASIS a model school
Documentary calls BASIS a model school
BASIS charter school has been recognized nationally a few times over the years, but now it is receiving perhaps one of its biggest compliments. A documentary by filmmaker Robert A. Compton calls the school — which first opened up in Tucson — a model for what schools across the country should strive to be.
By Alexis Huicochea
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
Tucson, Arizona
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/metro/310837.php
BASIS charter school has been recognized nationally a few times over the years, but now it is receiving perhaps one of its biggest compliments. A documentary by filmmaker Robert A. Compton calls the school — which first opened up in Tucson — a model for what schools across the country should strive to be.
By Alexis Huicochea
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
Tucson, Arizona
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/metro/310837.php
Sunday, September 27, 2009
BEATING OBAMACARE
BEATING OBAMACARE
Dear Friend,
In this video commentary, I make the case against Obamacare and explain how to beat it.
To access the video - Go here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjUNKqaTFfg
(If the link is not active, please copy and paste it into the "Address" field of your web browser)
Please forward this email to any friends or family who may be interested in viewing my video commentary!
Thanks for watching,
Dick
CATASTROPHE by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Full Title: How Obama, Congress And The Special Interests Are Turning A Slump Into A Crash, Freedom Into Socialism, And A Disaster Into A CATASTROPHE...And How To Fight Back
Order a copy of CATASTROPHE - Go here!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=573
View Dick's videos on YouTube, Go here!
http://www.youtube.com/user/dickmorrisreports
Browse Dick's book CATASTROPHE - Go here!
http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061771040&WT.mc_id=AUTHWEB_CATAS_BROWSE_062609
Sign-up to follow Dick on Twitter - Go here!
http://twitter.com/dickmorristweet
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
Dear Friend,
In this video commentary, I make the case against Obamacare and explain how to beat it.
To access the video - Go here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjUNKqaTFfg
(If the link is not active, please copy and paste it into the "Address" field of your web browser)
Please forward this email to any friends or family who may be interested in viewing my video commentary!
Thanks for watching,
Dick
CATASTROPHE by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Full Title: How Obama, Congress And The Special Interests Are Turning A Slump Into A Crash, Freedom Into Socialism, And A Disaster Into A CATASTROPHE...And How To Fight Back
Order a copy of CATASTROPHE - Go here!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=573
View Dick's videos on YouTube, Go here!
http://www.youtube.com/user/dickmorrisreports
Browse Dick's book CATASTROPHE - Go here!
http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061771040&WT.mc_id=AUTHWEB_CATAS_BROWSE_062609
Sign-up to follow Dick on Twitter - Go here!
http://twitter.com/dickmorristweet
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
OBAMA'S HEALTH INSURANCE TAX: COMING SOON TO ALL POLICIES
OBAMA'S HEALTH INSURANCE TAX: COMING SOON TO ALL POLICIES
The Baucus healthcare bill provides for a tax on "gold-plated" health insurance policies. But, as with the Alternative Minimum Tax, once slated to be imposed only on the wealthy, inflation will make most Americans liable to pay the 40 percent tax in a few years.
The tax applies to all individual policies with premiums above $8,750 and families of four whose premiums exceed $23,000. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the average health insurance premium for families of four will reach $25,000 by 2018. The average premium should pass the thresholds in Baucus's bill by 2016.
So, a few years after the bill takes effect in 2013, the health insurance premium tax will become virtually universal. And this tax is to be a 40 percent levy. So, in six years, the average family health insurance policy, now projected to cost $25,000, will, in fact, cost $35,000 due to the Obama-Baucus tax!
The Baucus bill tax threshold is, of course, not indexed for medical inflation or even for regular inflation. (Premiums have been rising at 10 percent for a decade and the average family premium now is 109 percent higher than it was 10 years ago.)
Will Congress act, in the future, to index the health insurance premium tax so it does not reach down to the average American's policies? Not very likely. As costs rise under ObamaCare (as they have in Massachusetts, where they have more than doubled in two years), the pressure for increased revenue will dictate that Congress let the tax grow and expand its reach until it is a universal tax that pays for universal care.
Until now, the Obama plan has not meant much for the average American who now has insurance. While scarcity of doctors and medical care is a likely result, the harm was largely confined to the elderly, who will bear the brunt of the rationing. But now, the Baucus bill shows that the real story is quite different. In a few years' time, most families will find their health insurance premiums 40 percent higher because of the new tax. Far from cutting the cost of health insurance, the bill will send it through the roof!
To fight this bill, please go to https://www.newsmaxstore.com/contribute/lav/ to donate funds to run ads in key swing states (like Maine) to stop this iniquitous piece of legislation.
Order a copy of CATASTROPHE - Go here!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=573
View Dick's videos on YouTube, Go here!
http://www.youtube.com/user/dickmorrisreports
Browse Dick's book CATASTROPHE - Go here!
The Baucus healthcare bill provides for a tax on "gold-plated" health insurance policies. But, as with the Alternative Minimum Tax, once slated to be imposed only on the wealthy, inflation will make most Americans liable to pay the 40 percent tax in a few years.
The tax applies to all individual policies with premiums above $8,750 and families of four whose premiums exceed $23,000. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the average health insurance premium for families of four will reach $25,000 by 2018. The average premium should pass the thresholds in Baucus's bill by 2016.
So, a few years after the bill takes effect in 2013, the health insurance premium tax will become virtually universal. And this tax is to be a 40 percent levy. So, in six years, the average family health insurance policy, now projected to cost $25,000, will, in fact, cost $35,000 due to the Obama-Baucus tax!
The Baucus bill tax threshold is, of course, not indexed for medical inflation or even for regular inflation. (Premiums have been rising at 10 percent for a decade and the average family premium now is 109 percent higher than it was 10 years ago.)
Will Congress act, in the future, to index the health insurance premium tax so it does not reach down to the average American's policies? Not very likely. As costs rise under ObamaCare (as they have in Massachusetts, where they have more than doubled in two years), the pressure for increased revenue will dictate that Congress let the tax grow and expand its reach until it is a universal tax that pays for universal care.
Until now, the Obama plan has not meant much for the average American who now has insurance. While scarcity of doctors and medical care is a likely result, the harm was largely confined to the elderly, who will bear the brunt of the rationing. But now, the Baucus bill shows that the real story is quite different. In a few years' time, most families will find their health insurance premiums 40 percent higher because of the new tax. Far from cutting the cost of health insurance, the bill will send it through the roof!
To fight this bill, please go to https://www.newsmaxstore.com/contribute/lav/ to donate funds to run ads in key swing states (like Maine) to stop this iniquitous piece of legislation.
Order a copy of CATASTROPHE - Go here!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=573
View Dick's videos on YouTube, Go here!
http://www.youtube.com/user/dickmorrisreports
Browse Dick's book CATASTROPHE - Go here!
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Obama and Co puts a "gag order" on health insurance companies?
Senate Republican leadership today threatened to block HHS nominations until Sec. Sebelius lifts the "gag order" on health insurance company Humana.
The letter comes as Republicans are railing against CMS' investigation into a letter Humana sent to its enrollees about health care reform. CMS ordered the company to stop such mailings during the investigation.
"America’s seniors and the health plans that serve them deserve to have their free speech rights respected. Their rights should not be subject to the whims of any administration, and the health plans that serve them should not be threatened with punishment if they speak out on a matter of public concern simply because the administration disagrees with their position," they wrote in a letter. "Until your department rescinds its gag order and allows seniors to receive information about matters before Congress, we will not consent to time agreements on the confirmation of any nominees to your department or associated agencies."
The letter was signed by Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, Lamar Alexander, John Thune, Lisa Murkowski, John Cornyn, Charles Grassley and Mike Enzi.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Senate_Republicans_threaten_to_block_HHS_nominations_.html
The letter comes as Republicans are railing against CMS' investigation into a letter Humana sent to its enrollees about health care reform. CMS ordered the company to stop such mailings during the investigation.
"America’s seniors and the health plans that serve them deserve to have their free speech rights respected. Their rights should not be subject to the whims of any administration, and the health plans that serve them should not be threatened with punishment if they speak out on a matter of public concern simply because the administration disagrees with their position," they wrote in a letter. "Until your department rescinds its gag order and allows seniors to receive information about matters before Congress, we will not consent to time agreements on the confirmation of any nominees to your department or associated agencies."
The letter was signed by Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, Lamar Alexander, John Thune, Lisa Murkowski, John Cornyn, Charles Grassley and Mike Enzi.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0909/Senate_Republicans_threaten_to_block_HHS_nominations_.html
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress
The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress
Lawrence Delevingne|Sep. 18, 2009, 11:31 AM | 219,834 |44
PrintTags: Corruption, U.S. Government, Scandals, Charles Rangel
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a left-leaning watchdog group, has released its annual report on the most corrupt members of Congress.
Of this year’s list of 15, at least 12 are under investigation and several, like adulterer Sen. John Ensign and tax evader U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel are under pressure from some to resign.
see more at..
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-corrupt-members-of-congress-2009-9
Mississippi Tort Reform Works
Mississippi Tort Reform Works
Bob Parks Shop CFP
By Bob Parks Monday, September 21, 2009
Our elected leaders would never let facts get in the way of their political ambitions.
Since passing tort reform in 2004, Mississippi has seen the number of medical malpractice claims plummet by 91 percent from its peak. The state’s largest medical liability insurer dropped its premiums by 42 percent, and has offered an additional 20 percent rebate each year since tort reform went into effect.
“You can’t pass real tort reform unless it’s led by the governor,” Mississippi Republican governor Haley Barbour said. “The other side is tough. They have enormous resources. And they fear the trial lawyers — that if you beat them on tort reform, they won’t have those resources anymore.”
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14958
Bob Parks Shop CFP
By Bob Parks Monday, September 21, 2009
Our elected leaders would never let facts get in the way of their political ambitions.
Since passing tort reform in 2004, Mississippi has seen the number of medical malpractice claims plummet by 91 percent from its peak. The state’s largest medical liability insurer dropped its premiums by 42 percent, and has offered an additional 20 percent rebate each year since tort reform went into effect.
“You can’t pass real tort reform unless it’s led by the governor,” Mississippi Republican governor Haley Barbour said. “The other side is tough. They have enormous resources. And they fear the trial lawyers — that if you beat them on tort reform, they won’t have those resources anymore.”
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14958
Alert! Obama's solution to health care for illegals--give them amnesty!
Alert! Obama's solution to health care for illegals--give them amnesty!
A tsunami of opposition to including illegal aliens in any health care plan has caused even President Obama to declare that no one in the United States illegally would receive benefits under a health care overhaul. Then he offered his solution: offer an amnesty so everybody is legal and everybody gets health care... along with all other government benefits.
Speaking to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Obama said his health care plan will not cover illegal aliens, but he contended that was even more of a reason to legalize them and ensure they do get health coverage.
CLICK HERE to learn more and to take action!
(If above link does not work, try http://capwiz.com/caps/issues/alert/?alertid=14063691)
www.capsweb.org
A tsunami of opposition to including illegal aliens in any health care plan has caused even President Obama to declare that no one in the United States illegally would receive benefits under a health care overhaul. Then he offered his solution: offer an amnesty so everybody is legal and everybody gets health care... along with all other government benefits.
Speaking to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Obama said his health care plan will not cover illegal aliens, but he contended that was even more of a reason to legalize them and ensure they do get health coverage.
CLICK HERE to learn more and to take action!
(If above link does not work, try http://capwiz.com/caps/issues/alert/?alertid=14063691)
www.capsweb.org
Monday, September 21, 2009
looks like Obama got caught in his tax bullshit again
looks like Obama got caught in his tax healthcare bullshit again
this time it was on the ABC George interview,when george pulled out the definition of "tax".
this time it was on the ABC George interview,when george pulled out the definition of "tax".
Friday, September 18, 2009
7 ex CIA directors ask Obama call off the legals dogs?
7 ex CIA directors ask Obama to call off the legals dogs?
Eric holder
Eric holder
VALUES VOTER SUMMIT 2009 Preliminary Schedule
VALUES VOTER SUMMIT
VALUES VOTER SUMMIT 2009 Preliminary Schedule
(as of September 10, 2009) - Speakers and times are subject to change.
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17
3:00 - 9:00 p.m.
REGISTRATION OPENS - West Registration
3:00 - 9:00 p.m.
EXHIBITS OPEN - Ambassador Ballroom
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 18
7:00 a.m.
REGISTRATION OPEN - West Registration
7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
EXHIBITS OPEN - Ambassador Ballroom
7:15 - 8:30 a.m.
American Values Breakfast (Speaker - Gary Bauer, President)--Empire Room (ticketed event) or BREAKFAST ON YOUR OWN
8:45 a.m. - Noon
OPENING OF VALUES VOTER SUMMIT 2009 AND MORNING PLENARY SESSION - Regency Ballroom
Invocation by Kris Mineau, Massachusetts Family Institute
Welcome by Tony Perkins, President, FRC Action and Family Research Council (FRC)
Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind.)
Governor Mike Huckabee
National Health Care Townhall with Q&A
Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)*
Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)
Representative Tom Price (R-Ga.)
Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ)
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
Representative Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
Kelly Shackelford--Chief Counsel, Liberty Legal Institute
Former Miss California Carrie Prejean
12:00-7:00 p.m.
Straw Poll Voting--West Registration
12:00 - 12:30 p.m.
Book Signing - Diplomat Foyer
Rebecca Hagelin
Tony Perkins
12:15 - 1:45 p.m.
Focus on the Family Action Luncheon (Grassroots Action Awards) - Empire Room (ticked event) or Lunch on your own
2:00 - 5:00 p.m.
AFTERNOON PLENARY SESSION - Regency Ballroom
Stephen Baldwin, Actor; Kevin McCullough, Host, Xtreme Radio
Rev. Dr. Ken Hutcherson, Senior Pastor, Antioch Bible Church, Kirkland, WA
Representative Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
Stem Cells: Fact vs. Friction
Dr. David Prentice, Senior Fellow and Director for Life Sciences, Center for Human Life and Bioethics, FRC
Carol Franz, Adult Stem Cell Recipient
Barry Goudy, Adult Stem Cell Recipient
Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska)*
Star Parker, Founder and President, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education
Gary Bauer, President, American Values
5:00 - 5:30 p.m.
Book Signing - Diplomat Foyer
Stephen Baldwin
Carol Franz
Kevin McCullough
Star Parker
5:00 - 7:00 p.m.
Dinner (on your own)
7:00 - 9:30 p.m.
EVENING PLENARY SESSION - Regency Ballroom
Bill O'Reilly, Host, The O'Reilly Factor
Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.)
Joel Rosenberg, Best-Selling Author, Epicenter, Inside the Revolution
33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age
33 Minutes Panel Discussion
Tony Perkins, President, FRC Action and FRC
Dr. Ed Feulner, President, The Heritage Foundation
Dr. Kim Holmes, Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Rebecca Hagelin, Senior Communications Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (Moderator)
9:30 - 10:00 p.m.
Book Signing - Diplomat Foyer
Joel Rosenberg
9:30 p.m. - 10:30pm
VALUES VOTER...THE NEXT GENERATION INTERACTIVE STUDENT EVENT--HAMPTON ROOM
Stephen Baldwin and Kevin McCullough, Hosts, Xtreme Radio - Hampton Room (FREE for all Summit student attendees)
9:30 p.m. - 11:00pm
SNEAK PREVIEW OF To Save a Life - Regency Ballroom
http://www.valuesvotersummit.org/schedule
VALUES VOTER SUMMIT 2009 Preliminary Schedule
(as of September 10, 2009) - Speakers and times are subject to change.
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17
3:00 - 9:00 p.m.
REGISTRATION OPENS - West Registration
3:00 - 9:00 p.m.
EXHIBITS OPEN - Ambassador Ballroom
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 18
7:00 a.m.
REGISTRATION OPEN - West Registration
7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m.
EXHIBITS OPEN - Ambassador Ballroom
7:15 - 8:30 a.m.
American Values Breakfast (Speaker - Gary Bauer, President)--Empire Room (ticketed event) or BREAKFAST ON YOUR OWN
8:45 a.m. - Noon
OPENING OF VALUES VOTER SUMMIT 2009 AND MORNING PLENARY SESSION - Regency Ballroom
Invocation by Kris Mineau, Massachusetts Family Institute
Welcome by Tony Perkins, President, FRC Action and Family Research Council (FRC)
Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind.)
Governor Mike Huckabee
National Health Care Townhall with Q&A
Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)*
Representative Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.)
Representative Tom Price (R-Ga.)
Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ)
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
Representative Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
Kelly Shackelford--Chief Counsel, Liberty Legal Institute
Former Miss California Carrie Prejean
12:00-7:00 p.m.
Straw Poll Voting--West Registration
12:00 - 12:30 p.m.
Book Signing - Diplomat Foyer
Rebecca Hagelin
Tony Perkins
12:15 - 1:45 p.m.
Focus on the Family Action Luncheon (Grassroots Action Awards) - Empire Room (ticked event) or Lunch on your own
2:00 - 5:00 p.m.
AFTERNOON PLENARY SESSION - Regency Ballroom
Stephen Baldwin, Actor; Kevin McCullough, Host, Xtreme Radio
Rev. Dr. Ken Hutcherson, Senior Pastor, Antioch Bible Church, Kirkland, WA
Representative Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)
Stem Cells: Fact vs. Friction
Dr. David Prentice, Senior Fellow and Director for Life Sciences, Center for Human Life and Bioethics, FRC
Carol Franz, Adult Stem Cell Recipient
Barry Goudy, Adult Stem Cell Recipient
Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska)*
Star Parker, Founder and President, Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education
Gary Bauer, President, American Values
5:00 - 5:30 p.m.
Book Signing - Diplomat Foyer
Stephen Baldwin
Carol Franz
Kevin McCullough
Star Parker
5:00 - 7:00 p.m.
Dinner (on your own)
7:00 - 9:30 p.m.
EVENING PLENARY SESSION - Regency Ballroom
Bill O'Reilly, Host, The O'Reilly Factor
Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.)
Joel Rosenberg, Best-Selling Author, Epicenter, Inside the Revolution
33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age
33 Minutes Panel Discussion
Tony Perkins, President, FRC Action and FRC
Dr. Ed Feulner, President, The Heritage Foundation
Dr. Kim Holmes, Vice President, Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Rebecca Hagelin, Senior Communications Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (Moderator)
9:30 - 10:00 p.m.
Book Signing - Diplomat Foyer
Joel Rosenberg
9:30 p.m. - 10:30pm
VALUES VOTER...THE NEXT GENERATION INTERACTIVE STUDENT EVENT--HAMPTON ROOM
Stephen Baldwin and Kevin McCullough, Hosts, Xtreme Radio - Hampton Room (FREE for all Summit student attendees)
9:30 p.m. - 11:00pm
SNEAK PREVIEW OF To Save a Life - Regency Ballroom
http://www.valuesvotersummit.org/schedule
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
BEWARE THE PUBLIC OPTION TRAP
BEWARE THE PUBLIC OPTION TRAP
As any good Persian rug dealer knows, you have to hold back a bargaining chit so that you can whip it out at the very end to tie down the sale. That's how Obama is playing the so-called public option in his health care program. His plan seems to be to combine its abandonment with some form of tort reform and try to buy off some Republicans - maybe only Maine's Olympia Snowe - to give moderate Democrats enough confidence in the veneer of bi-partisanship to win their backing for his bill.
But it's a fraud and a trick.
Here's why:
(a) Whether or not there is a public option makes no difference in the fundamental objection most elderly have to the bill - that it guts Medicare and Medicaid. All of the bills now under consideration cut these two programs by one half of a trillion dollars. And all of them require the medical community to serve thirty to fifty million new patients without any concomitant growth in the number of doctors or nurses. These cuts and shortages will lead to draconian rationing of medical care for the elderly, whether under a public option or not.
(b) The most likely proposal is to replace the public option with some form of buyer's co-op. But since there is no currently existing co-op to serve as a vehicle for health insurance, it would have to be formed. By who? The government, of course. That would mean, as a practical matter, that the "co-op option" would be a government run plan for several years. In fact, they may not get around to setting up a co-op at all.
(c) The other alternative, mentioned by Senator Snowe herself, would be for a "trigger" mechanism. This provision would require the creation of a public alternative to private insurance plans if, after a specified period of time, they did not lower rates to a pre-determined level. Given the escalation of health care costs, it is almost inevitable that this provision would lead to a government plan. And, anyway, who says that the government insurance option would be more successful in reducing costs?
But Obama has to at least appear to be willing to compromise, so he has invented the idea of re-packaging the public option in order to seem to be flexible.
The key, here, is not to be distracted by the debate over the public option. It matters very much to private insurance companies whether the government becomes their competitor, but, for the elderly (and the near-elderly), the key concern is not the public option by the rationing and cuts projected under the program.
In the Clinton Administration, we worked hard to kill the proposed Medicare cuts and are no less committed to stopping them in the Obama presidency. That they were once proposed by the right and are now being pushed by the left makes no difference. A cut is a cut is a cut. And Medicare should not be cut.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on September 16, 2009
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
DICKMORRIS.COM!
THANK YOU!
As any good Persian rug dealer knows, you have to hold back a bargaining chit so that you can whip it out at the very end to tie down the sale. That's how Obama is playing the so-called public option in his health care program. His plan seems to be to combine its abandonment with some form of tort reform and try to buy off some Republicans - maybe only Maine's Olympia Snowe - to give moderate Democrats enough confidence in the veneer of bi-partisanship to win their backing for his bill.
But it's a fraud and a trick.
Here's why:
(a) Whether or not there is a public option makes no difference in the fundamental objection most elderly have to the bill - that it guts Medicare and Medicaid. All of the bills now under consideration cut these two programs by one half of a trillion dollars. And all of them require the medical community to serve thirty to fifty million new patients without any concomitant growth in the number of doctors or nurses. These cuts and shortages will lead to draconian rationing of medical care for the elderly, whether under a public option or not.
(b) The most likely proposal is to replace the public option with some form of buyer's co-op. But since there is no currently existing co-op to serve as a vehicle for health insurance, it would have to be formed. By who? The government, of course. That would mean, as a practical matter, that the "co-op option" would be a government run plan for several years. In fact, they may not get around to setting up a co-op at all.
(c) The other alternative, mentioned by Senator Snowe herself, would be for a "trigger" mechanism. This provision would require the creation of a public alternative to private insurance plans if, after a specified period of time, they did not lower rates to a pre-determined level. Given the escalation of health care costs, it is almost inevitable that this provision would lead to a government plan. And, anyway, who says that the government insurance option would be more successful in reducing costs?
But Obama has to at least appear to be willing to compromise, so he has invented the idea of re-packaging the public option in order to seem to be flexible.
The key, here, is not to be distracted by the debate over the public option. It matters very much to private insurance companies whether the government becomes their competitor, but, for the elderly (and the near-elderly), the key concern is not the public option by the rationing and cuts projected under the program.
In the Clinton Administration, we worked hard to kill the proposed Medicare cuts and are no less committed to stopping them in the Obama presidency. That they were once proposed by the right and are now being pushed by the left makes no difference. A cut is a cut is a cut. And Medicare should not be cut.
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on September 16, 2009
Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
DICKMORRIS.COM!
THANK YOU!
who were those 7 shithead senators that voted money $$ for ACORN?
who were those 7 shithead senators that voted money $$ for ACORN?
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
$6.3 million legal bailout for Obama's friend Franklin Raines of Fannie Mae shame
$6.3 million legal bailout for Obama's friend Franklin Raines of Fannie Mae shame
Regulator Reveals Litigation Costs for Ex-Fannie Mae Execs Posted by Brian Baxter
Recent disclosures from the Federal Housing Finance Agency reveal that lawyers representing former Fannie Mae executives Franklin Raines, J. Timothy Howard, and Leanne Spencer have received a total of $6.3 million for defending the trio in shareholder suits since Fannie Mae was placed into a conservatorship last year.
A close look at court documents indicates that
Williams & Connolly, Zuckerman Spaeder, and Mayer Brown are the firms representing
the three executives.
The New York Times reported last weekend that the FHFA made the legal bills public in response to
a request by Democratic congressman Alan Grayson from Florida. Grayson's office then provided
those documents to The Am Law Daily. (The FHFA became Fannie Mae's new regulator after the
passage of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.)
Grayson asked the FHFA whether or not taxpayers were footing the legal tab for the three executives,
all of whom were long gone by the time Fannie Mae was rescued by the government last year.
Former CEO Raines, former CFO Howard, and ex-senior vice president and controller Spencer resigned
in December 2004 amidst allegations of accounting irregularities at Fannie Mae. In December 2006
the Office of Federal Housing and Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), Fannie Mae's regulator
at the time, sued the trio over their alleged roles in the accounting scandal.
The three agreed to a $31.4 million settlement with OFHEO in April 2008.
But the settlement entailed virtually no out-of-pocket payments by the former executives, with the three relinquishing stock options and fines being paid by Fannie Mae's insurance.
The accounting scandal did spawn a series of shareholder suits against Fannie Mae's directors and officers, requiring the company to cover their legal costs. The securities litigation has been
consolidated in federal court in Washington, D.C., before U.S. district court judge Richard Leon.
The litigation is distinct from multidistrict litigation in Manhattan before U.S. district
court judge Paul Crotty that relates to suits filed against Fannie Mae for alleged financial
misstatements from November 2006 through the financial crisis last year that forced the company into conservatorship.
O'Melveny & Myers partners Jeffrey Kilduff and Robert Stern are representing Fannie Mae
in the securities cases consolidated in D.C. The firm is serving as cocounsel with Latham & Watkins partners James Brandt and Jeff Hammel in the MDL in New York. (Jenner & Block also is representing
Fannie Mae in a separate suit against its former auditor,
KPMG, related to the alleged accounting improprieties.)
As a point of comparison, lawyers familiar with both pieces of litigation say that the securities cases in D.C. deal with a drop in Fannie Mae's stock price from $72 to $62, whereas the more recent litigation in New York pertains to a drop in shareholder value from $50 to nearly zero.
The recent disclosures by the FHFA pertain only to fees for defense lawyers retained by Raines, Howard, and Spencer in cases related to the accounting controversy that came to light in 2004.
"The amounts include fees and expenses incurred in connection with the defense of derivative, securities, and ERISA claims pending in the U.S. district court for the District of Columbia," states an FHFA document released to Grayson's office. "The amounts . . . do not include invoices for expenses totaling $0.4 million incurred in connection with government investigations prior to the conservatorship."
The FHFA states that $23.1 million in invoices for defending Fannie Mae and its management in the shareholder actions in D.C. were received between September 6, 2008, the date Fannie Mae was placed into conservatorship, through July 21 of this year.
An examination of court documents shows that Williams & Connolly partners Kevin Downey, Joseph Terry, Jr., and Alex Romain are representing Raines in the litigation. The FHFA states that $2.43 million was spent defending Raines during the September 6 through July 21 time frame.
Zuckerman Spaeder partners Steven Salky and Eric Delinsky are representing Howard. FHFA disclosures show that $1.35 million has been spent on Howard's defense during the same time period.
Spencer has turned to a legal team from Mayer Brown led by global litigation practice
coleader David Krakoff and partner Christopher Regan. The FHFA states that $2.52 million has been spent on Spencer's legal defense.
The legal costs for all three executives are not extraordinary nor unusual for a high-end securities litigation defense. If Fannie Mae didn't pay the legal fees for its current and former directors and officers, it might have some trouble finding individuals willing to take such a position.
Lawyers with knowledge of the litigation, who requested anonymity in order to speak freely, say the past year has been busy with motion practice, discovery, and depositions. (According to the FHFA, none of those depositions were of Raines, Howard, or Spencer.)
Lawyers say that the FHFA, the successor to OFHEO, has refused to produce documents in the case. Earlier this year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld an order holding OFHEO in contempt for missing e-discovery deadlines. Officials from the regulator, which blessed many Fannie Mae disclosures before later changing their tune, could be critical witnesses in any case against the three former Fannie Mae executives.
When deducting the $6.3 million earmarked in defense costs for Raines, Howard, and Spencer from the FHFA's $23.1 million in total legal costs for the D.C. shareholder actions, $16.8 million remains to cover the legal bills for outside counsel representing the OFHEO and the FHFA.
Duane Morris partner Joseph Aronica, who served as lead counsel to OFHEO in its examination of
Fannie Mae and the regulator's subsequent action against the three former executives several
years ago, did not respond to a request for comment. Court records show that Aronica
has recently become involved in the civil litigation on behalf of the FHFA.
Lead plaintiffs counsel in the shareholder litigation consolidated in D.C. is Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, the Cincinnati-based firm of noted trial lawyer Stanley Chesley. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll is serving as local counsel.
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/09/regulator-reveals-litigation-costs-for-ex-fannie-mae-execs.html
Regulator Reveals Litigation Costs for Ex-Fannie Mae Execs Posted by Brian Baxter
Recent disclosures from the Federal Housing Finance Agency reveal that lawyers representing former Fannie Mae executives Franklin Raines, J. Timothy Howard, and Leanne Spencer have received a total of $6.3 million for defending the trio in shareholder suits since Fannie Mae was placed into a conservatorship last year.
A close look at court documents indicates that
Williams & Connolly, Zuckerman Spaeder, and Mayer Brown are the firms representing
the three executives.
The New York Times reported last weekend that the FHFA made the legal bills public in response to
a request by Democratic congressman Alan Grayson from Florida. Grayson's office then provided
those documents to The Am Law Daily. (The FHFA became Fannie Mae's new regulator after the
passage of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.)
Grayson asked the FHFA whether or not taxpayers were footing the legal tab for the three executives,
all of whom were long gone by the time Fannie Mae was rescued by the government last year.
Former CEO Raines, former CFO Howard, and ex-senior vice president and controller Spencer resigned
in December 2004 amidst allegations of accounting irregularities at Fannie Mae. In December 2006
the Office of Federal Housing and Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), Fannie Mae's regulator
at the time, sued the trio over their alleged roles in the accounting scandal.
The three agreed to a $31.4 million settlement with OFHEO in April 2008.
But the settlement entailed virtually no out-of-pocket payments by the former executives, with the three relinquishing stock options and fines being paid by Fannie Mae's insurance.
The accounting scandal did spawn a series of shareholder suits against Fannie Mae's directors and officers, requiring the company to cover their legal costs. The securities litigation has been
consolidated in federal court in Washington, D.C., before U.S. district court judge Richard Leon.
The litigation is distinct from multidistrict litigation in Manhattan before U.S. district
court judge Paul Crotty that relates to suits filed against Fannie Mae for alleged financial
misstatements from November 2006 through the financial crisis last year that forced the company into conservatorship.
O'Melveny & Myers partners Jeffrey Kilduff and Robert Stern are representing Fannie Mae
in the securities cases consolidated in D.C. The firm is serving as cocounsel with Latham & Watkins partners James Brandt and Jeff Hammel in the MDL in New York. (Jenner & Block also is representing
Fannie Mae in a separate suit against its former auditor,
KPMG, related to the alleged accounting improprieties.)
As a point of comparison, lawyers familiar with both pieces of litigation say that the securities cases in D.C. deal with a drop in Fannie Mae's stock price from $72 to $62, whereas the more recent litigation in New York pertains to a drop in shareholder value from $50 to nearly zero.
The recent disclosures by the FHFA pertain only to fees for defense lawyers retained by Raines, Howard, and Spencer in cases related to the accounting controversy that came to light in 2004.
"The amounts include fees and expenses incurred in connection with the defense of derivative, securities, and ERISA claims pending in the U.S. district court for the District of Columbia," states an FHFA document released to Grayson's office. "The amounts . . . do not include invoices for expenses totaling $0.4 million incurred in connection with government investigations prior to the conservatorship."
The FHFA states that $23.1 million in invoices for defending Fannie Mae and its management in the shareholder actions in D.C. were received between September 6, 2008, the date Fannie Mae was placed into conservatorship, through July 21 of this year.
An examination of court documents shows that Williams & Connolly partners Kevin Downey, Joseph Terry, Jr., and Alex Romain are representing Raines in the litigation. The FHFA states that $2.43 million was spent defending Raines during the September 6 through July 21 time frame.
Zuckerman Spaeder partners Steven Salky and Eric Delinsky are representing Howard. FHFA disclosures show that $1.35 million has been spent on Howard's defense during the same time period.
Spencer has turned to a legal team from Mayer Brown led by global litigation practice
coleader David Krakoff and partner Christopher Regan. The FHFA states that $2.52 million has been spent on Spencer's legal defense.
The legal costs for all three executives are not extraordinary nor unusual for a high-end securities litigation defense. If Fannie Mae didn't pay the legal fees for its current and former directors and officers, it might have some trouble finding individuals willing to take such a position.
Lawyers with knowledge of the litigation, who requested anonymity in order to speak freely, say the past year has been busy with motion practice, discovery, and depositions. (According to the FHFA, none of those depositions were of Raines, Howard, or Spencer.)
Lawyers say that the FHFA, the successor to OFHEO, has refused to produce documents in the case. Earlier this year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld an order holding OFHEO in contempt for missing e-discovery deadlines. Officials from the regulator, which blessed many Fannie Mae disclosures before later changing their tune, could be critical witnesses in any case against the three former Fannie Mae executives.
When deducting the $6.3 million earmarked in defense costs for Raines, Howard, and Spencer from the FHFA's $23.1 million in total legal costs for the D.C. shareholder actions, $16.8 million remains to cover the legal bills for outside counsel representing the OFHEO and the FHFA.
Duane Morris partner Joseph Aronica, who served as lead counsel to OFHEO in its examination of
Fannie Mae and the regulator's subsequent action against the three former executives several
years ago, did not respond to a request for comment. Court records show that Aronica
has recently become involved in the civil litigation on behalf of the FHFA.
Lead plaintiffs counsel in the shareholder litigation consolidated in D.C. is Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley, the Cincinnati-based firm of noted trial lawyer Stanley Chesley. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll is serving as local counsel.
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/09/regulator-reveals-litigation-costs-for-ex-fannie-mae-execs.html
$6 million to defend Fannie Mae 's Franklin Raines
THE DAILY OUTRAGE: Bailing out bad management
By: Daily Outrage
Examiner Editorial Feature
September 15, 2009 WHO: Fannie Mae
WHAT: Ever since the federal government took this failed quasigovernmental enterprise into conservatorship last year, taxpayers are now on the hook for legal fees to defend the shady actions of three former top executives.
WHY IT'S AN OUTRAGE: In the first 10 months since the government takeover, taxpayers have been billed more than $6 million defending Franklin Raines and two others allegedly involved in Fannie's $6.3 billion accounting discrepancy.
WHERE TO VENT: Fannie Mae inspector general, 202-408-2544
see org at...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/daily-outrage/Bailing-out-bad-management-8242786.html
By: Daily Outrage
Examiner Editorial Feature
September 15, 2009 WHO: Fannie Mae
WHAT: Ever since the federal government took this failed quasigovernmental enterprise into conservatorship last year, taxpayers are now on the hook for legal fees to defend the shady actions of three former top executives.
WHY IT'S AN OUTRAGE: In the first 10 months since the government takeover, taxpayers have been billed more than $6 million defending Franklin Raines and two others allegedly involved in Fannie's $6.3 billion accounting discrepancy.
WHERE TO VENT: Fannie Mae inspector general, 202-408-2544
see org at...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/daily-outrage/Bailing-out-bad-management-8242786.html
Monday, September 14, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Tea Party Express in Washington on 9/12/09
Washington, D.C. is the 34th, and last, stop on the Tea Party Express national bus tour with our caravan arriving at the 09.12.09 Taxpayer March on D.C.
Date/Time: Saturday, September 12th
9:00am - Crowd gathers at Freedom Plaza
10:00am - March begins down Pennsylvania Avenue
1:00pm - March ends and rally begins at West Front of the U.S. Capitol
Rally Location:
West Front of the U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C.
http://teapartyexpress.org/tour/dc.html
http://teapartyexpress.org
link to the official Tea Party Express
Date/Time: Saturday, September 12th
9:00am - Crowd gathers at Freedom Plaza
10:00am - March begins down Pennsylvania Avenue
1:00pm - March ends and rally begins at West Front of the U.S. Capitol
Rally Location:
West Front of the U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C.
http://teapartyexpress.org/tour/dc.html
http://teapartyexpress.org
link to the official Tea Party Express
Obama invites Rep Joe Wilson to appear before his death panel ?
Obama invites Rep Joe Wilson to appear before his death panel ?
compliments of conan
compliments of conan
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Federal Court Upholds E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule
Federal Court Upholds E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule
The amnesty lobby suffered a significant setback last week as a federal court upheld a regulation that will require most federal contractors to use E-Verify — the online, electronically operated employment verification system that allows employers to quickly and easily check the work authorization status of their new hires. (The New York Times, August 27, 2009).
The ruling came more than eight months after a coalition of special interest groups — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.; the Society for Human Resource Management; the American Council on International Personnel; and the HR Policy Association - sued to block the rule from taking effect on its original targeted implementation date of January 15, 2009. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, January 5, 2009).
The push to require federal contractors to use E-Verify has had a long history. On June 6, 2008, then-President George W. Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13,456, which amended EO 12,989 to require federal contractors to use an electronic employment eligibility verification system to verify the work authorization status of their employees. EO 13,456 also required the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to choose the verification system to be used. (EO 13,456, June 9, 2008). On June 9, 2008, former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff designated E-Verify as the system to be used by federal contractors under the EO. (DHS Press Release, June 9, 2008). The Final Rule implementing President Bush's EO was issued in mid-November 2008. (Final Rule, November 14, 2008).
On December 23, 2008, a coalition of special interests filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Maryland alleging that the Final Rule was unlawful because it violated the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The plaintiffs argued that Secretary Chertoff had violated Section 402(a) of IIRIRA, which states that "the Secretary of Homeland Security may not require any person or other entity to participate in a pilot program [of employment eligibility confirmation]." In designating E-Verify as the electronic employment eligibility verification system to be used by federal contractors under President Bush's EO, the plaintiffs alleged that Chertoff had violated this statutory prohibition. The complaint contained several other allegations, including a claim that the Final Rule violated a separate IIRIRA statutory prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. (Complaint, December 23, 2008).
In last week's decision, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. rejected the claims made by the coalition of special interest groups. Judge Williams noted that "[t]he decision to be a government contractor is voluntary and…no one has a right to be a government contractor." Williams added that, even though the Final Rule requires federal contractors to enroll in E-Verify, "[p]otential government contractors have the option not to contract with the government," so Secretary Chertoff hadn't actually required anyone or any entity to use E-Verify. Judge Williams also went on to reject the coalition's claims that the E-Verify contractor rule violated an IIRIRA prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. According to Williams: "Nothing in IIRIRA explicitly prohibits the Executive Branch from using E-Verify for current employees." (Decision, August 25, 2009).
The Obama Administration has indicated that it intends to implement the final rule on September 8, 2009 — after having delayed the regulation on three separate occasions. (See The Washington Post, January 30, 2009 and FAIR's Legislative Updates from April 20, 2009; June 8, 2009 and July 13, 2009).However, the E-Verify program itself is set to expire on September 30, 2009. While many immigration reformers have been insisting that the program be permanently reauthorized, the Administration has avoided adopting such a position. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) successfully attached a related E-Verify amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security spending bill that would (1) permanently reauthorize E-Verify and (2) require all federal contractors to use E-Verify to check the work authorization status on all of their new hires, plus existing employees who are assigned to affected federal contracts. The fate of the Sessions Amendment is uncertain, however. The Homeland Security spending bill is scheduled to move to a House-Senate conference sometime in September. Since the House version of the bill does not contain the Sessions Amendment, the Conference Report — which would likely become law - may include or drop this language. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 13, 2009).
The amnesty lobby suffered a significant setback last week as a federal court upheld a regulation that will require most federal contractors to use E-Verify — the online, electronically operated employment verification system that allows employers to quickly and easily check the work authorization status of their new hires. (The New York Times, August 27, 2009).
The ruling came more than eight months after a coalition of special interest groups — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.; the Society for Human Resource Management; the American Council on International Personnel; and the HR Policy Association - sued to block the rule from taking effect on its original targeted implementation date of January 15, 2009. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, January 5, 2009).
The push to require federal contractors to use E-Verify has had a long history. On June 6, 2008, then-President George W. Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13,456, which amended EO 12,989 to require federal contractors to use an electronic employment eligibility verification system to verify the work authorization status of their employees. EO 13,456 also required the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to choose the verification system to be used. (EO 13,456, June 9, 2008). On June 9, 2008, former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff designated E-Verify as the system to be used by federal contractors under the EO. (DHS Press Release, June 9, 2008). The Final Rule implementing President Bush's EO was issued in mid-November 2008. (Final Rule, November 14, 2008).
On December 23, 2008, a coalition of special interests filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Maryland alleging that the Final Rule was unlawful because it violated the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The plaintiffs argued that Secretary Chertoff had violated Section 402(a) of IIRIRA, which states that "the Secretary of Homeland Security may not require any person or other entity to participate in a pilot program [of employment eligibility confirmation]." In designating E-Verify as the electronic employment eligibility verification system to be used by federal contractors under President Bush's EO, the plaintiffs alleged that Chertoff had violated this statutory prohibition. The complaint contained several other allegations, including a claim that the Final Rule violated a separate IIRIRA statutory prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. (Complaint, December 23, 2008).
In last week's decision, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. rejected the claims made by the coalition of special interest groups. Judge Williams noted that "[t]he decision to be a government contractor is voluntary and…no one has a right to be a government contractor." Williams added that, even though the Final Rule requires federal contractors to enroll in E-Verify, "[p]otential government contractors have the option not to contract with the government," so Secretary Chertoff hadn't actually required anyone or any entity to use E-Verify. Judge Williams also went on to reject the coalition's claims that the E-Verify contractor rule violated an IIRIRA prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. According to Williams: "Nothing in IIRIRA explicitly prohibits the Executive Branch from using E-Verify for current employees." (Decision, August 25, 2009).
The Obama Administration has indicated that it intends to implement the final rule on September 8, 2009 — after having delayed the regulation on three separate occasions. (See The Washington Post, January 30, 2009 and FAIR's Legislative Updates from April 20, 2009; June 8, 2009 and July 13, 2009).However, the E-Verify program itself is set to expire on September 30, 2009. While many immigration reformers have been insisting that the program be permanently reauthorized, the Administration has avoided adopting such a position. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) successfully attached a related E-Verify amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security spending bill that would (1) permanently reauthorize E-Verify and (2) require all federal contractors to use E-Verify to check the work authorization status on all of their new hires, plus existing employees who are assigned to affected federal contracts. The fate of the Sessions Amendment is uncertain, however. The Homeland Security spending bill is scheduled to move to a House-Senate conference sometime in September. Since the House version of the bill does not contain the Sessions Amendment, the Conference Report — which would likely become law - may include or drop this language. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 13, 2009).
Illegal Aliens Will Get Health Benefits Under House Bill
Congressional Research Agency Confirms Illegal Aliens Will Get Health Benefits Under House Bill
Last Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which is the non-partisan "research arm" of the United States Congress, issued a report that concludes that illegal aliens will be able to receive benefits under the House health care bill (H.R. 3200) through two major loopholes. (See CRS Report and FAIR Press Release, August 26, 2009).
According to its own website, CRS is a legislative branch agency that provides Congress with "policy and legal analysis" that is authoritative, objective and accurate. (CRS website). The latest CRS report validates what FAIR has been saying for the past month and a half — that illegal aliens will be able to receive taxpayer-funded health benefits under the House health care bill. (See FAIR's Legislative Updates, July 20, 2009; July 27, 2009 and August 3, 2009).
The House bill creates an "exchange" and "all individuals," which would include illegal aliens, are eligible to participate in the exchange. Anyone who participates in the exchange, and does not otherwise have health insurance, can either enroll in the public option plan created by the House bill or enroll in a private insurance plan. Accordingly, the first loophole that provides illegal aliens with health insurance is the ability for illegal aliens to freely enroll in the taxpayer-subsidized public option. According to CRS, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — from participating in the Exchange." (CRS Report). Accordingly, illegal aliens can enroll in the public option, courtesy of the American taxpayers, to meet their health insurance needs. (See CNN.com, August 2009).
The second major loophole is the failure to require any meaningful verification procedure for taxpayer-subsidized insurance credits. Under the House bill, individuals who buy private insurance through the Exchange may receive an affordability credit to offset the cost of insurance. This credit is ostensibly limited to individuals lawfully present in the U.S., but CRS (like FAIR) notes the complete absence of any provision in the House bill that requires verification of eligibility for the affordability credits. Without such a mechanism, there is nothing in the bill that will prevent illegal aliens from receiving this taxpayer subsidy to buy private health insurance.
These conclusions by CRS should eliminate any remaining doubt about whether illegal aliens will receive health benefits under the bill. As a result of this report, President Obama can no longer characterize the concerns about the illegal alien health care loophole under the bill as "misinformation." (See FAIR's Legislative Update, August 24, 2009 and FAIR's Health Care Podcast, August 24, 2009). In addition, Members of Congress can no longer claim the bill prevents coverage for illegal aliens, and the media can no longer suggest this concern is a "myth." (See FAIR's House bill summary and Townhall.com, August 27, 2009).
Federal Court Upholds E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule
The amnesty lobby suffered
Last Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which is the non-partisan "research arm" of the United States Congress, issued a report that concludes that illegal aliens will be able to receive benefits under the House health care bill (H.R. 3200) through two major loopholes. (See CRS Report and FAIR Press Release, August 26, 2009).
According to its own website, CRS is a legislative branch agency that provides Congress with "policy and legal analysis" that is authoritative, objective and accurate. (CRS website). The latest CRS report validates what FAIR has been saying for the past month and a half — that illegal aliens will be able to receive taxpayer-funded health benefits under the House health care bill. (See FAIR's Legislative Updates, July 20, 2009; July 27, 2009 and August 3, 2009).
The House bill creates an "exchange" and "all individuals," which would include illegal aliens, are eligible to participate in the exchange. Anyone who participates in the exchange, and does not otherwise have health insurance, can either enroll in the public option plan created by the House bill or enroll in a private insurance plan. Accordingly, the first loophole that provides illegal aliens with health insurance is the ability for illegal aliens to freely enroll in the taxpayer-subsidized public option. According to CRS, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — from participating in the Exchange." (CRS Report). Accordingly, illegal aliens can enroll in the public option, courtesy of the American taxpayers, to meet their health insurance needs. (See CNN.com, August 2009).
The second major loophole is the failure to require any meaningful verification procedure for taxpayer-subsidized insurance credits. Under the House bill, individuals who buy private insurance through the Exchange may receive an affordability credit to offset the cost of insurance. This credit is ostensibly limited to individuals lawfully present in the U.S., but CRS (like FAIR) notes the complete absence of any provision in the House bill that requires verification of eligibility for the affordability credits. Without such a mechanism, there is nothing in the bill that will prevent illegal aliens from receiving this taxpayer subsidy to buy private health insurance.
These conclusions by CRS should eliminate any remaining doubt about whether illegal aliens will receive health benefits under the bill. As a result of this report, President Obama can no longer characterize the concerns about the illegal alien health care loophole under the bill as "misinformation." (See FAIR's Legislative Update, August 24, 2009 and FAIR's Health Care Podcast, August 24, 2009). In addition, Members of Congress can no longer claim the bill prevents coverage for illegal aliens, and the media can no longer suggest this concern is a "myth." (See FAIR's House bill summary and Townhall.com, August 27, 2009).
Federal Court Upholds E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule
The amnesty lobby suffered
DOCTOR SHORTAGE WILL WORSEN HEALTH BILL IMPACT
DOCTOR SHORTAGE WILL WORSEN HEALTH BILL IMPACT
The fundamental question that the Obama Administration has never answered is a simple one: How can they treat 50 million new patients with no extra doctors?
A new report from the American Association of Medical Colleges underscores the urgency of this concern. The Association notes that the United States now suffers from a shortage of 15,000 doctors - a shortfall that is expected to grow to 125,000 in fifteen years. And, the Association reports, if universal health insurance is passed, the shortage will grow to over 150,000 by 2025.
While the number of elderly people in the U.S. is expected to grow by 60% over the next decade and a half, the number of doctors will increase by only about 6%. (Total U.S. population will rise by about 17% over the same period).
This shortage of doctors will, inevitably, lead to the rationing of medical care, more quickly and drastically if the Obama plan is passed. In Massachusetts, where universal health coverage was enacted under Governor Mitt Romney in 2006, the Medical Society found that the number of patients who reported difficulty in getting care has already risen by 50% up to a quarter of the patient population. The New York Times reports that "a main reason for the logjam was long waiting times for appointments."
In 1949, when President Harry Truman first proposed mandatory health insurance, he coupled his initiative with an expansion of federal aid to medical schools. But Obama makes no provision for an expansion of the pool of doctors, even as he grows the population of patients by up to 50 million.
Indeed, by cutting medical fees by dropping the reimbursement rates under Medicare, he likely will hasten the retirement of many medical professionals worsening the underlying shortage. The Times quotes medical experts as predicting that the three years specified in the House bill as the time by which universal health insurance coverage will take effect "is not nearly enough time to build the supply of doctors needed to care for the additional tens of million of people who would become newly insured."
Because there will not be enough doctors, nurses, and medical equipment for the massive influx of patients under the Obama plan, there will be rationing, more draconian year after year. As in Canada, it is this fundamental discrepancy between the number of patients and the population of doctors that will lead to rationing. From there, the inevitable consequence will be cutbacks in care for the elderly. Optional procedures, vital to quality life but not to survival, are likely to be limited. Hip replacements, new knees, hearing aids, and such are less and less likely to be approved. And, medical administrators will be less likely to OK surgery or expensive medical treatments for the elderly who they perceive to be at the end of their "quality" years.
It is the shortage of doctors, not any specific language in the text of the legislation, that makes rationing and the so-called "death panels" cited by Sarah Palin inevitable.
We all agree that everybody should have health insurance, but let us precede this step by expanding the number of doctors and nurses so that we can cover everyone without sacrificing the care for anyone. Otherwise, we are not giving 50 million new people medical care. We are consigning 300 million, and particularly the elderly among them, to long waiting lists.
By DICK MORRIS / EILEEN MCGANN
White House Secrets Revealed as Never Before - Click here!
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/aug09.cfm?PROMO_CODE=8824-1
Do You Really Want Sarah Palin in 2012?
http://news1.newsmax.com/palin/?PROMO_CODE=8825-1
The fundamental question that the Obama Administration has never answered is a simple one: How can they treat 50 million new patients with no extra doctors?
A new report from the American Association of Medical Colleges underscores the urgency of this concern. The Association notes that the United States now suffers from a shortage of 15,000 doctors - a shortfall that is expected to grow to 125,000 in fifteen years. And, the Association reports, if universal health insurance is passed, the shortage will grow to over 150,000 by 2025.
While the number of elderly people in the U.S. is expected to grow by 60% over the next decade and a half, the number of doctors will increase by only about 6%. (Total U.S. population will rise by about 17% over the same period).
This shortage of doctors will, inevitably, lead to the rationing of medical care, more quickly and drastically if the Obama plan is passed. In Massachusetts, where universal health coverage was enacted under Governor Mitt Romney in 2006, the Medical Society found that the number of patients who reported difficulty in getting care has already risen by 50% up to a quarter of the patient population. The New York Times reports that "a main reason for the logjam was long waiting times for appointments."
In 1949, when President Harry Truman first proposed mandatory health insurance, he coupled his initiative with an expansion of federal aid to medical schools. But Obama makes no provision for an expansion of the pool of doctors, even as he grows the population of patients by up to 50 million.
Indeed, by cutting medical fees by dropping the reimbursement rates under Medicare, he likely will hasten the retirement of many medical professionals worsening the underlying shortage. The Times quotes medical experts as predicting that the three years specified in the House bill as the time by which universal health insurance coverage will take effect "is not nearly enough time to build the supply of doctors needed to care for the additional tens of million of people who would become newly insured."
Because there will not be enough doctors, nurses, and medical equipment for the massive influx of patients under the Obama plan, there will be rationing, more draconian year after year. As in Canada, it is this fundamental discrepancy between the number of patients and the population of doctors that will lead to rationing. From there, the inevitable consequence will be cutbacks in care for the elderly. Optional procedures, vital to quality life but not to survival, are likely to be limited. Hip replacements, new knees, hearing aids, and such are less and less likely to be approved. And, medical administrators will be less likely to OK surgery or expensive medical treatments for the elderly who they perceive to be at the end of their "quality" years.
It is the shortage of doctors, not any specific language in the text of the legislation, that makes rationing and the so-called "death panels" cited by Sarah Palin inevitable.
We all agree that everybody should have health insurance, but let us precede this step by expanding the number of doctors and nurses so that we can cover everyone without sacrificing the care for anyone. Otherwise, we are not giving 50 million new people medical care. We are consigning 300 million, and particularly the elderly among them, to long waiting lists.
By DICK MORRIS / EILEEN MCGANN
White House Secrets Revealed as Never Before - Click here!
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/aug09.cfm?PROMO_CODE=8824-1
Do You Really Want Sarah Palin in 2012?
http://news1.newsmax.com/palin/?PROMO_CODE=8825-1
is Obama actually aiding and abetting Medicare fraud and waste?
is Obama actually aiding and abetting Medicare fraud and waste?
If President Obama is aware of any fraud and waste in Medicare,
and doesn't do anything about it, isn't he guilty of mismanagement ?
If President Obama is aware of any fraud and waste in Medicare,
and doesn't do anything about it, isn't he guilty of mismanagement ?
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Show me the money ! smooth talking obama
Show me the money ! smooth talking obama
Show me the money ! smooth talking obama, more bullshit.
He does deserve points as smooth salesman.
Show me the money ! smooth talking obama, more bullshit.
He does deserve points as smooth salesman.
Obama see millions in Medicare waste and fraud? what the fuck ?
Obama see millions in Medicare waste and fraud? what the fuck ?
Pres Obama has been talking on the millions he would save on medicare fraud and abuse, if he is aware of this why doesn't he fix it immediately and fire / jail the people responsible ?
Pres Obama has been talking on the millions he would save on medicare fraud and abuse, if he is aware of this why doesn't he fix it immediately and fire / jail the people responsible ?
say no to CASS SUNSTEIN
another radical shithead from Obama Cass Sunstein
As he makes a real impact in pushing conservative fringe attacks on Obama administration officials into the mainstream, Glenn Beck’s Twitter feed has become a must-read. In a message from last night, Beck told his followers to “FIND EVERYTHING YOU CAN ON CASS SUNSTEIN, MARK LLOYD AND CAROL BROWNER.”
As he makes a real impact in pushing conservative fringe attacks on Obama administration officials into the mainstream, Glenn Beck’s Twitter feed has become a must-read. In a message from last night, Beck told his followers to “FIND EVERYTHING YOU CAN ON CASS SUNSTEIN, MARK LLOYD AND CAROL BROWNER.”
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
where was NBC ABC CBS on the Van Jones czar issue?
where was NBC ABC CBS on the Van Jones czar issue?
the reporting was started by Fox news on the Glenn beck show early in the week,were glenn beck showed the video clip of Van Jones as a self proclaimed communist. showing Jones had signed the petition that Bush knew of the 911 attack. Called Pres Bush a crackhead.
It was only Van Jones resigned on Saturday night around midnight over a holiday weekend, that the non cable news media picked up the story.
see latest news at www.glennbeck.com
the reporting was started by Fox news on the Glenn beck show early in the week,were glenn beck showed the video clip of Van Jones as a self proclaimed communist. showing Jones had signed the petition that Bush knew of the 911 attack. Called Pres Bush a crackhead.
It was only Van Jones resigned on Saturday night around midnight over a holiday weekend, that the non cable news media picked up the story.
see latest news at www.glennbeck.com
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Obama as a sacred cow ?
Obama as a sacred cow ?
why is president Obama treated like a sort of sacred cow by NBC and ABC?
why is president Obama treated like a sort of sacred cow by NBC and ABC?
How much does a Obama czar cost ? including staff etc?
How much does a Obama czar cost ? including staff office space etc?
He now has 37 czars ?
what happened to cabinet level jobs ?
Is this another tier of goverment that Obama needs?
He now has 37 czars ?
what happened to cabinet level jobs ?
Is this another tier of goverment that Obama needs?
1 less commie Czar in the White House : Van Jones quits
1 less commie Czar in the White House: Van Jones quits
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's environmental adviser Van Jones, has resigned his White House job after what he calls a "vicious smear campaign against me."
The resignation, disclosed without advance notice by the White House in an e-mail minutes into Sunday on a holiday weekend, came as Obama is working to regain his footing in the contentious health care debate.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's environmental adviser Van Jones, has resigned his White House job after what he calls a "vicious smear campaign against me."
The resignation, disclosed without advance notice by the White House in an e-mail minutes into Sunday on a holiday weekend, came as Obama is working to regain his footing in the contentious health care debate.
Friday, September 04, 2009
AP finally picks up "Czar" Van Jones story
AP finally picks up "Czar" Van Jones story
but they had tinted it with thier Obama love, anti GOP color.
Republicans who have spent months criticizing the proliferation of “czars” in the Obama White House have finally landed a major punch.
Over the past few weeks, White House green jobs czar Van Jones has been accused of being a communist, an old lecture video showed him calling Republicans a—holes, and he’s been connected to a Sept. 11 conspiracy group.
With that type of paper trail, Jones would have trouble surviving a Senate confirmation.
But his czar status allowed him to skip this step: Many of the high-level White House policy advisers don’t require Senate confirmation for their posts. And while liberals have hailed Jones as a pioneer in the green jobs movement, critics have labeled him a radical — and he’s become a liability for a White House that doesn’t need another distraction.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26781.html#ixzz0QBRDhbnN
but they had tinted it with thier Obama love, anti GOP color.
Republicans who have spent months criticizing the proliferation of “czars” in the Obama White House have finally landed a major punch.
Over the past few weeks, White House green jobs czar Van Jones has been accused of being a communist, an old lecture video showed him calling Republicans a—holes, and he’s been connected to a Sept. 11 conspiracy group.
With that type of paper trail, Jones would have trouble surviving a Senate confirmation.
But his czar status allowed him to skip this step: Many of the high-level White House policy advisers don’t require Senate confirmation for their posts. And while liberals have hailed Jones as a pioneer in the green jobs movement, critics have labeled him a radical — and he’s become a liability for a White House that doesn’t need another distraction.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26781.html#ixzz0QBRDhbnN
did Valerie Garrett ,Chicago democrat , vet Van Jones for Obama ?
did Valerie Garrett ,Chicago Democrat , vet Van Jones for Obama ?
Van Jones is the radical "czar" that Obama appointed into his 2nd tier of goverment. Van Jones did sign and promote a investigation into the 911 conspiracy that Bush knew of the Sept 11 attach.
see more on this 2nd tier of the 37 radicals that Obama as employed
in the White House.
Van Jones is the radical "czar" that Obama appointed into his 2nd tier of goverment. Van Jones did sign and promote a investigation into the 911 conspiracy that Bush knew of the Sept 11 attach.
see more on this 2nd tier of the 37 radicals that Obama as employed
in the White House.
David Horowitz will be on Glenn Beck
David Horowitz will be on Glenn Beck TODAY discussing Saul Alinsky
How to Defeat the Left
By: David Horowitz / NewsReal
Conservatives should never confront leftists without
www.frontpagemag.com
How to Defeat the Left
By: David Horowitz / NewsReal
Conservatives should never confront leftists without
www.frontpagemag.com
Obama's Van Jones thinks the governemnt was behind Sept 11
For President Obama's green jobs advisor, Van Jones, Labor Day can't come soon enough.
The Washington Independent has turned up a six-year-old petition Jones signed alleging government complicity in the September 11 terror attacks. This comes just one day after The Hill reported the existence of a video clip recorded in February in which Jones referred to Republicans - and himself - as "a**holes."
Jones joined the Obama administration in May. He was the founder of a green jobs advocacy organization based in Oakland, Ca.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/03/blogs/coopscorner/entry5286699.shtml
The Washington Independent has turned up a six-year-old petition Jones signed alleging government complicity in the September 11 terror attacks. This comes just one day after The Hill reported the existence of a video clip recorded in February in which Jones referred to Republicans - and himself - as "a**holes."
Jones joined the Obama administration in May. He was the founder of a green jobs advocacy organization based in Oakland, Ca.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/03/blogs/coopscorner/entry5286699.shtml
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Rep. Chuck Rangel in deep ethics shit again ?
Rep. Chuck Rangel in deep ethics shit again ?
Will Ethics Problems Hurt Pelosi and the House Democrats in 2010?
Do House Democrats have a double standard when it comes to ethics? Word broke earlier this week that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to allow Rep. Chuck Rangel to keep his chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee despite continuing ethics problems. The latest revelation: he failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets on his financial-disclosure forms over the past several years. According to amended forms recently filed with the House, Rangel failed to disclose at least $800,000 in assets and income since 2002. The latest dustup comes amid an ongoing House ethics investigation into other questionable acts by the New York congressman, including his failure to report income from and pay taxes on a villa in the Dominican Republic and his ties to a real-estate developer who leased him four rent-stabilized apartments in New York. The panel is also looking into Rangel’s fundraising and whether he improperly used his office to raise money for a public policy center in his name at the City University of New York.
For his part, Rangel has denied any wrongdoing and tallied it all up to accounting mistakes and simple oversights. But Republicans, no doubt happy to be on the other side of an ethics issue after years of problems with Tom DeLay and others, are demanding Rangel give up his chairmanship and provide proof that he accurately reported his income and assets to the IRS. For now, Pelosi is sticking with Rangel, according to aides who say she won’t ask him to resign his post unless the ethics committee censures him. “Due process,” a House Democratic aide, who declined to be named discussing the situation, tells the Gaggle.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/09/03/ethics-pelosi-house-democrats-2010.aspx
Will Ethics Problems Hurt Pelosi and the House Democrats in 2010?
Do House Democrats have a double standard when it comes to ethics? Word broke earlier this week that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to allow Rep. Chuck Rangel to keep his chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee despite continuing ethics problems. The latest revelation: he failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets on his financial-disclosure forms over the past several years. According to amended forms recently filed with the House, Rangel failed to disclose at least $800,000 in assets and income since 2002. The latest dustup comes amid an ongoing House ethics investigation into other questionable acts by the New York congressman, including his failure to report income from and pay taxes on a villa in the Dominican Republic and his ties to a real-estate developer who leased him four rent-stabilized apartments in New York. The panel is also looking into Rangel’s fundraising and whether he improperly used his office to raise money for a public policy center in his name at the City University of New York.
For his part, Rangel has denied any wrongdoing and tallied it all up to accounting mistakes and simple oversights. But Republicans, no doubt happy to be on the other side of an ethics issue after years of problems with Tom DeLay and others, are demanding Rangel give up his chairmanship and provide proof that he accurately reported his income and assets to the IRS. For now, Pelosi is sticking with Rangel, according to aides who say she won’t ask him to resign his post unless the ethics committee censures him. “Due process,” a House Democratic aide, who declined to be named discussing the situation, tells the Gaggle.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/09/03/ethics-pelosi-house-democrats-2010.aspx
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Obama puts commies on the White House staff?
Commies in the White House ?
who is the Obama green czar Van Jones ? a left wing commie ?
hear the audio info at
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29967/
GLENN: From high above Times Square, this is the third most listened
to show in all of America. Hello, you sick twisted freak. I want to
take another look with some new audio now that I swear to you I
cannot believe that there is no one in this country that is willing
to take on this audio, that is willing to ask the tough questions.
I cannot believe that I am alone. I know you are there, too. You must feel the same way.
Where is everyone? I want you to hear some new audio from the green jobs czar, specific adviser to the president for green jobs, or whatever they want to call him. What I want you to do is give me ten minutes. I need you to take a good hard look at who Van Jones is.
I told you, well, for the last couple of months that this guy
is an avowed, self avowed radical revolutionary communist.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/29967/see more info on Van Jones
Illegal Aliens Will Get Health Benefits Under House Bill ?
Congressional Research Agency Confirms Illegal Aliens Will Get Health Benefits Under House Bill
Last Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which is the non-partisan "research arm" of the United States Congress, issued a report that concludes that illegal aliens will be able to receive benefits under the House health care bill (H.R. 3200) through two major loopholes. (See CRS Report and FAIR Press Release, August 26, 2009).
According to its own website, CRS is a legislative branch agency that provides Congress with "policy and legal analysis" that is authoritative, objective and accurate. (CRS website). The latest CRS report validates what FAIR has been saying for the past month and a half — that illegal aliens will be able to receive taxpayer-funded health benefits under the House health care bill. (See FAIR's Legislative Updates, July 20, 2009; July 27, 2009 and August 3, 2009).
The House bill creates an "exchange" and "all individuals," which would include illegal aliens, are eligible to participate in the exchange. Anyone who participates in the exchange, and does not otherwise have health insurance, can either enroll in the public option plan created by the House bill or enroll in a private insurance plan. Accordingly, the first loophole that provides illegal aliens with health insurance is the ability for illegal aliens to freely enroll in the taxpayer-subsidized public option. According to CRS, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — from participating in the Exchange." (CRS Report). Accordingly, illegal aliens can enroll in the public option, courtesy of the American taxpayers, to meet their health insurance needs. (See CNN.com, August 2009).
The second major loophole is the failure to require any meaningful verification procedure for taxpayer-subsidized insurance credits. Under the House bill, individuals who buy private insurance through the Exchange may receive an affordability credit to offset the cost of insurance. This credit is ostensibly limited to individuals lawfully present in the U.S., but CRS (like FAIR) notes the complete absence of any provision in the House bill that requires verification of eligibility for the affordability credits. Without such a mechanism, there is nothing in the bill that will prevent illegal aliens from receiving this taxpayer subsidy to buy private health insurance.
These conclusions by CRS should eliminate any remaining doubt about whether illegal aliens will receive health benefits under the bill. As a result of this report, President Obama can no longer characterize the concerns about the illegal alien health care loophole under the bill as "misinformation." (See FAIR's Legislative Update, August 24, 2009 and FAIR's Health Care Podcast, August 24, 2009). In addition, Members of Congress can no longer claim the bill prevents coverage for illegal aliens, and the media can no longer suggest this concern is a "myth." (See FAIR's House bill summary and Townhall.com, August 27, 2009).
Federal Court Upholds E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule
The amnesty lobby suffered a significant setback last week as a federal court upheld a regulation that will require most federal contractors to use E-Verify — the online, electronically operated employment verification system that allows employers to quickly and easily check the work authorization status of their new hires. (The New York Times, August 27, 2009).
The ruling came more than eight months after a coalition of special interest groups — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.; the Society for Human Resource Management; the American Council on International Personnel; and the HR Policy Association - sued to block the rule from taking effect on its original targeted implementation date of January 15, 2009. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, January 5, 2009).
The push to require federal contractors to use E-Verify has had a long history. On June 6, 2008, then-President George W. Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13,456, which amended EO 12,989 to require federal contractors to use an electronic employment eligibility verification system to verify the work authorization status of their employees. EO 13,456 also required the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to choose the verification system to be used. (EO 13,456, June 9, 2008). On June 9, 2008, former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff designated E-Verify as the system to be used by federal contractors under the EO. (DHS Press Release, June 9, 2008). The Final Rule implementing President Bush's EO was issued in mid-November 2008. (Final Rule, November 14, 2008).
On December 23, 2008, a coalition of special interests filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Maryland alleging that the Final Rule was unlawful because it violated the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The plaintiffs argued that Secretary Chertoff had violated Section 402(a) of IIRIRA, which states that "the Secretary of Homeland Security may not require any person or other entity to participate in a pilot program [of employment eligibility confirmation]." In designating E-Verify as the electronic employment eligibility verification system to be used by federal contractors under President Bush's EO, the plaintiffs alleged that Chertoff had violated this statutory prohibition. The complaint contained several other allegations, including a claim that the Final Rule violated a separate IIRIRA statutory prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. (Complaint, December 23, 2008).
In last week's decision, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. rejected the claims made by the coalition of special interest groups. Judge Williams noted that "[t]he decision to be a government contractor is voluntary and…no one has a right to be a government contractor." Williams added that, even though the Final Rule requires federal contractors to enroll in E-Verify, "[p]otential government contractors have the option not to contract with the government," so Secretary Chertoff hadn't actually required anyone or any entity to use E-Verify. Judge Williams also went on to reject the coalition's claims that the E-Verify contractor rule violated an IIRIRA prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. According to Williams: "Nothing in IIRIRA explicitly prohibits the Executive Branch from using E-Verify for current employees." (Decision, August 25, 2009).
The Obama Administration has indicated that it intends to implement the final rule on September 8, 2009 — after having delayed the regulation on three separate occasions. (See The Washington Post, January 30, 2009 and FAIR's Legislative Updates from April 20, 2009; June 8, 2009 and July 13, 2009).However, the E-Verify program itself is set to expire on September 30, 2009. While many immigration reformers have been insisting that the program be permanently reauthorized, the Administration has avoided adopting such a position. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) successfully attached a related E-Verify amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security spending bill that would (1) permanently reauthorize E-Verify and (2) require all federal contractors to use E-Verify to check the work authorization status on all of their new hires, plus existing employees who are assigned to affected federal contracts. The fate of the Sessions Amendment is uncertain, however. The Homeland Security spending bill is scheduled to move to a House-Senate conference sometime in September. Since the House version of the bill does not contain the Sessions Amendment, the Conference Report — which would likely become law - may include or drop this language. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 13, 2009).
Illegal Alien Faces Death Penalty for 2008 Murder of High School Football Star
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced last week that it will seek the death penalty for Pedro Espinoza — an illegal alien member of the 18th Street Gang who allegedly murdered 17-year old high school football star Jamiel Shaw, Jr. in cold blood last year. (CBS News, August 27, 2009; KPCC, August 26, 2009; KTLA, August 26, 2009; and The New York Times, August 26, 2009). Shaw's murder on March 2, 2008 touched off an explosive debate over Special Order 40 — the Los Angeles sanctuary ordinance which does not require police officers to check the immigration status of suspects who have been arrested. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 14, 2008).
According to Los Angeles police, Shaw was about three blocks from his house, talking on his cell phone with his girlfriend on the night of his murder. Two men in a car pulled up to Shaw, jumped out, and asked Shaw if he belonged to a gang. When Shaw did not respond, Espinoza allegedly shot him to death. Shaw's father, Jamiel, Sr., was on the phone when he heard the shots and raced outside to find his son lying on the sidewalk, bleeding. His mother, Army Sergeant Anita Shaw, was serving her second tour of duty in Iraq at the time Jamiel was killed. (The Los Angeles Times, March 4, 2008).
Following the murder, it came to light that the illegal alien who had allegedly killed Jamiel, Jr. had been released from jail on a firearms charge just one day before Shaw was killed. This prompted Shaw's parents to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department on the grounds that the illegal alien should have been turned over to federal authorities instead of being freed. (CBS News, August 27, 2009). Additionally, Shaw's parents unsuccessfully petitioned for Jamiel's Law, legislation that would have altered the sanctuary provisions in Special Order 40 by requiring authorities to check the immigration status of gang members who were under arrest or investigation. (KTLA, August 26, 2009). FAIR Media Director Ira Mehlman commented last week about the release of the illegal alien who has been charged with murdering Shaw: "The local police never took the trouble to find out he was an illegal alien and remand him to federal authorities. If they had done that, they would not have put him back out on the streets. He would have been remanded to federal custody and never had the opportunity to murder Jamiel Shaw." (OneNewsNow, August 28, 2009).
Parents Jamiel, Sr. and Anita Shaw were proud of their son. Jamiel, Jr. aspired to play college football and wanted to become a sports agent after graduating college. Jamiel's mother compared the gang violence that had led to her son's death to the violence that she had seen in Iraq: "The only thing is we don't have sand and dirt flying all around. But we have the bullets." In the days following Jamiel's murder, Jamiel, Sr. said of his son: "He was set. He was going to college…he was my hero." (CBS News, August 27, 2009).
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21337&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#1
Last Tuesday, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which is the non-partisan "research arm" of the United States Congress, issued a report that concludes that illegal aliens will be able to receive benefits under the House health care bill (H.R. 3200) through two major loopholes. (See CRS Report and FAIR Press Release, August 26, 2009).
According to its own website, CRS is a legislative branch agency that provides Congress with "policy and legal analysis" that is authoritative, objective and accurate. (CRS website). The latest CRS report validates what FAIR has been saying for the past month and a half — that illegal aliens will be able to receive taxpayer-funded health benefits under the House health care bill. (See FAIR's Legislative Updates, July 20, 2009; July 27, 2009 and August 3, 2009).
The House bill creates an "exchange" and "all individuals," which would include illegal aliens, are eligible to participate in the exchange. Anyone who participates in the exchange, and does not otherwise have health insurance, can either enroll in the public option plan created by the House bill or enroll in a private insurance plan. Accordingly, the first loophole that provides illegal aliens with health insurance is the ability for illegal aliens to freely enroll in the taxpayer-subsidized public option. According to CRS, "H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — from participating in the Exchange." (CRS Report). Accordingly, illegal aliens can enroll in the public option, courtesy of the American taxpayers, to meet their health insurance needs. (See CNN.com, August 2009).
The second major loophole is the failure to require any meaningful verification procedure for taxpayer-subsidized insurance credits. Under the House bill, individuals who buy private insurance through the Exchange may receive an affordability credit to offset the cost of insurance. This credit is ostensibly limited to individuals lawfully present in the U.S., but CRS (like FAIR) notes the complete absence of any provision in the House bill that requires verification of eligibility for the affordability credits. Without such a mechanism, there is nothing in the bill that will prevent illegal aliens from receiving this taxpayer subsidy to buy private health insurance.
These conclusions by CRS should eliminate any remaining doubt about whether illegal aliens will receive health benefits under the bill. As a result of this report, President Obama can no longer characterize the concerns about the illegal alien health care loophole under the bill as "misinformation." (See FAIR's Legislative Update, August 24, 2009 and FAIR's Health Care Podcast, August 24, 2009). In addition, Members of Congress can no longer claim the bill prevents coverage for illegal aliens, and the media can no longer suggest this concern is a "myth." (See FAIR's House bill summary and Townhall.com, August 27, 2009).
Federal Court Upholds E-Verify Federal Contractor Rule
The amnesty lobby suffered a significant setback last week as a federal court upheld a regulation that will require most federal contractors to use E-Verify — the online, electronically operated employment verification system that allows employers to quickly and easily check the work authorization status of their new hires. (The New York Times, August 27, 2009).
The ruling came more than eight months after a coalition of special interest groups — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.; the Society for Human Resource Management; the American Council on International Personnel; and the HR Policy Association - sued to block the rule from taking effect on its original targeted implementation date of January 15, 2009. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, January 5, 2009).
The push to require federal contractors to use E-Verify has had a long history. On June 6, 2008, then-President George W. Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13,456, which amended EO 12,989 to require federal contractors to use an electronic employment eligibility verification system to verify the work authorization status of their employees. EO 13,456 also required the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to choose the verification system to be used. (EO 13,456, June 9, 2008). On June 9, 2008, former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff designated E-Verify as the system to be used by federal contractors under the EO. (DHS Press Release, June 9, 2008). The Final Rule implementing President Bush's EO was issued in mid-November 2008. (Final Rule, November 14, 2008).
On December 23, 2008, a coalition of special interests filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Maryland alleging that the Final Rule was unlawful because it violated the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The plaintiffs argued that Secretary Chertoff had violated Section 402(a) of IIRIRA, which states that "the Secretary of Homeland Security may not require any person or other entity to participate in a pilot program [of employment eligibility confirmation]." In designating E-Verify as the electronic employment eligibility verification system to be used by federal contractors under President Bush's EO, the plaintiffs alleged that Chertoff had violated this statutory prohibition. The complaint contained several other allegations, including a claim that the Final Rule violated a separate IIRIRA statutory prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. (Complaint, December 23, 2008).
In last week's decision, Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. rejected the claims made by the coalition of special interest groups. Judge Williams noted that "[t]he decision to be a government contractor is voluntary and…no one has a right to be a government contractor." Williams added that, even though the Final Rule requires federal contractors to enroll in E-Verify, "[p]otential government contractors have the option not to contract with the government," so Secretary Chertoff hadn't actually required anyone or any entity to use E-Verify. Judge Williams also went on to reject the coalition's claims that the E-Verify contractor rule violated an IIRIRA prohibition against re-verifying the work authorization status of existing employees. According to Williams: "Nothing in IIRIRA explicitly prohibits the Executive Branch from using E-Verify for current employees." (Decision, August 25, 2009).
The Obama Administration has indicated that it intends to implement the final rule on September 8, 2009 — after having delayed the regulation on three separate occasions. (See The Washington Post, January 30, 2009 and FAIR's Legislative Updates from April 20, 2009; June 8, 2009 and July 13, 2009).However, the E-Verify program itself is set to expire on September 30, 2009. While many immigration reformers have been insisting that the program be permanently reauthorized, the Administration has avoided adopting such a position. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) successfully attached a related E-Verify amendment to the Fiscal Year 2010 Homeland Security spending bill that would (1) permanently reauthorize E-Verify and (2) require all federal contractors to use E-Verify to check the work authorization status on all of their new hires, plus existing employees who are assigned to affected federal contracts. The fate of the Sessions Amendment is uncertain, however. The Homeland Security spending bill is scheduled to move to a House-Senate conference sometime in September. Since the House version of the bill does not contain the Sessions Amendment, the Conference Report — which would likely become law - may include or drop this language. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, July 13, 2009).
Illegal Alien Faces Death Penalty for 2008 Murder of High School Football Star
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office announced last week that it will seek the death penalty for Pedro Espinoza — an illegal alien member of the 18th Street Gang who allegedly murdered 17-year old high school football star Jamiel Shaw, Jr. in cold blood last year. (CBS News, August 27, 2009; KPCC, August 26, 2009; KTLA, August 26, 2009; and The New York Times, August 26, 2009). Shaw's murder on March 2, 2008 touched off an explosive debate over Special Order 40 — the Los Angeles sanctuary ordinance which does not require police officers to check the immigration status of suspects who have been arrested. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, April 14, 2008).
According to Los Angeles police, Shaw was about three blocks from his house, talking on his cell phone with his girlfriend on the night of his murder. Two men in a car pulled up to Shaw, jumped out, and asked Shaw if he belonged to a gang. When Shaw did not respond, Espinoza allegedly shot him to death. Shaw's father, Jamiel, Sr., was on the phone when he heard the shots and raced outside to find his son lying on the sidewalk, bleeding. His mother, Army Sergeant Anita Shaw, was serving her second tour of duty in Iraq at the time Jamiel was killed. (The Los Angeles Times, March 4, 2008).
Following the murder, it came to light that the illegal alien who had allegedly killed Jamiel, Jr. had been released from jail on a firearms charge just one day before Shaw was killed. This prompted Shaw's parents to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department on the grounds that the illegal alien should have been turned over to federal authorities instead of being freed. (CBS News, August 27, 2009). Additionally, Shaw's parents unsuccessfully petitioned for Jamiel's Law, legislation that would have altered the sanctuary provisions in Special Order 40 by requiring authorities to check the immigration status of gang members who were under arrest or investigation. (KTLA, August 26, 2009). FAIR Media Director Ira Mehlman commented last week about the release of the illegal alien who has been charged with murdering Shaw: "The local police never took the trouble to find out he was an illegal alien and remand him to federal authorities. If they had done that, they would not have put him back out on the streets. He would have been remanded to federal custody and never had the opportunity to murder Jamiel Shaw." (OneNewsNow, August 28, 2009).
Parents Jamiel, Sr. and Anita Shaw were proud of their son. Jamiel, Jr. aspired to play college football and wanted to become a sports agent after graduating college. Jamiel's mother compared the gang violence that had led to her son's death to the violence that she had seen in Iraq: "The only thing is we don't have sand and dirt flying all around. But we have the bullets." In the days following Jamiel's murder, Jamiel, Sr. said of his son: "He was set. He was going to college…he was my hero." (CBS News, August 27, 2009).
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21337&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)