Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

President Donald Trump. Darren McCollester/Getty Images

In June 2017,Operation 45(a nonprofit dedicated to transparency and accountability from the Trump administration), MIT Ph.D. candidate Ryan Shapiro, and BuzzFeed Investigative Reporter Jason Leopold fileda Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requestlawsuitagainst the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to release its files on President Donald Trump. A press release announcing the lawsuit states, The records requested, which cover a period from June 14, 1946, through June 15, 2015, will shed new light on already known investigations linking Trump to organized crime and will provide new information about Trumps engagements with the bureau.

The Freedom of Information Act is one of the most underappreciatedelements of the entire American experiment, Ryan Shapiro said in an interview with the Observer. The notion that the governments records are the property of the people, and all we need to do to get them isto ask is radically democratic.

The group initially filed the request in March 2017, but they never received a response from the FBI. The project noted the FBI has improperly withheld responsive records on the grounds that confirming the existence or nonexistence of records would infringe Mr. Trumps privacy interests. They argued the fallacy of this excuse and cited that the public interest in these records outweighs any embarrassment Trump may face.

Several of the files that the group seeks relate to the FBIs investigations into Trumps ties with organized crime syndicates, which Pulitzer Prize winning journalist David Cay Johnston has been working for years to try to uncover. Johnstonwrote for Politico in April 2016, In all, Ive covered Donald Trump off and on for 27 years, and in that time Ive encountered multiple threads linking Trump to organized crime. Some of Trumps unsavory connections have been followed by investigators and substantiated in court; some havent. And some of those links have continued until recent years, though when confronted with evidence of such associations, Trump has often claimed a faulty memory. In anApril 27phone call to respond to my questions for this story, Trump told me he did not recall many of the events recounted in this article and they were a long time ago. He also said that I had sometimes been fair, sometimes not in writing about him, adding, If I dont like what you write, Ill sue you. Johnston outlined how Trump relied on New York City mob connections in the 1980s to build Trump Tower and casinos in Atlantic City. He also relied on several colleagues and acquaintances with organized crime connections.

Despite the gravity of the FBIs files, its unclear if and when the public will receive access to themeven with a pendinglawsuit.The Freedom of Information Act has been a vital tool for journalists, but its power is diminishing.Several journalists have complained about the Obama and Trump administrations failure or refusal to adhere to the Freedom of Information Act in a timely fashion. IBTimes investigative reporter David Sirotatweetedin March 2017, Federal and state agencies put up so many obstacles to open records requests that theyre turning FOIA into the Freedom FROM Information Act. He addedon July 13, Two years ago, I filed a FOIA for TPP-related documents from the U.S. Trade Reps office. They still havent responded.

The Obama administration set a record for withholding FOIA requests. The Wall Street Journalreportedin 2015, FOIA request backlogs have more than doubled since President Obama took office. The feds received 714,231 FOIA requests in fiscal 2014, and nearly 160,000 werent processed within the legal time limit, up 67 percent from fiscal 2013. So far, there is no indication that the Trump administration will improve these delays, rejections and refusals to comply with the Freedom of Information Act.

Continue reading here:

Lawsuit Filed After FBI Denies FOIA Because It Would Embarrass ... - Observer

And most Russians are okay with it.

The last-ditch efforts by Jehovahs Witnesses to appeal Russias ban against their faith have failed in the countrys Supreme Court.

With all three judges siding on Monday with Russias Ministry of Justice, the April 20 ruling to liquidate the Witnesses centers and criminalize their worship standsdespite desperate pleas from members of the faith and religious freedom advocates.

The Supreme Courts decision sadly reflects the governments continued equating of peaceful religious freedom practice to extremism, said Daniel Mark, chairman of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which called out Russias violations earlier this year. The Witnesses are not an extremist group, and should be able to practice their faith openly and freely and without government repression.

In Russia, where the Russian Orthodox Church remains the dominant religious affiliation, support is high (79%) for the governments ban designating Jehovahs Witnesses as an extremist group, according to a survey conducted by the Levada Center last month.

Almost half of Russians view Witnesses as a Christian sect, while small minorities think of it as a Protestant offshoot (5%) or a variant on ordinary Christianity (2%).

Russian Protestants, though also a minority, view Jehovahs Witnesses as having their own theology and methodology. While Witnesses stand out with their distinct materials and eager proselytism, evangelicals have enjoyed a better reputation with the Russian government in many cases, as CT has previously reported.

Still, all religious groups attempting to share their faith and gain converts must adhere to the new evangelism ban enacted in Russia a year ago. The law, part of an anti-terrorism package, restricts preaching, teaching, and recruiting religious adherents to officially recognized houses of worship.

For example, Mormon missionaries have had to confine their activities to volunteering in centers, the Salt Lake Tribune reports. No more knocking on doors in a quixotic quest for converts. No more handing out pamphlets on the street. No more doctrinal discussions about prayer, prophets or priesthood.

Just last month, some missionaries were deported because of restrictions on where foreign visitors can stay; they were registered to be hosted by the church, not at their apartment address.

More than 400 Jehovahs Witnesses were resettled as refugees in the United States this fiscal year, down from almost 700 last fiscal year. However, only 53 have come from Russia since 2003, according to State Department statistics. (The most by farmore than 9,000have hailed from Cuba.)

CT previously reported on Russian evangelicals reactions to the ban on Witnesses and the ban on evangelism.

Continue reading here:

Jehovah's Witnesses Remain Banned as Russia Rejects Appeal - ChristianityToday.com

The state treasury earned $57.5 million on its investment of more than $3 billion in fiscal 2017, the largest amount in almost a decade, according to Treasurer Dennis Milligan's office.

The fiscal 2017 interest earnings are the largest since fiscal 2009's $72.6 million, the office's records show. Fiscal 2017 ended June 30.

By comparison, the treasury earned $22.3 million in fiscal 2015 and $48.9 million in fiscal 2016.

The records show that the treasury had an average of $3.4 billion to invest in fiscal 2017 -- up from $3.2 billion in fiscal 2016 and $2.8 million in fiscal 2015 -- so the office's increased earnings are based on a larger pool of investments.

The investments include $3.28 billion in bonds, about $277,500 in demand accounts and about $155,000 in money market accounts, said Milligan spokesman Stacy Peterson.

Milligan's office released information about the investment earnings last week in response to this newspaper's request under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act.

An employee in the treasurer's office, Celeste Gladden, notified the state Board of Finance on Thursday that "it has been the policy of Treasurer Milligan not to release these results until the Board has been notified first. However, our quarterly meeting is not until next month and we must respond to this [FOI] request.

"As always, details will be provided to the Board at our quarterly meeting in August," Gladden wrote.

The state Board of Finance includes the governor or his representative; treasurer; auditor; bank commissioner; director of the state Department of Finance and Administration; the securities commissioner; and two appointees each by the House speaker and Senate president pro tempore.

Milligan, a Benton Republican who has been treasurer since January 2015, which was midway through fiscal 2015, said Friday that increased interest rates by the Federal Reserve contributed "a little bit to the growth" in the earnings.

"Part of the success that we've had is simply because we are on this every day. We went from a passive treasury to an active treasury, which means we are looking at numbers," Milligan said in an interview.

"I'm in here very early in the mornings. I'm looking at overnight markets. Since it is a global economy, I'm looking at how things are changing, especially with our short-term investments because something happens politically around the world, then it can change our attitudes," he said.

"I would certainly credit the investment team. I would credit our whole administration," Milligan said.

In a special session held in May 2016, the GOP-controlled Legislature enacted Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson's highway funding legislation. The legislation relies largely on using a portion of general revenue surpluses and increased earnings from the treasury to raise about $50 million a year to match another $200 million in federal highway funds available each year. Starting in fiscal 2018, the plan relies in part on $20 million a year in treasury earnings.

While Milligan has praised his investment team, two of the team members have left in recent months.

Earlier this month, Larry Tate, who had worked in the treasurer's investment department, went to work as the Arkansas Development Finance Authority's housing programs manager at a salary of $69,776 a year, said Cheryl Schluterman, vice president of finance and administration at the authority.

Tate, who was paid $68,400 a year as a treasury manager, resigned his post in the treasurer's office, effective June 30. In his resignation letter, he said he enjoyed working with the investment team for the past two-plus years and has been "most impressed with both the quality of the state Board of Finance and the quality of the staff in the Investment Group."

Tate is a former business manager for First Baptist Church in Little Rock. He was operations manager for Hutchinson's unsuccessful campaign for governor in 2006, according to his resume. The Development Finance Authority is an agency that reports to the governor.

In March, legislation that would have shifted senior investment manager Ed Garner, treasurer manager Gladden and Tate under the purview of the Board of Finance cleared the state Senate but failed to clear a House committee. Chief Investment Officer Autumn Sanson currently works under the board's purview under a law enacted in 2013.

The sponsor of the ill-fated legislation -- Sen. Terry Rice, R-Waldron -- sought the change after Milligan hired Ronald Roberson, a former vice president and senior trader at the Bank of Oklahoma, as a senior investment manager in February. Rice said the position requires a college degree, which Roberson lacked. But Milligan spokesman Stacy Peterson said Roberson was placed in a post for which a degree is preferred, not required.

In May, Roberson resigned his job, which paid $70,000 a year, after the Board of Finance blocked Milligan's plans to reclassify Roberson as a senior investment manager. The Board of Finance voted to require that the person hired to fill the new senior investment manager II position have a college degree.

Roberson, who had 38 years of investment experience, had completed 135 college hours at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Roberson cited "the opinions raised ... by a few members of the state Board of Finance" in his resignation letter.

After Tate's and Roberson's resignations, Milligan said Friday "right now we are just in a holding pattern. We have to adhere to the state Board of Finance education requirements. We're looking at potential replacements for both."

SundayMonday on 07/16/2017

Follow this link:

Arkansas investment earnings top $57M - Arkansas Democrat-Gazette - Arkansas Online

Advertisement

Geof Koss and George Cahlink, E&E News reporters

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), ranking member of the Senate Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, has concerns about moving forward with funding legislation without a bipartisan deal on spending caps. Anthony DeYoung/National Park Service/Flickr

Senate and House appropriators continue to press ahead with their fiscal 2018 spending bills, despite lacking a broad bipartisan deal that would allow them to eventually become law.

Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, the top Democrat on the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, said yesterday he expects that panel to mark up its fiscal 2018 bill "in the next week or so."

"We're still having discussions and working together, and most of our hearings have been pretty good in terms of fleshing out the issues, and I feel there's a lot of bipartisanship there," he said.

However, the lack of a top-line spending number normally set in the budget resolution is hampering efforts.

The full Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday advanced the fiscal 2018 military construction and Veteran Affairs bill, typically one of the less controversial spending measures.

Advertisement

Udall said drafters followed numbers set by the years-old Budget Control Act. Democrats unsuccessfully tried to increase the $88.9 billion measure by $1.6 billion, contingent on a new budget deal lifting spending caps in the coming weeks.

That agreement should include "parity" between defense and non-defense spending, Udall said. "That's how we negotiated last time," he said. "Eventually everybody came to the table and came up with a number."

Parity and the omission of contentious policy riders would again be the terms for a deal, Udall said. "We're sticking with those," he said.

While the fiscal 2017 Interior-Environment bill had a sizable number of riders, Democrats "were able to get them out for the omnibus," Udall noted.

"The best argument right now is, when you're dealing with an all-Republican Congress and all-Republican president, if they want to do things substantively they should do them in the authorizing committee and pass them," he said.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) decision to delay the start of the August recess for two weeks could help the appropriations process along, Udall said.

But if spending caps aren't determined "until well into August," that increases the likelihood of a continuing resolution to keep the government open in September, when the fiscal year ends.

"I'm not saying we're there yet, but the more you get backed up and don't have these numbers," the greater the odds are for a CR, Udall said.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said yesterday the House is "well ahead of schedule" for moving the spending bills with all 12 expected to be out of committee by next week (see related story). Ryan said he's now weighing options for moving them to the floor but did not offer a specific timeline.

A House leadership aide said it's possible some of the more bipartisan spending bills, covering the military and veterans, could be taken up before the chamber leaves for its summer break late this month.

Ryan said he's open to a bipartisan deal on spending with the Senate but suggested the House would adopt its own budget as a first step. The nonbinding plan sets overall spending for the year and usually is a prerequisite to appropriations bills moving to the floor.

"This is the classic legislative process. The House moves with its position, the Senate moves with theirs, and then we negotiate a compromise at the end of the day," said Ryan.

After weeks of delays, the House Budget Committee could mark up its fiscal 2018 budget resolution next week and then have it on the floor by the end of the month. Several markups have been postponed as conservatives have pressed for deeper cuts in mandatory spending and specifics on a future tax overhaul.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the hard-right Freedom Caucus, said yesterday that $200 billion in mandatory cuts over 10 years in a draft House budget proposal might not be enough if there are large increases in discretionary spending. He also said any tax provisions should not include the border adjustment tax, which he said won't fly in the Senate and would create false savings (see related story).

The House GOP caucus is due to huddle this morning to weigh its budget options and could finalize plans for a markup.

Democrats in both chambers, meanwhile, were quick to tout a new assessment of the White House fiscal 2018 spending blueprint released yesterday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It found President Trump's plan would reduce the deficit but not balance in 10 years as the administration predicted.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called on the GOP to work with Democrats to come up with an alternative. "Instead of following down the president's road to ruin, House Republicans should join Democrats to pass a budget that creates jobs and raises wages for working families across America," she said.

Advertisement

Senate and House appropriators continue to press ahead with their fiscal 2018 spending bills, despite lacking a broad bipartisan deal that would allow them to eventually become law.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The essential news for energy & environment professionals

1996-2017 Environment & Energy Publishing, LLCPrivacy PolicySite Map

Read more:

Even without budget, lawmakers race to finish spending bills - E&E News

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney will be calling on his rabble-rousing friends and former colleagues to get in line behind a House budget proposal. | Getty

Republicans hope lobbying from key White House conservatives will ease opposition from the hard-line House Freedom Caucus.

By Rachael Bade and Sarah Ferris

07/13/2017 02:15 PM EDT

Updated 07/13/2017 06:20 PM EDT

House GOP leaders are bringing in the big guns to help ease their budget woes: Vice President Mike Pence and White House budget director Mick Mulvaney.

Pence and Mulvaney committed Thursday to helping GOP leaders muster support among their divided conference to pass a fiscal 2018 budget. Republican leadership and House Budget Chairwoman Diane Black are hoping that Mulvaney will be particularly helpful in wooing his former colleagues and friends on the hard-line Freedom Caucus, where he was once a member.

Story Continued Below

The Freedom Caucus' opposition has the potential to be one of the greatest hurdles to passing the budget, which is crucial if Republicans want to pass tax reform on a party-line vote. Caucus leaders, who have pushed hard to include mandatory cuts to welfare programs in the budget, have said they will not support the fiscal plan until they also get the details of the Houses tax reform proposal.

But tax reform details are still far off, insiders say. And GOP leaders, not to mention Black, are eager to move on the budget before the August recess.

Its frustrating in a sense that theyre demanding that we stay here [through August recess] and work, which is fine with me, but they're not working while were here, said Budget panel member Tom Cole (R-Oakla.) of the Freedom Caucus threat to block the budget without tax details. I just think thats unrealistic Theyre not necessarily related."

The Vice President's office confirmed that Pence would be on the Hill to help get the budget passed. An Office of Management and Budget official confirmed that Mulvaney would be "working the phones" as well as making in-person pitches.

"The White House wants to be helpful in any way it can," OMB spokesman John Czwartacki said by phone Thursday. "The White House sees tremendous value on a 2018 budget resolution passing both chambers of Congress."

Black set out early to woo conservatives, even taking on GOP leadership as well as other Republican committee chairs to include $200 billion in entitlement cuts. Many moderates have balked at the proposal, with as many as 20 centrist Republicans in the Tuesday Group threatening to vote against such a plan almost enough to block it.

A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Still, some Freedom Caucus members say those cuts are not enough. Vice chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) suggested during a news conference Wednesday that $200 billion in mandatory cuts was, essentially, a rounding error compared to the nations larger spending issues.

Meadows also said the group would need to see the details of the tax plan. They're wary of Speaker Paul Ryan's proposal to increase taxes on imports to pay for other tax cuts and want assurances the so-called border adjustment is dead.

Without decisions on tax reform, there will not be enough votes to pass it in the House because of the conservative concerns, Meadows said.

Enter the White House. Mulvaney and Pence huddled Thursday morning with Ryan (R-Wis.), Black (R-Tenn.) and White House legislative liaison Marc Short to devise a strategy to get Black's budget passed. That plan includes talking not just to members of the Freedom Caucus but any recalcitrant Republicans to get the 218 votes needed on the floor.

The meeting followed several calls between Mulvaney and Black this weekend.

Several GOP sources following the budget process closely said they think the White House's pitch for opponents to back the budget will work, allowing Black to move the bill through committee as soon as next week. Two members of the committee, Reps. Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, told POLITICO on Wednesday that they were told to expect a Budget Committee markup next week.

Mulvaney and Pence's first task will be helping Black move the bill through the panel, where some conservatives like Reps. Dave Brat (R-Va.) and Gary Palmer (R-Ala.), both Freedom Caucus members, have not yet committed to supporting the plan.

Palmer in an interview off the House floor Thursday said he wanted the budget to rein in more spending.

Im still looking at it. I think theres time to improve it," Palmer said, when asked if he'd support the budget. "At some point everybodys got to come to the realization that were on a path to fiscal disaster."

Palmer, however, might be one of the easier conservatives to win over: He does not agree with his fellow Freedom Caucus members who say they want to hold up the budget in order to squeeze out the details of tax reform.

"The Freedom Caucus doesnt speak for all its members," he said. "I think that the tax reform effort is a separate issue. I dont believe in holding something else hostage."

Palmer also praised Black for her work, saying he can't remember the last time a budget was crafted to trigger billions in cuts.

Brat said he couldn't back a budget without more tax details.

"How do you get corporate rates down when you're minus a few trillion [in deficits]? We have to know the answer to that question because tax reform is the Holy Grail," he said. "I am not able to take a budget vote until I know how all the big trillion-dollar pieces fit together."

Even if Mulvany and Pence are able to help Black move the budget out of committee next week, they'll have an even heavier lift with the rest of the conference. Freedom Caucus members have not yet taken a position on the issue, but they could soon.

"Why arent we seeing the tax plan? I think [our opposition is] a move to try to spur things along," said Freedom Caucus member Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.). "Its a shame we would have to do that but weve got to keep things moving."

To be sure, Ryan, the White House and Senate leaders have indeed begun working on a tax bill. But right now, those discussions and decisions are being made at a high level not with the rest of the conference.

The Freedom Caucus would like to have input in those discussions.

Asked about Mulvaney whipping the Freedom Caucus, Meadows on Thursday gave a hearty laugh off the House floor.

"We're not voting for the budget until we get all those other things done, and Mick Mulvany can come up here and we can have nice lunch ... and it ain't gonna change a single vote," Meadows said.

Meadows then called Mulvaney to press him on his intentions to whip the Freedom Caucus into passing the budget. He said Mulvaney denied that was his intention.

Alyssa Farah, a spokeswoman for the Freedom Caucus, said: "Chairman Meadows has a great degree of respect for Director Mulvaney and always appreciates his input on policy matters."

And that's just the conservative end of the House GOP conference.

GOP leaders and the White House will also have to presuade moderates in the Tuesday Group to back the budget. A few weeks ago, members of the group said they wouldn't vote for a fiscal blueprint until Republicans strike a broader spending deal with Democrats, which seems a world away amid the partisan rancor on Capitol Hill.

In other words, Pence, Mulvaney and Ryan have some serious work to do.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Continued here:

GOP leaders enlist Pence, Mulvaney to help with budget woes - Politico

After years of subjecting ObamaCareto the harshest criticism, the Senate GOP's struggles to come up with a replacement over the past several weeks havebeen a revelation:A critical mass of Republican senators seem to be saying that wresting the health care security provided by the law from their constituents is a nonstarter.

That leaves Congresswith two possible paths forward. The most likely path is a form of triage that would try to control the bleeding, rather than address ObamaCare'sunderlying problems that explain why enrollment was weak even before premiums spiked, and why the law was unpopular before"mean" TrumpCare came on the scene.

Stabilizing insurance markets, principally by providing protection for insurers against high-claims customers, is a good idea and an important step. But let's be clear about what that won't achieve: It won't create a robust nongroup insurance market with rules that Americans can broadly support, and that work reasonably well for the finances of healthy and sick, old and young, working class and middle class.

To create a robust nongroup insurance market with lower premiums that serves people well will require taking the other potential path forward: transforming the Affordable Care Act, largely byinjecting the ingredient that Republicans say the law is most sorely lacking freedom.

While ObamaCare has helped thenear-poor and those with chronic conditions who otherwise might be stuck without affordable coverage, it gives a bad deal to pretty much everyone else, which iswhy the exchanges' pool of customers is too small, too old and too costly, and premiums have soared asinsurers likeUnitedHealth Group (UNH),Aetna (AET) andHumana (HUM) have mostly exited the markets.

Simply stabilizing theturbulent insurance-exchange markets wouldn't do anything to ameliorate ObamaCare's harshest reality:Even among working-class households earning 150% to 250% of the poverty level, supposedly among the law'sbiggest beneficiaries, just 1 in 3 people who lack insurance from other sources are getting coverage that will protect them from financial disaster. Most of the other two-thirds are uninsured, either because they or a spouse work full time and don't qualify for exchange subsidies, or else they've spurned subsidized bronze plans that carry $6,000-$7,000 deductibles despite the threat of a individual-mandate penalty.

While Americans aren't crying out for the freedom to buy the skimpiest coverage that insurers can dream up, and pretty much everybody would rather have insurance than not if the price is right many people would benefit from greater flexibility than the ACA allows, and the entire country would benefit from a bipartisan consensus on health reform that helps those who have fallen through ObamaCare's wide cracks.

That is whythe very best step for public policy, within the realm of what might be possible, would be to give people a choice between the comprehensive coverage that Democrats want them to have and that many people with chronic conditions or low incomes clearly need and the consumer-driven model that Republicans believe in, which allows people to opt for high-deductiblecoverage and set aside funds to cover basic medical needs.

This would involve turning ObamaCare's cost-sharing support into something more akin to working-class tax cuts and removing ObamaCare's heaviest-handed mandates, while preserving the ACA's critical protections and support.

A central problem with ObamaCare is that the rules stacked the deck in favor of those needing comprehensive coverage, leaving far too many in the working class with three unappealingoptions: a silver plan that costs too much; a bronze plan that won't pay their medical bills until long after they're in financial distress;or anindividual-mandate penaltyfor opting against coverage that may be of little use.

Think ofa couple, age 30, in St. Louis with income of $40,000 (about 200% of the poverty level) and a child covered by Medicaid. For this couple, the cheapest silver plan under ObamaCare offers pretty solid coverage but costs$2,430 likely too much for a young family that's probably already struggling to save anything. The cheapest bronze plan, costing $1,068, might be doable, but the $13,300deductible ($6,650 per person) could make a hospital stay financially devastating.

The chasm between ObamaCare's silver and bronze deductibles $700 vs. $13,300 is by design, though clearly a poor one. ObamaCare provides extra cost-sharing subsidies that shrink deductibles for modest-income households, but only if they buy silver plans. Those cost-sharing subsidies work exactly like premium subsidies, paid directly from the government to insurers each month, even if the policyholder gets no medical care.

Looking through the lens of these 30-year-olds in St. Louis, a bipartisan replacement, merging Republican principles and Democratic values, is easy to identify.

First, don't get rid of the comprehensive option. If this couple is trying to have a second child or one spouse has a chronic condition, they will be desperate for a low-deductible plan with a wide range of essential benefits.

Second, offer people the flexibility to choose a Republican option. A replacement for ObamaCare could give young, modest-income families the chance to set aside some savings for health expenses with two simple tweaks. Relax ObamaCare's age-rating restrictions that inflate insurance costs for the young, but only for high-deductible plans, keeping comprehensive plans affordable for older adults. (That could mean silver plans with a 3:1 age rating, bronze 4:1 and catastrophic 5:1.)

Next, let people use cost-sharing subsidies to reduce premiums, if they prefer, effectively making it a tax cut. Those two steps would shrink that St. Louis couple's bronze premium to zero, and they'd have about $900 left to put in a Health Savings Account to defray medical expenses not nirvana, but a dramatic improvement over what ObamaCare offers. Yes, this family would still be subject to very high deductibles, but no greater than under ObamaCare, and they'd have a $2,000 head start on their medical bills, giving them a chance to put aside some savings not because their tax credits are more generous than under ObamaCare but because they would be more usable.

From 100% to150% of the poverty level (about $12,000-$18,000 for a single), roughly90% of exchange enrollees sign up for silver coverage. Bronze-level deductibles would bealmost too extreme to bother if not for the mandate penalty though some percentage don't bother and remain uninsured. So here's a beautiful compromise that would inject some freedom and flexibility but not too much into the ACA.

ACA cost-sharing subsidies, which are even higher for this income tier, turn silver plans to ultra-low-deductible platinum plans.That option would still be available, but they also could opt to use their cost-sharing subsidy to cover a basic silver-plan premium and deposit the extra amount in a Health Savings Account. What's beautiful about this is that the bar on minimum coverage would risecompared to the ACA, yet people would still have more freedom to pick a plan that works for their finances and their health status.

IBD'S TAKE: IBD changed its market outlook to "uptrend under pressure" on Tuesday, June 27, a signal to investors to exercise extra caution in buying stocks and to take some money off the table to deploy when the turbulence subsides. Make sure to read IBD's The Big Picture each day to get the latest on whether the flashing-yellow market trend turns green.

We also should do something about thesteep drop-off in cost-sharing subsidies that acts as a disincentive to earn above 200% of the poverty level and is an especially big deal for people with significant medical needs. A more gradual phase-out by300% of the poverty level would provide more constructive incentives, while delivering modest tax cuts to income-tax-paying households. Premiums could essentially be free for everyone up to 250% of the poverty level if a catastrophic-planoption is made available to people above 200% of the poverty level and they opt to apply their cost-sharing subsidy to the premium for the lowest-cost plan, roughly around the "copper" option proposed by the insurance industry and some moderate Democrats.

This is another compromise in which both sides win.Above 200% of the poverty level, ObamaCare's cracks widen in a serious way. The percentage of the uninsured under ObamaCare takes a big jump, and so does take-up of bronze coverage.Easing the cost-sharing subsidy cliff won't only make it more attractive for people to get coverage, albeit higher-deductible coverage, but it will allow people who need comprehensive coverage to get a better policy than they do under ObamaCare, since the bigger cost-sharing subsidy will effectively turn a silver plan to gold.

Meanwhile, freedom to choose a catastrophic plan with a 5:1 age-rating should satisfy the GOP that the reformed insurance markets will provide sufficient flexibility to meet the needs of all comers. Democrats should acknowledge that it's far better to let a young adult member of the working class get a higher-deductible plan for free than pay a penalty for going uninsured, and the broader, healthier risk pool will serve to hold down premiums for everyone.

As for the individual mandate, among the biggest issues of contention, if people earning up to 250% of the poverty level can get high-deductible coverage essentially for free and in most cases get extra cash on top there should be no need to threaten them with fines.

Above 250% of the poverty level, an alternative to the individual mandate is well worth considering. Among the reasons that the ObamaCare individual mandate doesn't work very well is that relatively young and healthy people who gamble on going without coverage can reasonably expect to win their bet and end up with a financial gain. ObamaCare encourages this kind of short-term calculation, sinceonly those who get sick pay a price.

A more logical approach would eliminate the incentive to go without coverage when one is young and healthy, then sign up when one's health starts deteriorating. Much like Medicare's late-enrollment penalties, the idea would be to very gradually shrink future tax subsidies based on how long people go without coverage. This should apply to both the individual market and employer market, or else people would have reason not to get coverage between jobs that offer insurance. The key for this to work in the constructive way intended is that subsidies must be sufficient to make coverage affordable, or else people would opt out for legitimate financial reasons and their future cost of coverage would gradually become even less affordable.

Even without this more constructive incentive, it's important to give members of the middle class a better deal than they get now. Those who earn too much to receive ObamaCare subsidies including young adults earning well below the official cut-off at 400% of the poverty level should be treated more equitably relative to their peers covered through the workplace.

A fiscally responsible solution would be to put a floor on tax credits for anyone buying coverage on the individual market equal to 25% of the cost of a silver plan, while limiting the income-tax benefit to 25% of the cost of employer-provided coverage and capping that benefit for high-income households. People in the 25% tax bracket (up to $91,151 for singles and $151,900 for married couples) who get coverage from an employer wouldn't be touchedby the tax change, while there would be minimal effect on those in the 28% bracket (up to $190,150 for singles and $231,450 for couples).

The sad reality today is that ObamaCare throws millions of modest-wage, full-time workers under the bus. There are some4.5 million uninsured full-time workerswho along with their spouses don't qualify for exchange subsidies, even if bronze-level workplace coverage costs close to 10% of income, which ObamaCare deems "affordable" but clearly isn't. That can amount to five times what people pay on the subsidized exchanges, sometimes even more. That's why perhaps a million other modest-wage earners solid numbers arehard to come by opt for"skinny" coverage at work that won't pay for hospitalization or surgerybut will keep them from having to pay a mandate penalty. This is worth repeating: The skimpy coverage that Democrats hate is exactly the kind of insurance-in-name-only-coverage that a lot of low-wage, full-time workers are settling for under ObamaCare.

Theemployer mandate is easy to dodgeand ends up harming the low-wage workers it was supposed to help. Getting rid of it is a progressive thing to do especially if it is done while fixing the individual insurance market.

Finally, we shouldallowstates that haven't expanded Medicaid to do so whilelimiting the expansion to 100% of the poverty level, easing the fiscal burden of the expansion on states, as suggested by Urban Institute scholars.

The Health Care Security & Freedom Act wouldn't deliver gold-plated insurance to most people, but it is the least we can do. All of these features would create a broad, stable risk pool, with affordable coverage options and plenty of flexibility to let people get the coverage that they believe suits them best. While they entail a fiscal cost, we can tackle that while stillputting the nation on a sounder fiscal courseand strengthening the social safety net.

Having a robust nongroup market for insurance that serves people well should be a priority for the nation. The dynamism of our economy will be better served if entrepreneurs and idealists who are willing to step out on a limb don't have to fear that their health insurance support will come crashing down. Demographic changes make it increasingly important for people to have the flexibility to step back from full-time work to help care for an aging parent or a sick child. Amid minimum-wage pressures and health care mandates, ultra-competitive markets and the advance of technology threaten to widen the cracks in our employer-centric insurance system that millions of workers, many with modest wages, are already falling into. And don't forget that we're entering the ninth year of an economic expansion. When the next recession hits, all of these pressures will multiply and millions more people will depend on insurance outside the employer system.

RELATED:

Senate Delays TrumpCare Vote, Pressuring Stock Market

TrumpCare: Almost Everyone Gets A Worse Deal

How To Replace ObamaCare And Save Social Security

6/30/2017 Combining Republican principles and Democratic values is key to replacing ObamaCare.

6/30/2017 Combining Republican principles and Democratic values is key to replacing...

Follow this link:

The Health Care Security And Freedom Act Of 2017 - Investor's Business Daily

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The conservative House Freedom Caucus threatened on Wednesday to block a fiscal 2018 budget resolution vital to tax reform, unless Republican leaders release a plan that slashes U.S. corporate taxes and doubles the standard deduction for individuals.

The demand from the hardline group could escalate infighting that has prevented Republicans in the House of Representatives from agreeing on a spending blueprint for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

With about three dozen members, the Freedom Caucus can stymie any legislation in the Republican-controlled House.

Passing a budget resolution is vital to the success of a Republican tax overhaul effort because it would allow a bill to pass the 100-seat Senate with only a simple majority. Otherwise, the legislation would require 60 votes in a chamber where Republicans have only 52 seats.

The Freedom Caucus also repeated a call for the House to remain in session during August, saying lawmakers should also address healthcare and an increase in the federal debt ceiling rather than head home to their districts.

Budget negotiations have bogged down over the group's efforts to include more than $200 billion of cuts to mandatory spending programs over a decade in any budget resolution, a move opposed by Republican moderates.

President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have promised to deliver a tax reform package this year. But the House budget squabble and hurdles facing healthcare legislation in the Senate have begun to worry business lobbyists about the prospects for success.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent a letter on Wednesday to Senate Republicans calling for tax cuts and other policy changes it said would make businesses more competitive at home and abroad.

"If a budget is put forth today, at $200 billion in mandatory spending and without decisions on tax reform, there would not be enough votes to pass it in the House," the Freedom Caucus chairman, Representative Mark Meadows, told a news conference.

In comments that paralleled a White House plan released in April, Meadows said tax reform should set a 16 percent corporate tax rate and double the standard deduction for individuals who do not itemize. Trump has called for a 15 percent corporate tax rate, versus the current 35 percent rate.

Freedom Caucus members also want House Republican leaders to abandon an unpopular border adjustment proposal that would tax imports.

Top Trump administration officials and Republican leaders in Congress are trying to agree on a framework for tax reform, and the White House has said a plan could be set by the end of July.

But there have been no tangible signs of progress in the closed-door discussions, while lobbyists and some congressional aides say the end-of-July deadline could be too ambitious.

Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Peter Cooney

Visit link:

US House Freedom Caucus wants tax reform plan before budget deal - Reuters

The Fiscal Times

Freedom Caucus Fires First Volley in New Debt Ceiling Battle | The ... The Fiscal Times The jockeying for position over the coming need to increase the Treasury Department's borrowing limit, known as the debt ceiling, has begun in Congress. and more »

See the original post here:

Freedom Caucus Fires First Volley in New Debt Ceiling Battle | The ... - The Fiscal Times

Crosby Smith Published 6:53 p.m. ET July 12, 2017 | Updated 6:53 p.m. ET July 12, 2017

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union member protesting at the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield, Ill., on May 23, 2012.(Photo: Seth Perlman, AP)

Inequality is rising. The gap between the rich and the rest of us is growing. And big corporations, their CEOs and other millionaires control the levers of power. These wealthy elites are using their vast fortunes to rig the rules of our economy even our very democracy for their own benefit.

Here in Illinois, Gov. Bruce Rauner is a millionaire private equity mogul. For three years he has failed to propose a balanced budget, holding our state hostage. He refused to do his job unless legislators gave in to his demands on unrelated issues, like limiting the freedom of working people to form strong unions and making it harder for injured workers to get medical care.

Rauner also demanded cuts to the modest pensions earned by teachers, police, nurses and other public service workers like me. For 15 years, Ive provided care for people with severe developmental disabilities, and Ive paid from every paycheck toward the pension Im counting on when I retire.

OUR VIEW

Illinois pension problem: Coming to a state near you

Illinois pensions are modest, just $32,000 a year on average. Since most public service workers arent eligible for Social Security, our pension is all many of us will have in what should be our golden years.

Politicians ran up our states pension debt over decades by using our retirement funds like credit cards. Instead of raising revenue or cutting costs, they skipped or shorted pension payments.

A pension is a promise that shouldnt be broken. My life savings shouldnt be taken to let politicians avoid tough choices. The Illinois Constitution agrees, saying pensions cant be cut.

Our states fiscal problems stem from our low, flat income tax that allows rich folks to avoid paying their fair share, while two-thirds of Illinois corporations pay no income tax at all. To fund schools and other public services while paying the states bills, we need to close loopholes and enact a fair, graduated, tax.

Every American would benefit from measures like these and others to create good jobs, keep health care affordable and protect our freedom to form strong unions helping ensure that we all do better.

Crosby Smith is a mental health technician and president of AFSCME Local 2645.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2ukvAQP

Read the original post:

States should stick to pension promise - USA TODAY

The Fiscal Times

Freedom Caucus Fires First Volley in New Debt Ceiling Battle The Fiscal Times Even though there is little likelihood of real action on the issue until lawmakers return from a month-long August recess, members of the House Freedom Caucus are already preparing a list of recommendations that, as the country drifts closer to a ...

See more here:

Freedom Caucus Fires First Volley in New Debt Ceiling Battle - The Fiscal Times