Posts Tagged ‘Obamacare’
Congress still at their games with the American people. I am a conservative with no apologies and have voted Republican most of my life altho I vote for the person and NOT the party so I put a pox on both their houses. Republicans and Democrats alike are responsible for taking care of their own bums before they give a thought to the people who elected them. Now that Obamacare seems to be blowing up in their faces the Congress is still taking care of their personal business first.
As for the farce now playing out with Obamacare all I can say is: there is a God! because apparently no one else can control this President. BB
The following article from Heritage is interesting.:
Congress and Obamacare: A Big Double Standard
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) (KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom)
Are lawmakers and their personal staffs “exempt” from Obamacare, as some conservative critics are saying?
Well, not exactly. Members of Congress and their staffs must be enrolled in the Obamacare exchange plans effective January 1, 2014. Under Section 1312 (D) of the Affordable Care Act, they can no longer get their health coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the largest group health insurance program in the world. Because they lost their FEHBP coverage, they also lost their generous FEHBP subsidy, amounting to roughly $5,000 for individual coverage, and more than $10,000 for family coverage. Just like ordinary Americans who lose their employer–based health insurance, Congress and staff would only be eligible for the exchanges’ income –related subsidies.
How did this happen? During the 2010 debate on the Senate version of Obamacare, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid inserted language that Congress and staff would henceforth have to get their insurance in the Obamacare exchanges and would thus be ineligible to purchase coverage through the FEHBP. The language was an early committee amendment authored by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who argued that Congress should not treat itself differently from other Americans.
After passing Obamacare, Congressmen soon realized they all faced higher premiums and out-of- pocket costs, just like millions of their fellow citizens. While a lower-paid staffer who makes less than $46,000 annually would qualify for the new exchange subsidies, senior staff and Members of Congress (who make $174,000 annually) would not. Just like many private-sector employers, Congressmen also worried about Obamacare’s impact on attracting and retaining employees.
Anxious about the consequences of Obamacare for themselves, Congressional leaders were nonetheless afraid to go to the House or Senate floor and vote themselves the equivalent of their previous employer-based insurance subsidy.
So, in August 2013, President Obama came to their rescue. The White House pressured the U.S Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the agency that runs the FEHBP, to give Congressmen and their staffers the same employer’s subsidy in the exchanges for next year that they would otherwise get if they had remained in the FEHBP in 2014.
This is curious. Politico reported, on Oct. 1, 2013, that OPM had concluded – before the White House intervention- that Congress could not get FEHBP subsidies for coverage in the Obamacare exchange..
In an August. 2, 2013 paper for The Heritage Foundation (Backgrounder 2831), my colleagues, including former OPM General Counsel Joseph A. Morris, published the same conclusion. The statute did not even mention OPM or grant OPM regulatory authority to implement it; nor did it provide for any additional subsidy for members of Congress and staff enrolled in the exchanges. Under the FEHBP, law, Heritage argued, OPM simply has no authority to transfer funds outside of the FEHBP program, or to make government payments to any plan other than a participating FEHBP plan.
Heritage also anticipated – correctly — that OPM might try to pull a fast one, and offer Congress administrative relief. This would spare House and Senate members a politically embarrassing floor vote to get special treatment for themselves. But OPM could only do so, Heritage warned, by ignoring the plain language of the statute.
That’s exactly what happened. Under pressure from the White House, on Aug. 7, 2013, OPM gave Congress and staffers the special taxpayer subsidies anyway. They are, in fact, “special”- since there is no Congressional authorization for the Obama Administration to provide them.
In response, Sen. David Vitter (R- LA.) is proposing an amendment that would require the president, cabinet officials and all administration political appointees, as well as Congress and staff, to enroll in the Obamacare exchanges on the same terms and conditions as millions of other Americans.
In other words, Washington’s ruling class would not get any special taxpayer subsidies. President Obama has indicated that he will veto the Vitter amendment if it gets to his desk.
Sen. Vitter’s amendment simply requires those who make and enforce the laws to live under the same rules that they impose on other Americans. President Obama, the Democratic congressional leadership and many staffers, regardless of party affiliation, and their many allies in academia and the media, strongly disagree. They think the OPM process is legal and legitimate.
That’s perfectly fine. They can argue that case in the court of public opinion. And maybe the federal courts, too.
Originally appeared in Human Events
The post Congress and Obamacare: A Big Double Standard appeared first on The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation.
I have stated again and again that any other president would have been impeached long ago for what this one has gotten away with. Today Heritage reports on five things that he has done that a egregious sins against the Constitution of the United States and therefore egregious sins against the people of the United States. Why do we the people put up with this behavior???? BB
5 Ways Obama Has Trampled the Constitution09/17/2013 Today, the Constitution turns 226 years old. Let’s not forget it states that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
The Obama Administration has done the opposite, turning the law on its head and ignoring constitutional limitations on its power.
Here are five of the Administration’s largest violations:
1. Changing Obamacare on the fly without congressional action
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires that businesses employing 50 or more full-time employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine per uncovered employee. The law schedules this mandate to begin in January 2014. Yet the Administration has already announced that it will put this requirement on hold.
Meanwhile, Congress explicitly considered and rejected proposed amendments to Obamacare that would have created a specific allowance for a congressional health insurance subsidy in the exchanges, and indeed, such an exemption is illegal. But the Administration told Members of Congress and their staffers that it would give them a generous taxpayer-funded subsidy just the same.
Obamacare won’t work as written, and the Administration is just seizing power unilaterally to rewrite it.
2. Implementing the DREAM Act by executive fiat
Congress has repeatedly considered, and rejected, a bill known as the Dream Act that would effectively grant amnesty to many illegal aliens. Yet in June 2012, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued a directive to immigration officials instructing them to defer deportation proceedings against an estimated 1.7 million illegal aliens. Oddly, this happened about a year after President Obama admitted that “the President doesn’t have the authority to simply ignore Congress and say, ‘We’re not going to enforce the laws you’ve passed.’”
3. Making “recess appointments” while the Senate was in session
In January 2012, President Obama made four “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, claiming that the Senate was not available to confirm those appointees. Yet the Senate was not in recess at that time. The Recess Appointments Clause is not an alternative to Senate confirmation and is supposed to be only a stopgap for times when the Senate is unable to provide advice and consent. Eventually, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit struck down the appointments to the NLRB as unconstitutional.
4. Waiving welfare work requirements
In July 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services gutted the work requirements out of the welfare reform law passed in 1996. It notified states of Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’s “willingness to exercise her waiver authority” so that states may eliminate the work participation requirement of Section 407 of the 1996 reforms. This flatly contradicts the law, which provides that waivers granted under other sections of the law “shall not affect the applicability of section 407 to the State.” Despite this unambiguous language, the Obama Administration continues to flout the law with its “revisionist” interpretation.
5. Encouraging federal contractors to violate the law
The WARN Act requires that federal contractors give 60 days’ notice before a mass layoff or plant closing. Employers who do not give notice are liable for employees’ back pay and benefits as well as additional penalties. With defense-related spending cuts set to start on January 2, 2013, defense contractors should have issued notice by November 2, 2012 (just four days before the presidential election). Yet, the Department of Labor instructed defense contractors not to issue notice for layoffs due to sequestration until after the election—and assured them they would be reimbursed with taxpayer funds for any subsequent liability for violating the law.
One of the Constitution’s strongest features is its simplicity. It doesn’t serve as a laundry list of rights, as many modern constitutions attempt to do. Instead, it lays out a governing framework, divides power among three co-equal branches, and protects Americans from having their rights usurped by an overreaching government.
But for the Constitution to survive the next quarter-century, we need leaders who are dedicated to maintaining it, not stretching it to suit their immediate political needs.
Recent Comments