Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα obamas. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων
Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα obamas. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων

Παρασκευή 5 Απριλίου 2013

4 More Ways Obama's Gun Control Speech Sows Mistrust


As I
noted
earlier today, President Obama professes to be worried
about a lack of trust and empathy in the gun control debate, even
as he accuses his opponents of blocking life-saving legislation out
of sheer partisan perversity. Here are a few other ways in which
Obama's speech in
Denver sows mistrust:


He conflates a failed background check with stopping a
criminal from obtaining a gun.
 "Over the past 20
years," Obama says, "background checks have kept more than 2
million dangerous people from buying a gun." That claim is based on
two faulty assumptions: 1) that everyone who fails a background
check is dangerous, which plainly is not true, given the
ridiculously broad categories
of people who are legally barred
from buying firearms, and 2) that a criminal intent on obtaining a
weapon will give up if he cannot get it over the counter at a gun
store, rather than enlisting a straw buyer or turning to the gray
or black market.


He falsely equates "assault weapons" with military
guns.
 Obama inaccurately calls one of the guns used
in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, massacre an "assault rifle," which is
a military weapon capable of firing automatically. He calls the
guns he wants to ban "weapons of war," again implying that they
fire continuously, when in fact they fire once per trigger pull,
like any other semi-automatic firearm.


He says there is no logical connection between
"universal background checks" and gun registration.
"We're
not proposing a gun registration system," Obama insists. "We’re
proposing background checks for criminals." But there is no way to
enforce a background-check requirement for every gun transfer
unless the government knows where the guns are. Federally licensed
gun dealers are readily identified and can be required to keep sale
records. Individual gun owners who might dare to sell their
property without clearance from the government cannot be identified
unless the government compiles a list of them. Hence Obama's
assurances amount to saying, "Don't worry. We will make a big show
of passing this new background-check mandate, but we won't really
enforce it."


He pooh-poohs the idea that there could ever be anything
adversarial about the relationship between Americans and their
government
:



You hear some of these quotes: "I need a gun to protect myself
from the government." "We can't do background checks because the
government is going to come take my guns away." 


Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you.
(Applause.) They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am
constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders
put in place. It's a government of and by and for the people.



One of the constraints on the federal government is the doctrine
of enmuerated powers, which says every act of Congress must be
justified by a specific constitutional grant of authority. Where is
the clause that empowers Congress to say how many rounds you can
put in a magazine or whether your rifle can have a barrel shroud?
Furthermore, as Obama surely has heard by now, there is this thing
called the Second Amendment, and it is hardly frivolous to argue
than an arbitrary and capricious piece of legislation like the
"assault weapon" ban Obama supports would violate the
constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Yet to Obama's mind,
anyone who makes such an argument is one of those "people who take
absolute positions" and therefore can be safely ignored. After all,
the government is us. 

Πέμπτη 4 Απριλίου 2013

Don't Expect Anything New In Obama's 2014 Budget Proposal

Barack ObamaOn April 10, President Obama will enter the ongoing 2014 budget battle when the White House releases its budget blueprint, joining Senate Democrats and both parties in the House in a partisan scuffle over the nation’s fiscal future.

If it’s anything like what the president put forth last year, the Medicare-related parts of the White House budget will focus on containing costs by reforming the Medicare payment system and reducing fraud and waste while maintaining the Traditional Medicare structure.

The president’s proposal will go up against the House Republican budget from House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), which advocates turning Medicare into a premium support system. Also in the running are the House and Senate Democratic budget proposals, which each have rejected any form of privatization in favor of building on the reforms in the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

During efforts to work out a deficit reduction deal with Republicans, Obama expressed a willingness to make significant changes to Medicare. The president has told House Republicans that he was open to combining Medicare coverage for hospitals and doctor services (Part A and Part B) in order to contain costs.

Obama’s plan to avoid sequestration cuts also hints at the Medicare changes that he’s willing to make. During negotiations to avoid the automatic spending cuts that kicked in March 1, the president suggested reducing overall health care spending by a total of $400 billion.

He plans to reduce payments to drug companies (for $140 billion in savings); reduce hospital payments for patients who don’t pay their bills ($30 billion); encourage efficient care after hospital stays ($50 billion); and encourage the use of high-value care while asking wealthier patients to pay more for their care ($35 billion).

Another $25 billion in savings would come from Medicaid; pay-for-delay (addressing drug industry deals that stall consumers’ access to cheaper generic drugs); program integrity; and the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a panel created under the ACA to keep Medicare cost growth under control.

Stacy Sanders (federal policy director at the Medicare Rights Center), David Lipschutz (a Center for Medicare Advocacy policy attorney), and Paul Van de Water (a senior fellow specializing in Medicare at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) predicted that when Obama issues a budget proposal, he will probably include the same Medicare spending provisions outlined in his 2013 budget.

Cato Institute Senior Fellow and entitlement reform expert Jagadeesh Gokhale also said he doesn’t expect major changes in the president’s Medicare reform approach, and predicts a focus on tax adjustments rather than on new spending reductions, considering recent health care cost projections. The Congressional Budget Office’s new budget outlook report, released earlier this month, decreased its 2020 Medicare spending estimate by $126 billion, taking into account slower-than-anticipated health care cost growth in recent years.

“I think [White House officials] are going to say that Medicare cost growth has been slower recently. It’s been only 2.9 or 3 percent a year since 2010 and therefore we need not take such strong measures on Medicare as might once have been thought to be necessary when the Medicare cost growth was in the range of 7 or 8 percent a year,” Gokhale said. “My guess is they will emphasize tax hike solutions. The obvious proposal they might have is to increase the Medicare payroll tax rate.”

Obama’s State of the Union address on Feb. 12 also seemed to indicate that he will be sticking to the same Medicare reform proposals. He called for “modest reforms” for Medicare and said he is in favor of reducing taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies, more cost-sharing for wealthy seniors (or expanded means-testing) and moving toward a pay-for-performance reimbursement strategy in order to reduce costs.

Obama 2013 Budget Priorities Likely to Remain

His 2013 budget proposal put these same ideas on the table. Opposing any form of premium support system, the president’s fiscal plan for 2013 focused on reforming the Medicare payment system and reducing fraud and waste while maintaining the Traditional Medicare structure.

Last year, the White House Office of Management and Budget estimated that the president’s suggested changes to Medicare, Medicaid and other health programs would save $364 billion over the next decade.

“The goal of these reforms is to make these critical programs more effective and efficient, and help make sure our health care system rewards high-quality medicine,” Obama wrote in his introduction to the 2013 budget. “What it does not do—and what I will not support—are efforts to turn Medicare into a voucher or Medicaid into a block grant. Doing so would weaken both programs and break the promise that we have made to American seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families—a promise I am committed to keeping.”

In order to achieve that goal, the president proposed better aligning payments for graduate medical education and rural providers with actual patient costs, as well as reducing payments to providers for bad debts resulting from beneficiaries’ failure to pay deductibles or copayments.

He also suggested aligning Medicare drug payment policies with Medicaid policies for low-income beneficiaries, promoting efficient postacute care and increasing income-related premiums for Part B and Part D.

In last year’s budget, the president additionally planned to increase the Part B deductible by $25 for new beneficiaries in 2017, 2019 and 2021; to introduce home health copayments for new beneficiaries; to introduce a Part B premium surcharge for new beneficiaries who decide to purchase Medigap policies with low cost-sharing requirements; and to strengthen IPAB.

The budget also called for a solution to the flawed sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula, which lawmakers have overridden for years to prevent steep cuts to physician payments. The president additionally called for containment of costs stemming from chronic illnesses via expanded coverage for preventive services under the ACA.

Another major savings source for Medicare emphasized in the president’s 2013 budget is reducing fraud, waste and abuse. The proposal suggests that the government should authorize civil monetary penalties or other immediate sanctions on providers who don’t update enrollment records or exclude from the program providers affiliated with entities already sanctioned for fraud or other prohibited practices.

Finally, the president also called on lawmakers to affirm that Medicaid should be a last resort payer when other entities are legally liable for beneficiary claims and that Medicaid should rescreen 1.5 million home health agencies, medical equipment suppliers, doctors, hospitals and other providers for potential fraud.

What’s Already on the Table in the 2014 Budget Debate 

Ryan’s 2014 House Republican budget would balance the federal budget in a decade, cutting spending by $4.6 trillion through 2023. The budget preserves the $716 billion in Medicare spending reductions included in the ACA, although it would repeal the provisions of the law responsible for IPAB, subsidized insurance exchanges and the Medicaid expansion.

Like his previous budgets, Ryan’s latest proposal would transform Medicare into a premium support system. Beginning in 2024, Medicare beneficiaries would receive a “defined contribution,” or set amount of money, from the government with which to buy insurance. They could choose Traditional Medicare coverage or one of a range of competing private plans.

The fiscal year 2014 Senate budget resolution put forth by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) would reduce the deficit by $1.85 trillion and includes $275 billion in health care cost cuts. This budget rejects the idea of premium support, stating that it would dismantle the Medicare program. The Senate budget calls for building on the reforms included in the ACA, which would involve further realignment of incentives, reducing waste and fraud and encouraging greater engagement to contain costs.

Similar to the Senate budget, the House Democratic 2014 budget proposal rejects the idea of turning Medicare into a premium support system, saying that it would shift the risks of rising health care costs onto beneficiaries. House Democrats propose $141 billion in Medicare spending reductions over the next decade; the budget would prevent Medicare cuts under sequestration and support the ACA reforms to the program.

Their proposal calls for achieving savings through efficiency improvements rather than through budget cuts. House Democrats support the cost containment provisions in the ACA as well as Obama’s proposal to give Medicare the same prescription drug rebates as Medicaid for low-income beneficiaries. Additionally, the House Democrats suggest enacting measures to reduce overpayments and correct misaligned incentives.

More from The Fiscal Times:

Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

mf.gif

a2.imga2t.img

businessinsider?d=yIl2AUoC8zA businessinsider?i=BWh0Z5Ly4k4:ta5lWtq-H- businessinsider?i=BWh0Z5Ly4k4:ta5lWtq-H- businessinsider?d=qj6IDK7rITs businessinsider?i=BWh0Z5Ly4k4:ta5lWtq-H-
BWh0Z5Ly4k4

Obama's Budget: Medicaid Would Be Spared From Deep Cuts

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's budget will steer clear of major cuts to Medicaid.

They wouldn't go over too well at a time when his administration is trying to persuade skeptical governors to expand the giant health care program for the poor.


Read More...
More on sequester


raw_feed?d=yIl2AUoC8zA raw_feed?i=h7uu2CrevbI:gZLuatCg8Ig:F7zBn raw_feed?i=h7uu2CrevbI:gZLuatCg8Ig:V_sGL
h7uu2CrevbI

4 More Ways Obama's Gun Control Speech Sows Mistrust


As I
noted
earlier today, President Obama professes to be worried
about a lack of trust and empathy in the gun control debate, even
as he accuses his opponents of blocking life-saving legislation out
of sheer partisan perversity. Here are a few other ways in which
Obama's speech in
Denver sows mistrust:


He conflates a failed background check with stopping a
criminal from obtaining a gun.
 "Over the past 20
years," Obama says, "background checks have kept more than 2
million dangerous people from buying a gun." That claim is based on
two faulty assumptions: 1) that everyone who fails a background
check is dangerous, which plainly is not true, given the
ridiculously broad categories
of people who are legally barred
from buying firearms, and 2) that a criminal intent on obtaining a
weapon will give up if he cannot get it over the counter at a gun
store, rather than enlisting a straw buyer or turning to the gray
or black market.


He falsely equates "assault weapons" with military
guns.
 Obama inaccurately calls one of the guns used
in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, massacre an "assault rifle," which is
a military weapon capable of firing automatically. He calls the
guns he wants to ban "weapons of war," again implying that they
fire continuously, when in fact they fire once per trigger pull,
like any other semi-automatic firearm.


He says there is no logical connection between
"universal background checks" and gun registration.
"We're
not proposing a gun registration system," Obama insists. "We’re
proposing background checks for criminals." But there is no way to
enforce a background-check requirement for every gun transfer
unless the government knows where the guns are. Federally licensed
gun dealers are readily identified and can be required to keep sale
records. Individual gun owners who might dare to sell their
property without clearance from the government cannot be identified
unless the government compiles a list of them. Hence Obama's
assurances amount to saying, "Don't worry. We will make a big show
of passing this new background-check mandate, but we won't really
enforce it."


He pooh-poohs the idea that there could ever be anything
adversarial about the relationship between Americans and their
government
:



You hear some of these quotes: "I need a gun to protect myself
from the government." "We can't do background checks because the
government is going to come take my guns away." 


Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you.
(Applause.) They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am
constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders
put in place. It's a government of and by and for the people.



One of the constraints on the federal government is the doctrine
of enmuerated powers, which says every act of Congress must be
justified by a specific constitutional grant of authority. Where is
the clause that empowers Congress to say how many rounds you can
put in a magazine or whether your rifle can have a barrel shroud?
Furthermore, as Obama surely has heard by now, there is this thing
called the Second Amendment, and it is hardly frivolous to argue
than an arbitrary and capricious piece of legislation like the
"assault weapon" ban Obama supports would violate the
constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Yet to Obama's mind,
anyone who makes such an argument is one of those "people who take
absolute positions" and therefore can be safely ignored. After all,
the government is us. 

Δευτέρα 1 Απριλίου 2013

WHITE HOUSE: The Arkansas Oil Spill Is Not On Obama's Radar

oil spill

A lot of oil spilled in the town of Mayflower, Ark. this weekend.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney commented briefly on the spill during his briefing today, when a reporter  asked about the possible effect it could have on the Obama administration's decision to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Answer: It's not the biggest thing on the President's radar.

Here's the exact exchange, via the White House transcript (emphasis added):

Q. With the public comment phase now underway in terms of the draft of the environmental impact statement as it relates to the Keystone Pipeline, I was trying to get a sense -- without any specific scheduling announcements -- when we think we should expect to hear from the President on that.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, the process, as you know, is run out of the State Department.  The timetable depends on that process, and I would refer you to the State Department for what those next steps are and when that process plays out.  I don’t have anything -- there is nothing -- I can promise you there is nothing on the President's schedule that relates to that question at this time.

Q.  Understood.  Then given just a couple of days ago, I guess Saturday, the EPA classified a new leak that took place in Arkansas with several thousand gallons of crude oil spilling from a ruptured Exxon-Mobil pipeline in that state, the EPA describing it as a "major spill."  I'm just curious the President's thoughts on that and, as they relate to considerations right now, even if not immediate, on that topic.

MR. CARNEY:  I haven't spoken about this incident with the President.  We obviously have a system in place where the EPA in this case is the federal on-scene coordinator when you have a spill, an event like this.  And they are working with and have been working with state and local officials, as well as the responsible party, as they respond to this incident; in this case, the responsible party is Exxon-Mobil.

We obviously take the safety of our many pipelines in this country very seriously.  And we have an agency that is dedicated to the task of making sure that those pipelines operate safely, and, in cases like these that -- investigations are undertaken and steps taken to both mitigate the damage and hopefully avoid them in the future.

We recently predicted that a decision on the Keystone XL is unlikely to come before tax day.

SEE ALSO: Why The Keystone XL Pipeline Is So Controversial >

Please follow Politics on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

mf.gif

a2.imga2t.img

businessinsider?d=yIl2AUoC8zA businessinsider?i=d6SsQxl__QE:ANY_IrN5K1 businessinsider?i=d6SsQxl__QE:ANY_IrN5K1 businessinsider?d=qj6IDK7rITs businessinsider?i=d6SsQxl__QE:ANY_IrN5K1
d6SsQxl__QE

Τετάρτη 27 Μαρτίου 2013

Obama’s Gay Marriage Position Falls Flat at Supreme Court


Although the U.S. Supreme Court appeared extremely divided this
morning over the legality of California’s ban on gay marriage, the
justices did exhibit widespread agreement on one point: None of
them seemed to find the Obama administration’s position on Prop. 8
to be very convincing.


In the brief submitted earlier this month, the Obama
administration called for the nullification of the gay marriage
bans now in place in California and the seven other states that
forbid gay marriage while allowing civil unions. According to the
government, this differential treatment is an unconstitutional
deprivation of equal protection. In other words, it’s
unconstitutional for a state to recognize civil unions while not
recognizing same-sex marriage. The federal government took no
position on those states that offer neither civil unions nor gay
marriage.


Unfortunately for the president, that argument appeared to find
little traction during this morning’s oral arguments, as evinced by
these comments made by the justices in response to the Obama
administration’s position:



Justice Ginsburg: “So a State that has made considerable
progress has to go all the way, but at least the Government's
position is, if it has...done absolutely nothing at all, then...it
can do -- do as it will.”




Justice Breyer: “A State that does nothing hurts them much more,
and yet your brief seems to say it's more likely to be justified
under the Constitution. I'd like to know with some specificity how
that could be.”




Justice Sotomayor: “General [Verrilli], there is an irony in
that, which is the States that do more have less rights.”




Chief Justice Roberts: “You saying it's got to happen right now
in California, but you don't even have a position about whether
it's required in the rest of the country.”



Read more about this morning's Prop. 8 arguments
here
. Read Reason's coverage of Prop. 8 here.

Τρίτη 26 Μαρτίου 2013

Jacob Sullum on Obama’s Amazingly Stingy Clemency Record


Will Barack Obama go down in history as our
least merciful president? As he began his second term, writes Jacob
Sullum, this reputedly progressive and enlightened man had a strong
shot at winning that dubious distinction. December, a traditional
season for presidential clemency, came and went, and Obama had
granted just one commutation (which shortens a prisoner’s sentence)
and 22 pardons (which clear people’s records, typically after
they’ve completed their sentences). His first-term record looks
weaker than those of all but a few previous presidents. View this article.