From Rep. Miller's Office
Senate Health Care Bill Will Increase Taxes and Hamper Consumer Choice
Washington, Oct 9 - According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Senate Finance Committee’s health care mark, like the House health care bill, would mandate health insurance. Specifically, beginning in July 2013, the proposal would establish a requirement for individuals to obtain insurance and would in many cases impose a financial penalty on people who did not do so. Moreover, the Senate mark would allow the government to decide what health care insurance policies are acceptable, thereby limiting consumer choices and increasing government intrusion in personal decisions. Although CBO estimates the modified Senate Finance Committee healthcare overhaul bill would cost $829 billion over 10 years and will decrease the deficit by $81 billion, this is accomplished by raising taxes by $500 billion on employers and those who already have insurance, as well as by cutting Medicare and Medicaid benefits by over $400 billion. Furthermore, according to CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation, at least 71 percent of the individual mandate tax penalties in the Senate Finance bill would be levied on Americans earning less than $250,000. Congressman Miller is deeply concerned about Congressional health care proposals that increase taxes and slash benefits for our nation’s seniors and will continue to fight for effective health care solutions.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Would Chris Norby's Brother be allowed as his Chief of Staff?
I don't want this blog to turn into a Norby-bashing blog, but I wonder if he can bring his brother up to Sacramento to be his COS there, too?
Latest NorbyWatch Email
From NorbyWatch,
It is a bad day for the Norby for Assembly campaign. Things are starting to crumble as people find out more about him.
First, Frank Mickadeit has a column in the Orange County Register today that includes a claim by former Fullerton City Councilwoman Linda LeQuire that Norby had sexual harassment issues on three occasions with City of Fullerton employees.
Here is the key passage in the Mickadeit piece --
The other thing that turned off Ackerman, he says, is that on three occasions he was told by the city manager that a female city employee had complained about Norby's "touchings and inappropriate comments." No lawsuits were filed, Ackerman says, because "that's not the way things were handled then." Instead, he says, the city manager told Norby to knock it off. The city manager has since died. Of the two former council members I was able to reach, one, Buck Catlin, said he doesn't remember having an issue with Norby's voting habits or hearing about any sexual harassment. The other council member, however, Linda LeQuire, said she remembers both. "His voting was not always consistent with what he said before the public meeting," she said. On harassment: "There were several instances where the council was apprised something had happened. S There were warnings to Chris not to do things S to curtail activities that might be seen as harassing in nature."
Everyone knows about the problems he had as an Orange County Supervisor with a former employee....but now we can see this is a pattern of behavior. Then last night the California Republican Assembly has a debate. Some new guy that no one has ever heard of named Richard Faher goes after Norby for the sexual harassment on the county employee. What would Faher have done if he had known about the incidents in Fullerton?
Here is the passage from Martin Wiskol's coverage of the debate --
Political newcomer Richard Faher displayed a down-home, everyman delivery coupled with a solid knowledge of the issues facing the state and the workings of politics. He also was unafraid to bring up a past sexual harassment complaint - dismissed by an appellate court - against Norby. The complaint could become a factor in the race - particularly since the Nov. 17 election has been called to replace Mike Duvall, who resigned amid a sex scandal.
The candidates were asked about personal integrity and Faher didn’t hesitate with delicacies. “Chris Norby had a sexual harassment charge against him,” Faher said. “The judge was quite harsh. That’s the elephant in the room.” While the court dismissed the complaint, it called Norby’s behavior “rude, inappropriate and offensive.” Norby responded by pointing to the proliferation of nuisance lawsuits, and said this case fell in that category. “I had only three encounters with her, all in public, all when she approached me,” he said.
If the people of the 72nd Assembly District want someone in the Assembly that has this sort of a record with women -- let's bring Duvall back. He was actually not as bad as this Norby guy.
It is a bad day for the Norby for Assembly campaign. Things are starting to crumble as people find out more about him.
First, Frank Mickadeit has a column in the Orange County Register today that includes a claim by former Fullerton City Councilwoman Linda LeQuire that Norby had sexual harassment issues on three occasions with City of Fullerton employees.
Here is the key passage in the Mickadeit piece --
The other thing that turned off Ackerman, he says, is that on three occasions he was told by the city manager that a female city employee had complained about Norby's "touchings and inappropriate comments." No lawsuits were filed, Ackerman says, because "that's not the way things were handled then." Instead, he says, the city manager told Norby to knock it off. The city manager has since died. Of the two former council members I was able to reach, one, Buck Catlin, said he doesn't remember having an issue with Norby's voting habits or hearing about any sexual harassment. The other council member, however, Linda LeQuire, said she remembers both. "His voting was not always consistent with what he said before the public meeting," she said. On harassment: "There were several instances where the council was apprised something had happened. S There were warnings to Chris not to do things S to curtail activities that might be seen as harassing in nature."
Everyone knows about the problems he had as an Orange County Supervisor with a former employee....but now we can see this is a pattern of behavior. Then last night the California Republican Assembly has a debate. Some new guy that no one has ever heard of named Richard Faher goes after Norby for the sexual harassment on the county employee. What would Faher have done if he had known about the incidents in Fullerton?
Here is the passage from Martin Wiskol's coverage of the debate --
Political newcomer Richard Faher displayed a down-home, everyman delivery coupled with a solid knowledge of the issues facing the state and the workings of politics. He also was unafraid to bring up a past sexual harassment complaint - dismissed by an appellate court - against Norby. The complaint could become a factor in the race - particularly since the Nov. 17 election has been called to replace Mike Duvall, who resigned amid a sex scandal.
The candidates were asked about personal integrity and Faher didn’t hesitate with delicacies. “Chris Norby had a sexual harassment charge against him,” Faher said. “The judge was quite harsh. That’s the elephant in the room.” While the court dismissed the complaint, it called Norby’s behavior “rude, inappropriate and offensive.” Norby responded by pointing to the proliferation of nuisance lawsuits, and said this case fell in that category. “I had only three encounters with her, all in public, all when she approached me,” he said.
If the people of the 72nd Assembly District want someone in the Assembly that has this sort of a record with women -- let's bring Duvall back. He was actually not as bad as this Norby guy.
72nd Republican Differences
The OC Register showed some political differences between the three republicans running for the 72nd.
Abortion
"Faher was the only Republican candidate not to oppose abortion rights - he said he would not take a public position on the issue."
Medical Marijuana
Ackerman was the, "only one opposed to medicinal marijuana."
Illegal Immigration
"Norby was the sole GOP candidate to oppose employer sanctions for undocumented workers."
I found Faher's abortion comment interesting. He is running for public office but refuses to take a public position on an important issue.
Abortion
"Faher was the only Republican candidate not to oppose abortion rights - he said he would not take a public position on the issue."
Medical Marijuana
Ackerman was the, "only one opposed to medicinal marijuana."
Illegal Immigration
"Norby was the sole GOP candidate to oppose employer sanctions for undocumented workers."
I found Faher's abortion comment interesting. He is running for public office but refuses to take a public position on an important issue.
Ackerman-Norby History
The Orange County Register has an interesting story on the history of the Ackerman-Norby feud. It contains a new allegation by Dick Ackerman of sexual harassment by Norby.
The most interesting part of the story.
The most interesting part of the story.
Ackerman says the two had a friendly beer at Elmer's after Norby won.
"I said, 'Hey, things are going to be good. We've got five conservatives.' But
the votes kept coming out 4-1," with Norby dissenting. While it didn't affect
the outcome, it did irk Ackerman, who believed Norby was pandering to the "vocal minority" that would come out to protest whatever issue happened to be on the
agenda on a given night."He'd just count the people in the audience and that's how he voted. He was the populist."The other thing that turned off Ackerman, he says, is that on three occasions he was told by the city manager that a female city employee had complained about Norby's "touchings and inappropriate comments." No lawsuits were filed, Ackerman says, because "that's not the way things were handled then."
Instead, he says, the city manager told Norby to knock it off. The city manager has since died.
Of the two former council members I was able to reach, one, Buck Catlin, said he doesn't remember having an issue with Norby's voting habits or hearing about any sexual harassment.
The other council member, however, Linda LeQuire, said she remembers
both."His voting was not always consistent with what he said before the
public meeting," she said. On harassment: "There were several instances where
the council was apprised something had happened. … There were warnings to Chris not to do things … to curtail activities that might be seen as harassing in
nature."
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Rep. Gary Miller on TARP Anniversary
From Rep. Gary Miller
While last Saturday marks the one year anniversary of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) being signed into law, questions continue to linger regarding the future of this controversial program. As the current Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, is considering whether or not to extend TARP past its December 31, 2009 expiration, hundreds of billions of dollars in existing commitments will remain on the government’s books for the next several years.
Last year, our economy faced historic and unprecedented challenges that posed a clear threat to our country’s economic underpinnings. The housing markets experienced significant upheaval and increased delinquencies and defaults among borrowers contributed to turmoil in the mortgage finance sector. As a result, our entire economy was affected—banks stopped lending and everyday Americans were affected by this severe credit crunch. Following these sobering events, then Treasury Secretary Paulson, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke, and President Bush warned repeatedly that an economic crash would be imminent if Congress did not swiftly pass legislation to address the financial markets crisis. After the House failed to pass an economic rescue package the first time, not listening to their warnings proved to be dangerous, as evidenced by the subsequent $1 trillion loss in the stock markets in the days that followed. After meeting with Secretary Paulson, Chairman Bernanke, and President Bush’s economic advisors, I heeded their warnings and voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), which established the TARP, in order to prevent a catastrophic collapse of our economy. This $700 billion economic rescue plan granted $250 billion in immediate authority to the Department of Treasury to purchase assets from financial institutions, with an additional $100 billion after the Secretary reported to Congress. Congress then had the authority to withhold the remaining $350 billion.
While some viewed this as a bailout for the fat cats on Wall Street, my sole reason in voting for this legislation was to ensure Americans with good credit could continue to access home, auto, and student loans and small businesses would be able to access the loans they need to keep their businesses open and their employees paid. While the legislation was being considered, it was my understanding that TARP funds were to be used to finance the purchase of troubled assets, such as residential and commercial mortgage-related assets, including mortgage-backed securities and whole loans, in order to alleviate the credit crunch and stabilize the overall economy. However, mid-October, after this legislation was signed into law, the Department of Treasury changed the rules of the game for TARP and used funds to purchase shares in a broad array of financial institutions.
Since its enactment, I have repeatedly expressed frustration with the way TARP has been implemented and consequently voted against releasing the additional $350 billion in TARP funds. From the outset, the program has been implemented with far too little transparency and in a manner inconsistent with the way it was presented to Congress last fall. After reports of financial institutions using TARP funds for unwarranted bank acquisitions and other questionable purposes, I sent a letter to then Secretary Paulson urging Treasury to prohibit them from doing so. I continue to believe that these practices are an improper use of taxpayer dollars, anti-competitive and was not the intention of Congress during consideration of the EESA. To ensure that participating institutions are adhering to the program’s purposes, I encouraged Secretary Paulson to closely track the usage of TARP funds and to report the Department’s findings to Congress. I also sent a letter with several of my colleagues to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors requesting greater transparency of the lending facilities they have authorized to ensure accountability to the nation’s taxpayers. Further, last December the Department of Treasury again changed the rules of TARP by unilaterally deciding that it would make $13.4 billion in TARP funds available to certain domestic auto manufacturers. These troubling actions clearly were not the intent of TARP.
I am extremely disappointed with the way TARP has been managed and am working vigorously in Congress to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and most efficiently. Subsequently, I voted against the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which was passed earlier this year. Rather than enact policies that save, protect, and create jobs, this so-called stimulus package has been growing government while the private sector has continued to lose jobs. In fact, nearly three million jobs have been lost since the enactment of this bill. If another stimulus is brought up for a vote, you can rest assured that I will vote against any measure that wastes valuable taxpayer dollars on frivolous government programs.
As TARP recipients are beginning to repay these funds, I have requested that Treasury use these taxpayer dollars to pay down our enormous national debt. It is crucial that Congress put an end to a borrow-and-spend philosophy and get our nation’s fiscal house in order. All in all, we must reform the areas of our nation’s financial sector that led to this crisis and we must make sure our economy fully recovers and this never happens again.
While last Saturday marks the one year anniversary of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) being signed into law, questions continue to linger regarding the future of this controversial program. As the current Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, is considering whether or not to extend TARP past its December 31, 2009 expiration, hundreds of billions of dollars in existing commitments will remain on the government’s books for the next several years.
Last year, our economy faced historic and unprecedented challenges that posed a clear threat to our country’s economic underpinnings. The housing markets experienced significant upheaval and increased delinquencies and defaults among borrowers contributed to turmoil in the mortgage finance sector. As a result, our entire economy was affected—banks stopped lending and everyday Americans were affected by this severe credit crunch. Following these sobering events, then Treasury Secretary Paulson, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke, and President Bush warned repeatedly that an economic crash would be imminent if Congress did not swiftly pass legislation to address the financial markets crisis. After the House failed to pass an economic rescue package the first time, not listening to their warnings proved to be dangerous, as evidenced by the subsequent $1 trillion loss in the stock markets in the days that followed. After meeting with Secretary Paulson, Chairman Bernanke, and President Bush’s economic advisors, I heeded their warnings and voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), which established the TARP, in order to prevent a catastrophic collapse of our economy. This $700 billion economic rescue plan granted $250 billion in immediate authority to the Department of Treasury to purchase assets from financial institutions, with an additional $100 billion after the Secretary reported to Congress. Congress then had the authority to withhold the remaining $350 billion.
While some viewed this as a bailout for the fat cats on Wall Street, my sole reason in voting for this legislation was to ensure Americans with good credit could continue to access home, auto, and student loans and small businesses would be able to access the loans they need to keep their businesses open and their employees paid. While the legislation was being considered, it was my understanding that TARP funds were to be used to finance the purchase of troubled assets, such as residential and commercial mortgage-related assets, including mortgage-backed securities and whole loans, in order to alleviate the credit crunch and stabilize the overall economy. However, mid-October, after this legislation was signed into law, the Department of Treasury changed the rules of the game for TARP and used funds to purchase shares in a broad array of financial institutions.
Since its enactment, I have repeatedly expressed frustration with the way TARP has been implemented and consequently voted against releasing the additional $350 billion in TARP funds. From the outset, the program has been implemented with far too little transparency and in a manner inconsistent with the way it was presented to Congress last fall. After reports of financial institutions using TARP funds for unwarranted bank acquisitions and other questionable purposes, I sent a letter to then Secretary Paulson urging Treasury to prohibit them from doing so. I continue to believe that these practices are an improper use of taxpayer dollars, anti-competitive and was not the intention of Congress during consideration of the EESA. To ensure that participating institutions are adhering to the program’s purposes, I encouraged Secretary Paulson to closely track the usage of TARP funds and to report the Department’s findings to Congress. I also sent a letter with several of my colleagues to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors requesting greater transparency of the lending facilities they have authorized to ensure accountability to the nation’s taxpayers. Further, last December the Department of Treasury again changed the rules of TARP by unilaterally deciding that it would make $13.4 billion in TARP funds available to certain domestic auto manufacturers. These troubling actions clearly were not the intent of TARP.
I am extremely disappointed with the way TARP has been managed and am working vigorously in Congress to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and most efficiently. Subsequently, I voted against the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which was passed earlier this year. Rather than enact policies that save, protect, and create jobs, this so-called stimulus package has been growing government while the private sector has continued to lose jobs. In fact, nearly three million jobs have been lost since the enactment of this bill. If another stimulus is brought up for a vote, you can rest assured that I will vote against any measure that wastes valuable taxpayer dollars on frivolous government programs.
As TARP recipients are beginning to repay these funds, I have requested that Treasury use these taxpayer dollars to pay down our enormous national debt. It is crucial that Congress put an end to a borrow-and-spend philosophy and get our nation’s fiscal house in order. All in all, we must reform the areas of our nation’s financial sector that led to this crisis and we must make sure our economy fully recovers and this never happens again.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Hagman Op-Ed on Water
From Assemblyman Hagman's website.
Democrats And Water Don't Mix Well
In the past year, our communities have been hit hard with the housing crisis, followed by the state budget crisis, and now another huge challenge looms ahead. The cascading water crisis is here now, so how can we protect the future of the Chino Valley?
Replenishing our dwindling water supplies in the Chino Valley must be a top priority for lawmakers in Sacramento. Our existence, our economy and the jobs of millions of Californians are now at stake. The crisis is so bad that a local water agency, Monte Vista Water District, has enforced mandatory conservation and has prohibited the watering of landscapes during daytime hours. Other agencies like the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power have also allotted less water to customers to use at current rates, leading to higher bills for many families. Chino Hills and Chino have instituted a non-mandatory water conservation program and hopefully they will not have to move to a compulsory program.
The causes of the water crisis are straightforward. As California's population has grown by roughly half a million people each year, the demand for water becomes greater. However, supplies have been drastically reduced. Our state is experiencing a third straight year of drought. To compound the problem, a federal judge strictly limited the water we receive from the San Joaquin Delta in Northern California to protect a fish. This is significant because the Delta provides water to most of Southern California. Any more reductions will affect our quality-of-life by requiring mandatory conservation and rationing. This leads to more browned lawns, higher food prices, and a deeper recession. The water crisis is not just a Delta or Chino Valley problem; it/s California problem.
That's why the Legislature needs to pass a comprehensive water plan soon. Unfortunately, Sacramento Democrats put forward a plan that mandates more conservation and creates more government bureaucracy. Their plan requires cities to cut water use by 20% by 2020, a laudable but unrealistic goal for Southern Californians who have little left to conserve. Democrats also want to create an unaccountable "Delta Stewardship Council" that will decide our water future without a vote of the Legislature or the people. This will only make the crisis worse as they would have the authority to impose stricter regulations that would make it practically impossible to increase supplies. Making government bigger won't give anyone one extra drop of water.
Not surprisingly, the Legislature failed to reach an agreement before the end of last session. As talks continue, my Republican colleagues and I are fighting for a comprehensive solution that will boost water supply and reliability.
We want to create new groundwater storage to capture more rainfall and snowmelt. About 40% of Southern California's water supply is stored in groundwater basins. Building more of this type of storage is essential to a balanced solution. We also want to improve the delivery of water received from the Northern part of the state. By upgrading delivery, we can bypass the Delta and its restrictions, helping to ensure enough water for the future.
Californians deserve better from Sacramento than an unbalanced plan that only caters to extreme coastal environmentalists at the expense of working families. We need a plan that works for everyone, and I am committed to doing everything I can to pass a water solution that works now and in the future.
California State Assemblyman, Curt Hagman (R) represents the 60th District, including Anaheim, Chino Hills, Diamond Bar, Industry, La Habra, La Mirada, Orange, Rowland Heights, San Dimas, Walnut, & more. He can be reached at (909) 627-7021.
Democrats And Water Don't Mix Well
In the past year, our communities have been hit hard with the housing crisis, followed by the state budget crisis, and now another huge challenge looms ahead. The cascading water crisis is here now, so how can we protect the future of the Chino Valley?
Replenishing our dwindling water supplies in the Chino Valley must be a top priority for lawmakers in Sacramento. Our existence, our economy and the jobs of millions of Californians are now at stake. The crisis is so bad that a local water agency, Monte Vista Water District, has enforced mandatory conservation and has prohibited the watering of landscapes during daytime hours. Other agencies like the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power have also allotted less water to customers to use at current rates, leading to higher bills for many families. Chino Hills and Chino have instituted a non-mandatory water conservation program and hopefully they will not have to move to a compulsory program.
The causes of the water crisis are straightforward. As California's population has grown by roughly half a million people each year, the demand for water becomes greater. However, supplies have been drastically reduced. Our state is experiencing a third straight year of drought. To compound the problem, a federal judge strictly limited the water we receive from the San Joaquin Delta in Northern California to protect a fish. This is significant because the Delta provides water to most of Southern California. Any more reductions will affect our quality-of-life by requiring mandatory conservation and rationing. This leads to more browned lawns, higher food prices, and a deeper recession. The water crisis is not just a Delta or Chino Valley problem; it/s California problem.
That's why the Legislature needs to pass a comprehensive water plan soon. Unfortunately, Sacramento Democrats put forward a plan that mandates more conservation and creates more government bureaucracy. Their plan requires cities to cut water use by 20% by 2020, a laudable but unrealistic goal for Southern Californians who have little left to conserve. Democrats also want to create an unaccountable "Delta Stewardship Council" that will decide our water future without a vote of the Legislature or the people. This will only make the crisis worse as they would have the authority to impose stricter regulations that would make it practically impossible to increase supplies. Making government bigger won't give anyone one extra drop of water.
Not surprisingly, the Legislature failed to reach an agreement before the end of last session. As talks continue, my Republican colleagues and I are fighting for a comprehensive solution that will boost water supply and reliability.
We want to create new groundwater storage to capture more rainfall and snowmelt. About 40% of Southern California's water supply is stored in groundwater basins. Building more of this type of storage is essential to a balanced solution. We also want to improve the delivery of water received from the Northern part of the state. By upgrading delivery, we can bypass the Delta and its restrictions, helping to ensure enough water for the future.
Californians deserve better from Sacramento than an unbalanced plan that only caters to extreme coastal environmentalists at the expense of working families. We need a plan that works for everyone, and I am committed to doing everything I can to pass a water solution that works now and in the future.
California State Assemblyman, Curt Hagman (R) represents the 60th District, including Anaheim, Chino Hills, Diamond Bar, Industry, La Habra, La Mirada, Orange, Rowland Heights, San Dimas, Walnut, & more. He can be reached at (909) 627-7021.
Monday, October 5, 2009
72nd Deadline Passes
As of 6pm the Orange County Registrar's Office shows that five candidates have filed to seek the former seat of Mike Duvall. The new additions since Friday are Democrat John MacMurray and Republican Richard Faher.
They join Republicans Chris Norby, Linda Ackerman and Green Party candidate Jane Rands.
Nine candidates pulled papers to run but only these five filed.
The Orange County Register has more.
They join Republicans Chris Norby, Linda Ackerman and Green Party candidate Jane Rands.
Nine candidates pulled papers to run but only these five filed.
The Orange County Register has more.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
FBI visits Ex-Assemblyman Duvall's Staff
According to the LA Times, two former staffers, including past Chief of Staff have been interviewed by the FBI. Duvall's boasting of sexual exploits with energy company lobbyists has brought about scrutiny from the State Assembly itself and now the Feds.One little question that is still being debated is who sent the committee recording of Duvall and Assemblyman Jeff Miller to various media outlets? Speculation has pointed to the possibility that one of Assemblyman Miller's own staffers did it as a sort of dirty trick / political payback against Duvall.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
72nd Special Election Filing Update
The filing deadline for the 72nd Assembly district is Monday, October 5. As of close of business Friday, nine candidates had pulled papers and three had qualified for the ballot.
Qualified thus far are Republicans Chris Norby, Linda Ackerman and Green Party candidate Jane Rands.
The primary election date is November 17. A general election will not be held if a candidate receives 50% or more of the vote.
Qualified thus far are Republicans Chris Norby, Linda Ackerman and Green Party candidate Jane Rands.
The primary election date is November 17. A general election will not be held if a candidate receives 50% or more of the vote.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Rep. Miller honors Kimberly Felder as Angel in Adoption
Rep. Gary Miller's weekly newsletter had an interesting story. I am glad Congress has an award like this.
####
Kimberly Felder Honored as Angel in Adoption
Washington, Oct 2 - Congressman Miller was honored to nominate Kimberly Felder as his 2009 Angel in Adoption. The Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute each year administers the Angels in Adoption program which allows Members of Congress to honor the good work of one person or family in their district who has enriched the lives of foster children or orphans.
Kimberly Felder has an unparalleled career in adoptive family development, spanning 20 years and two agencies in Southern California. She has shepherded thousands of children into loving adoptive families, giving them the opportunity for a more promising future. Kimberly and her husband Carl have two birth children and seven adopted children who joined the family as infants, toddlers, and adolescents. Congressman Miller commends Kimberly for being a real Angel in Adoption. On Wednesday, Kimberly was honored in a ceremony at the Angels in Adoption Gala in Washington, DC.
To nominate an Angel for 2010, please contact his Brea office at (714) 257-1142.
####
####
Kimberly Felder Honored as Angel in Adoption
Washington, Oct 2 - Congressman Miller was honored to nominate Kimberly Felder as his 2009 Angel in Adoption. The Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute each year administers the Angels in Adoption program which allows Members of Congress to honor the good work of one person or family in their district who has enriched the lives of foster children or orphans.
Kimberly Felder has an unparalleled career in adoptive family development, spanning 20 years and two agencies in Southern California. She has shepherded thousands of children into loving adoptive families, giving them the opportunity for a more promising future. Kimberly and her husband Carl have two birth children and seven adopted children who joined the family as infants, toddlers, and adolescents. Congressman Miller commends Kimberly for being a real Angel in Adoption. On Wednesday, Kimberly was honored in a ceremony at the Angels in Adoption Gala in Washington, DC.
To nominate an Angel for 2010, please contact his Brea office at (714) 257-1142.
####
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Water board director Xavier Alvarez sentenced to five years' prison
From the SGV Tribune
By Wes Woods II
Posted: 10/01/2009 11:43:57 AM PDT
Three Valleys Municipal Water Board Director Xavier Alvarez was sentenced to five years in state prison Thursday for insurance fraud, misappropriation of public funds and grand theft.
He was led out of court in handcuffs after the sentencing in Pomona Superior Court.
Alvarez, 51, was convicted for registering his ex-wife, Juanita Ruiz, for health benefits with the water district from Jan. 24 to Oct. 31, 2007. The action cost the district about $4,000.
He will lose his position on the water board and will not be allowed to run for public office again, said Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Sandi Roth.
Alvarez's term on the water board has been drowned in controversy.
He was fined and sentenced to probation in July 2008 after he was convicted of federal charges for falsely claiming he won the Medal of Honor.
Alvarez represents south Pomona on the water board.
By Wes Woods II
Posted: 10/01/2009 11:43:57 AM PDT
Three Valleys Municipal Water Board Director Xavier Alvarez was sentenced to five years in state prison Thursday for insurance fraud, misappropriation of public funds and grand theft.
He was led out of court in handcuffs after the sentencing in Pomona Superior Court.
Alvarez, 51, was convicted for registering his ex-wife, Juanita Ruiz, for health benefits with the water district from Jan. 24 to Oct. 31, 2007. The action cost the district about $4,000.
He will lose his position on the water board and will not be allowed to run for public office again, said Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Sandi Roth.
Alvarez's term on the water board has been drowned in controversy.
He was fined and sentenced to probation in July 2008 after he was convicted of federal charges for falsely claiming he won the Medal of Honor.
Alvarez represents south Pomona on the water board.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Rep. Miller appears on Fox Business to discuss Neighborhood Preservation Act
Rep. Gary Miller appeared on the Fox Business Channel to discuss his bill, H.R. 2529, the Neighborhood Preservation Act.
http://garymiller.house.gov/Multimedia/Default.aspx?MediaID=1499
The legislation passed unanimously by voice vote.
http://garymiller.house.gov/Multimedia/Default.aspx?MediaID=1499
The legislation passed unanimously by voice vote.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Assemblyman Curt Hagman Demands Audit And End To Any California Funding For Acorn
From Assemblyman Hagman.
####
Assemblyman Curt Hagman Demands Audit And End To Any California Funding For Acorn
Today, Assemblyman Curt Hagman (R-Chino Hills), Vice-Chair of the California State Assembly Public Safety Committee, sent a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger requesting an Audit and the suspension of any state funding currently being provided to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
"The United States Congress and Governor of Minnesota saw fit to withdraw funding in light of recent improper activity," said Assemblyman Hagman. "I support Governor Schwarzenegger's request for an investigation by the State Attorney General. I also believe recent reports and activities in California give good cause to audit and suspend any state funding for ACORN pending this investigation.
ACORN has so many tentacles only an audit can ensure no funding is going to this questionable organization."
####
####
Assemblyman Curt Hagman Demands Audit And End To Any California Funding For Acorn
Today, Assemblyman Curt Hagman (R-Chino Hills), Vice-Chair of the California State Assembly Public Safety Committee, sent a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger requesting an Audit and the suspension of any state funding currently being provided to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
"The United States Congress and Governor of Minnesota saw fit to withdraw funding in light of recent improper activity," said Assemblyman Hagman. "I support Governor Schwarzenegger's request for an investigation by the State Attorney General. I also believe recent reports and activities in California give good cause to audit and suspend any state funding for ACORN pending this investigation.
ACORN has so many tentacles only an audit can ensure no funding is going to this questionable organization."
####
72nd Filing Deadline
The filing deadline for the 72nd Assembly district special election is fast approaching. October 5 is the last day to officially enter the race to replace Mike Duvall. The 72nd district includes Yorba Linda, Brea and part of La Habra.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Thanks Lucky for creating this blog!
Knowing that there are other proud conservatives out there makes me know that we can win our country back from President Obama and Nancy Pelosi.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Miller draws primary challenge
Lee McGroarty of Chino announced he will be challenging Congressman Gary Miller for the Republican nomination next year. McGroarty's strategy appears to be running to the right of Miller. A quick look at his website however, reveals some conservative issues missing. I didn't see any position on school choice, school vouchers, abortion, stem cell research or gay marriage. Also, his section on illegal immigration seemed to dismiss the idea of banning automatic citizenship for "anchor babies."
Miller has sponsored the Loophole Elimination and Verification Enforcement Act (LEAVE Act) to restrict citizenship only to children born to parents legally in the country.
http://garymiller.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=111023
From McGroarty's web site.
http://www.mcgroartyforcongress.com/xyz.html
"7. Children born in the United States are citizens under the constitution. However, those not born here and are under this program will not benefit from any public assistance."
Miller has sponsored the Loophole Elimination and Verification Enforcement Act (LEAVE Act) to restrict citizenship only to children born to parents legally in the country.
http://garymiller.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=111023
From McGroarty's web site.
http://www.mcgroartyforcongress.com/xyz.html
"7. Children born in the United States are citizens under the constitution. However, those not born here and are under this program will not benefit from any public assistance."
Friday, September 25, 2009
Miller on Health Bill
http://garymiller.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=142513
Facts Are Stubborn Things: Implications of H.R. 3200
Washington, Aug 25 -
H.R. 3200 ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009’’As Introduced by Reps. Dingell (D-MI), Waxman (D-CA), Rangel (D-NY), Stark (D-CA), Andrews (D-NJ), and George Miller (D-CA)
How H.R. 3200 Allows Coverage for Illegal Aliens:
1. Does Not Require Proof of Citizenship to Obtain Health Services: While Section 246 (page 143) of the bill expressly prohibits illegal aliens from receiving government-run healthcare, the bill does not include a specific requirement that a person prove his or her citizenship in order to obtain affordability credits, which means that illegal aliens could obtain coverage. Section 152 states that “all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services”. This provision has the potential to include illegal immigrants because it may interpret “personal characteristics” to include legal status. (Pages 50-51, 143)
2. Requires That If One Family Member Is Covered, All Members Covered: Another provision states that if one member of a family is afforded coverage all members would have coverage, thereby creating another loophole to give taxpayer-subsidized health care to illegal aliens. If a child of illegal aliens is born in the United States, then the entire family becomes eligible for coverage. Page 133
3. Requires Free Translation Services: Sections 1222 of the bill will provide free translation services and interpreters to those who are not proficient in English. Section 1728 amends SCHIP to provide translation services to children of families and other individuals for whom English is not the primary language. Pages 408-418 and 782
How H.R. 3200 Gives Government Control of Private Options:
4. New Government “Exchange Program”: Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish a government run plan that is supposed to play by the same rules as private plans in the exchange. The bill, however, requires the government to set the benefits and coverage rules of all of the plans, including its own, creating an implicit unlevel playing field by allowing the government to set rules for itself. Pages 116-118; Section 221
5. “Health Choices Commissioner” is a Political Appointee: H.R. 3200 would establish a new government-run “Exchange,” through which a new government-run plan would offer coverage alongside private plans. The Exchange would be run by a new “Health Choices Commissioner,” who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. As the Commissioner is serving at the pleasure of the President, some may be concerned about the lack of independence of this individual. The Commissioner would also be required to work with the Secretary of HHS, creating the potential for a serious conflict of interest that could significantly disadvantage the private health plans. Pages 41-47; Division A, Sections 141 and 143
6. Government Committee Determines What Benefits Are Available (Treatments, Drugs, Devices, etc): This section requires the Commissioner to specify what benefits can be made available under the private plan and the public plan in the Exchange. Of the four plan types permitted by the bill, the government will dictate what benefits will be allowed and in fact mandates that three of the four types have exactly the same benefits. Page 84; Section 203 and Page 85; Section 203, line 7
7. Private Insurers Forced to Comply with New Coverage and Underwriting Rules: Requires private insurers to comply with new coverage and underwriting rules in order to offer insurance products both inside and outside of the new national and state insurance exchanges. Insurance plans existing outside of the exchange would be prohibited from allowing new individuals to enroll. Multiple Sections, e.g. Sections 112, 113, 116, 121, 122, 123, 124
How H.R. 3200 Would Create New Government Plan to Compete With Private “Exchange” Plans:
8. Government Committee Decides What Prescription Drugs Are Covered: The Secretary of HHS would decide which prescription drugs are made available in the government plan. The bill also requires the Secretary to negotiate drug prices for the government-run plan that are not covered by Medicare. This will impose price controls and eliminate competition in the market, a key reason why prices under Medicare Part D have decreased. The Government Committee will determine prescription drug benefits for private plans as well. Page 122; Section 223, lines 14-17 Page 122; Page 33
9. Government Committee Determines Covered Treatments and Services: The bill establishes a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to make determinations including “categories of covered treatments, items and services within benefit classes and cost sharing.” Page 30; Section 123
10. Government Plan Would Pay Hospitals and Doctors At Medicare Rates (Below Cost): The bill establishes a new government-run plan which would pay hospitals and doctors at Medicare rates for their services. Given that Medicare significantly underpays providers, private plans would be left to pick up the slack and those with private plans will subsidize those in government plans. Pages 116-128; Division A, Title II, Subtitle B
11. Government Plan Sheltered From Judicial Review: This section shelters the government plan from any administrative or judicial review of any payment rate or methodology it uses. No company can sue the government for price fixing. Page 124, lines 24-25; Section 223
12. Only Sue Government Plan In Federal Courts: Unlike private insurance plans, who can be sued in state courts, the government-run plan could only be sued in federal court. This affords the government plan significant advantage over the plans it is supposed to “compete” against. Page 118, lines 14-22; Division A, Section 221(g)
How H.R. 3200 Will Increase Taxes:
13. New Tax on Health Insurance Policies: The bill would establish a new tax on every health insurance policy to fund a government board that would be tasked with deciding which treatments are more cost-effective. The research findings would be used by the government to ration care. This new tax will increase the cost of health insurance for every American not on Medicare or Medicaid. Pages 823-835; Division B, Section 1802
14. 2.5% Income Tax Increase on Individuals Without Health Insurance: The bill establishes a new tax on individuals of almost 2.5 percent of their income if they don’t purchase health insurance the government deems acceptable. Pages 167-169
15. New Surtaxes On Individuals Go Into Effect Before Low-Income Subsidies for Health Care Start (Referred to on #16 below): The surtax takes effect starting in 2011, but the low-income subsidies for health care start in 2013 and grow rapidly thereafter. This means that, on a year-by-year basis, the bill is not fully paid-for, raising real concerns about the long-term impact of this proposal on the deficit. Page 197; Section 441
16. Tax Increases For High Income Individuals: Taxes would be increased by 1% for gross income exceeds $350,000, 1.5% for gross income over $500,000, and 5.4% for gross income over $1,000,000. Pages 197-198
How H.R. 3200 Will Hurt Small Businesses:
17. 8% Payroll Tax on Employers Who Can’t Afford to Offer Health Insurance to Employees: The bill imposes a new eight percent payroll tax on employers who can’t afford to offer health insurance to their employers; employers who do the right thing and offer health coverage to their employees but it’s deemed “insufficient” by the government; employers who offer “sufficient” coverage but the employee enrolls in coverage elsewhere (e.g. coverage through a spouse’s employer); and employers who aren’t paying at least 72.5 percent of an employee’s premium (65 percent for family coverage). Pages 149 and 183; Sections 313 and 412 and Page 146, lines 3-13; Section 312
18. Small Business Subsidies Encourage Businesses To Keep Wages Low: Under the bill, small businesses could receive subsidies to cover a portion of their health care costs. However, to receive a full subsidy, the average employee income must be below $20,000 and have fewer than 10 employees. This creates an incentive to keep wages low and to not hire new workers. Page 189; lines 6-12; Division A, Section 421 (b)(2)
19. Small Business Exclusion from 8% Payroll Tax Not Sufficient: The bill includes a “small business exclusion” from the eight percent payroll tax, but the definition of small business in the bill leaves a large number of small businesses subject to the full eight percent tax. Because the exclusion only applies to those small businesses with a payroll of less than $250,000 each year, on average, small businesses with as few as 12 employees would be subject to a new payroll tax through the bill if they could not afford to provide coverage. Worse, the bill does not index to inflation the amounts which trigger the “small business exemption” meaning that Democrats have built into the bill a mechanism that capture and subject increasingly more small employers to the eight percent tax over time. Page 150; lines 9-13; Section 313
20. $500,000 Fine and $100 a day on Employers for Providing “Insufficient Coverage”: This section imposes fines of up to $500,000 on employers who make an honest mistake, thinking they had provided what the government deemed “sufficient” coverage. This section imposes fines of $100 per employee per day on employers who do not offer a level of health coverage that is “government-approved” (employers would pay this fine every day until the oversight is corrected). Page 157; line 22; Division A, Section 321 (b)(2)(C)(iii)(II), Page 155; Division A, Section 321 (b)(2)
21. Employee Salary Cannot Be Reduced To Provide New Health Care Benefit: The bill mandates that employer contributions cannot come through salary reductions. Under this section, employers have to make a minimum contribution toward the health benefits plan premium for both full-time and less than full-time employees. By the terms of this provision, they cannot take that contribution out of an employee’s salary. That defies logic since any contribution that an employer makes toward a health care premium is necessarily money it cannot pay to its employees in salary. Page 147
22. New Requirement for “Prevailing Average Employer-Sponsored Coverage”: The bill requires that benefits must be equivalent to average prevailing employer coverage. Businesses will not be free to vary the mix of benefits available to see which ones attract employees best; instead, they will have to offer a certain minimum level of health benefits regardless of the demonstrated preferences of their employees (for higher salaries in lieu of pricier health benefits, for example). Pages 26-27
How H.R. 3200 Can Provide Federal Funds for Abortions:
23. Bill Language Does Not Specifically Exclude Abortion As an “Essential Benefit”: This section defines what would be deemed an “essential benefits package,” or in other words, what the government sets as benefits or services that must be covered by an insurance plan. This section, however, contains no explicit exclusion or prohibition from abortion being deemed part of an essential benefits package. Without such a federal exclusion, under current law and under this bill, funding would be used for abortions as an essential benefit. Page 26; Section 122
24. If Government Commission Determines Abortion is an Essential Benefit, Providers Would Be Required to Pay for Abortions: This section requires that plans that use a provider network for health services must meet the standards set forth by the Commissioner to assure the adequacy of the network for plan enrollees to receive covered services. If abortion becomes an essential benefit provider networks would be required to ensure – including by establishing abortion clinics – that abortion services are available. If this bill does not expressly prohibit federal funding for abortions, under current law and under this bill funding would be used for abortions. Page 24; Section 115
How H.R. 3200 Eliminates Choices for Patients and Undermines Rights:
25. Automatic Enrolling Into Government Sanctioned Health Care Plans: This section requires the Commissioner to automatically enroll exchange-eligible individuals into a government sanctioned plan. The bill says the Commissioner should enroll people in to plans through a “random assignment.” Because the Commissioner can auto enroll exchange eligible individuals who have not elected coverage to any plan in the exchange, this provision is a defacto method for signing millions of Americans up for the government run plan. Page 97; line 20; Section 205
26. Mandated Enrollment for Medicaid-Eligible Individuals: This section requires that the Commissioner enroll Medicaid eligible individuals who have not elected to be part of the program into Medicaid. Page 102; lines 12-18; Section 205
27. Government Authority Over Multi-State Exchanges: This section allows states to establish their own exchange or join together with other states in a multi-state exchange. The bill, however, also gives the Commissioner the authority to tell states what their state or multi-state exchanges can and cannot do. Page 115, lines 4-12; Section 208
28. Expands Medicaid Eligibility and New “Low Income” Subsidies: H.R. 3200 expands Medicaid eligibility to all individuals up to 133 percent of poverty and “low income” subsidies can go to a family of four making more than $88,000. This will shift even more Americans onto the government rolls. Page 137
29. “Advanced Care” or “End of Life Care” Counseling for Seniors: H.R. 3200 compels seniors (age 65) to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care. The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and “the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.” Page 424-430; Section 1233(a)(1)(B)
30. Disclosure of Confidential Taxpayer Information: There are two provisions in the bill allowing for disclosure of otherwise confidential taxpayer information. One allows the Health Choices Commissioner to calculate subsidy levels and the other allows the Social Security Administration to do outreach for the prescription drug program. Page 194; Section 431 & Page 820, Section 1801
How H.R. 3200 Cuts Funding for Seniors:
31. H.R. 3200 Includes Over $500 Billion in Cuts to Medicare Starting in 2010, such as:
$32 Billion in cuts to Skilled Nursing Facilities [Pages 223 and 228]
$5.3 Billion in cuts for Impatient Rehabilitation Facilities [Page 224]
$101.6 Billion in cuts for Hospitals, Skilled Nursing Facilities, Long Term Care Hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities, Psychiatric Hospitals, and Hospice Care [Page 224]
$10.2 Billion in cuts to Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospitals [Page 234]
$40.1 Billion in cuts to Outpatient Hospitals, Ambulance Service, Ambulatory Surgical Centers, Laboratory Services, and Durable Medical Equipment [Page 265]
$4.3 Billion cut in payments for Imaging Service [Page 273]
$49.1 Billion in cuts for Home Health Care [Pages 307 and 308]
$171.8 Billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage [Pages 331 and 341]
Facts Are Stubborn Things: Implications of H.R. 3200
Washington, Aug 25 -
H.R. 3200 ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009’’As Introduced by Reps. Dingell (D-MI), Waxman (D-CA), Rangel (D-NY), Stark (D-CA), Andrews (D-NJ), and George Miller (D-CA)
How H.R. 3200 Allows Coverage for Illegal Aliens:
1. Does Not Require Proof of Citizenship to Obtain Health Services: While Section 246 (page 143) of the bill expressly prohibits illegal aliens from receiving government-run healthcare, the bill does not include a specific requirement that a person prove his or her citizenship in order to obtain affordability credits, which means that illegal aliens could obtain coverage. Section 152 states that “all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services”. This provision has the potential to include illegal immigrants because it may interpret “personal characteristics” to include legal status. (Pages 50-51, 143)
2. Requires That If One Family Member Is Covered, All Members Covered: Another provision states that if one member of a family is afforded coverage all members would have coverage, thereby creating another loophole to give taxpayer-subsidized health care to illegal aliens. If a child of illegal aliens is born in the United States, then the entire family becomes eligible for coverage. Page 133
3. Requires Free Translation Services: Sections 1222 of the bill will provide free translation services and interpreters to those who are not proficient in English. Section 1728 amends SCHIP to provide translation services to children of families and other individuals for whom English is not the primary language. Pages 408-418 and 782
How H.R. 3200 Gives Government Control of Private Options:
4. New Government “Exchange Program”: Requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish a government run plan that is supposed to play by the same rules as private plans in the exchange. The bill, however, requires the government to set the benefits and coverage rules of all of the plans, including its own, creating an implicit unlevel playing field by allowing the government to set rules for itself. Pages 116-118; Section 221
5. “Health Choices Commissioner” is a Political Appointee: H.R. 3200 would establish a new government-run “Exchange,” through which a new government-run plan would offer coverage alongside private plans. The Exchange would be run by a new “Health Choices Commissioner,” who is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. As the Commissioner is serving at the pleasure of the President, some may be concerned about the lack of independence of this individual. The Commissioner would also be required to work with the Secretary of HHS, creating the potential for a serious conflict of interest that could significantly disadvantage the private health plans. Pages 41-47; Division A, Sections 141 and 143
6. Government Committee Determines What Benefits Are Available (Treatments, Drugs, Devices, etc): This section requires the Commissioner to specify what benefits can be made available under the private plan and the public plan in the Exchange. Of the four plan types permitted by the bill, the government will dictate what benefits will be allowed and in fact mandates that three of the four types have exactly the same benefits. Page 84; Section 203 and Page 85; Section 203, line 7
7. Private Insurers Forced to Comply with New Coverage and Underwriting Rules: Requires private insurers to comply with new coverage and underwriting rules in order to offer insurance products both inside and outside of the new national and state insurance exchanges. Insurance plans existing outside of the exchange would be prohibited from allowing new individuals to enroll. Multiple Sections, e.g. Sections 112, 113, 116, 121, 122, 123, 124
How H.R. 3200 Would Create New Government Plan to Compete With Private “Exchange” Plans:
8. Government Committee Decides What Prescription Drugs Are Covered: The Secretary of HHS would decide which prescription drugs are made available in the government plan. The bill also requires the Secretary to negotiate drug prices for the government-run plan that are not covered by Medicare. This will impose price controls and eliminate competition in the market, a key reason why prices under Medicare Part D have decreased. The Government Committee will determine prescription drug benefits for private plans as well. Page 122; Section 223, lines 14-17 Page 122; Page 33
9. Government Committee Determines Covered Treatments and Services: The bill establishes a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to make determinations including “categories of covered treatments, items and services within benefit classes and cost sharing.” Page 30; Section 123
10. Government Plan Would Pay Hospitals and Doctors At Medicare Rates (Below Cost): The bill establishes a new government-run plan which would pay hospitals and doctors at Medicare rates for their services. Given that Medicare significantly underpays providers, private plans would be left to pick up the slack and those with private plans will subsidize those in government plans. Pages 116-128; Division A, Title II, Subtitle B
11. Government Plan Sheltered From Judicial Review: This section shelters the government plan from any administrative or judicial review of any payment rate or methodology it uses. No company can sue the government for price fixing. Page 124, lines 24-25; Section 223
12. Only Sue Government Plan In Federal Courts: Unlike private insurance plans, who can be sued in state courts, the government-run plan could only be sued in federal court. This affords the government plan significant advantage over the plans it is supposed to “compete” against. Page 118, lines 14-22; Division A, Section 221(g)
How H.R. 3200 Will Increase Taxes:
13. New Tax on Health Insurance Policies: The bill would establish a new tax on every health insurance policy to fund a government board that would be tasked with deciding which treatments are more cost-effective. The research findings would be used by the government to ration care. This new tax will increase the cost of health insurance for every American not on Medicare or Medicaid. Pages 823-835; Division B, Section 1802
14. 2.5% Income Tax Increase on Individuals Without Health Insurance: The bill establishes a new tax on individuals of almost 2.5 percent of their income if they don’t purchase health insurance the government deems acceptable. Pages 167-169
15. New Surtaxes On Individuals Go Into Effect Before Low-Income Subsidies for Health Care Start (Referred to on #16 below): The surtax takes effect starting in 2011, but the low-income subsidies for health care start in 2013 and grow rapidly thereafter. This means that, on a year-by-year basis, the bill is not fully paid-for, raising real concerns about the long-term impact of this proposal on the deficit. Page 197; Section 441
16. Tax Increases For High Income Individuals: Taxes would be increased by 1% for gross income exceeds $350,000, 1.5% for gross income over $500,000, and 5.4% for gross income over $1,000,000. Pages 197-198
How H.R. 3200 Will Hurt Small Businesses:
17. 8% Payroll Tax on Employers Who Can’t Afford to Offer Health Insurance to Employees: The bill imposes a new eight percent payroll tax on employers who can’t afford to offer health insurance to their employers; employers who do the right thing and offer health coverage to their employees but it’s deemed “insufficient” by the government; employers who offer “sufficient” coverage but the employee enrolls in coverage elsewhere (e.g. coverage through a spouse’s employer); and employers who aren’t paying at least 72.5 percent of an employee’s premium (65 percent for family coverage). Pages 149 and 183; Sections 313 and 412 and Page 146, lines 3-13; Section 312
18. Small Business Subsidies Encourage Businesses To Keep Wages Low: Under the bill, small businesses could receive subsidies to cover a portion of their health care costs. However, to receive a full subsidy, the average employee income must be below $20,000 and have fewer than 10 employees. This creates an incentive to keep wages low and to not hire new workers. Page 189; lines 6-12; Division A, Section 421 (b)(2)
19. Small Business Exclusion from 8% Payroll Tax Not Sufficient: The bill includes a “small business exclusion” from the eight percent payroll tax, but the definition of small business in the bill leaves a large number of small businesses subject to the full eight percent tax. Because the exclusion only applies to those small businesses with a payroll of less than $250,000 each year, on average, small businesses with as few as 12 employees would be subject to a new payroll tax through the bill if they could not afford to provide coverage. Worse, the bill does not index to inflation the amounts which trigger the “small business exemption” meaning that Democrats have built into the bill a mechanism that capture and subject increasingly more small employers to the eight percent tax over time. Page 150; lines 9-13; Section 313
20. $500,000 Fine and $100 a day on Employers for Providing “Insufficient Coverage”: This section imposes fines of up to $500,000 on employers who make an honest mistake, thinking they had provided what the government deemed “sufficient” coverage. This section imposes fines of $100 per employee per day on employers who do not offer a level of health coverage that is “government-approved” (employers would pay this fine every day until the oversight is corrected). Page 157; line 22; Division A, Section 321 (b)(2)(C)(iii)(II), Page 155; Division A, Section 321 (b)(2)
21. Employee Salary Cannot Be Reduced To Provide New Health Care Benefit: The bill mandates that employer contributions cannot come through salary reductions. Under this section, employers have to make a minimum contribution toward the health benefits plan premium for both full-time and less than full-time employees. By the terms of this provision, they cannot take that contribution out of an employee’s salary. That defies logic since any contribution that an employer makes toward a health care premium is necessarily money it cannot pay to its employees in salary. Page 147
22. New Requirement for “Prevailing Average Employer-Sponsored Coverage”: The bill requires that benefits must be equivalent to average prevailing employer coverage. Businesses will not be free to vary the mix of benefits available to see which ones attract employees best; instead, they will have to offer a certain minimum level of health benefits regardless of the demonstrated preferences of their employees (for higher salaries in lieu of pricier health benefits, for example). Pages 26-27
How H.R. 3200 Can Provide Federal Funds for Abortions:
23. Bill Language Does Not Specifically Exclude Abortion As an “Essential Benefit”: This section defines what would be deemed an “essential benefits package,” or in other words, what the government sets as benefits or services that must be covered by an insurance plan. This section, however, contains no explicit exclusion or prohibition from abortion being deemed part of an essential benefits package. Without such a federal exclusion, under current law and under this bill, funding would be used for abortions as an essential benefit. Page 26; Section 122
24. If Government Commission Determines Abortion is an Essential Benefit, Providers Would Be Required to Pay for Abortions: This section requires that plans that use a provider network for health services must meet the standards set forth by the Commissioner to assure the adequacy of the network for plan enrollees to receive covered services. If abortion becomes an essential benefit provider networks would be required to ensure – including by establishing abortion clinics – that abortion services are available. If this bill does not expressly prohibit federal funding for abortions, under current law and under this bill funding would be used for abortions. Page 24; Section 115
How H.R. 3200 Eliminates Choices for Patients and Undermines Rights:
25. Automatic Enrolling Into Government Sanctioned Health Care Plans: This section requires the Commissioner to automatically enroll exchange-eligible individuals into a government sanctioned plan. The bill says the Commissioner should enroll people in to plans through a “random assignment.” Because the Commissioner can auto enroll exchange eligible individuals who have not elected coverage to any plan in the exchange, this provision is a defacto method for signing millions of Americans up for the government run plan. Page 97; line 20; Section 205
26. Mandated Enrollment for Medicaid-Eligible Individuals: This section requires that the Commissioner enroll Medicaid eligible individuals who have not elected to be part of the program into Medicaid. Page 102; lines 12-18; Section 205
27. Government Authority Over Multi-State Exchanges: This section allows states to establish their own exchange or join together with other states in a multi-state exchange. The bill, however, also gives the Commissioner the authority to tell states what their state or multi-state exchanges can and cannot do. Page 115, lines 4-12; Section 208
28. Expands Medicaid Eligibility and New “Low Income” Subsidies: H.R. 3200 expands Medicaid eligibility to all individuals up to 133 percent of poverty and “low income” subsidies can go to a family of four making more than $88,000. This will shift even more Americans onto the government rolls. Page 137
29. “Advanced Care” or “End of Life Care” Counseling for Seniors: H.R. 3200 compels seniors (age 65) to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care. The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and “the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.” Page 424-430; Section 1233(a)(1)(B)
30. Disclosure of Confidential Taxpayer Information: There are two provisions in the bill allowing for disclosure of otherwise confidential taxpayer information. One allows the Health Choices Commissioner to calculate subsidy levels and the other allows the Social Security Administration to do outreach for the prescription drug program. Page 194; Section 431 & Page 820, Section 1801
How H.R. 3200 Cuts Funding for Seniors:
31. H.R. 3200 Includes Over $500 Billion in Cuts to Medicare Starting in 2010, such as:
$32 Billion in cuts to Skilled Nursing Facilities [Pages 223 and 228]
$5.3 Billion in cuts for Impatient Rehabilitation Facilities [Page 224]
$101.6 Billion in cuts for Hospitals, Skilled Nursing Facilities, Long Term Care Hospitals, Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities, Psychiatric Hospitals, and Hospice Care [Page 224]
$10.2 Billion in cuts to Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospitals [Page 234]
$40.1 Billion in cuts to Outpatient Hospitals, Ambulance Service, Ambulatory Surgical Centers, Laboratory Services, and Durable Medical Equipment [Page 265]
$4.3 Billion cut in payments for Imaging Service [Page 273]
$49.1 Billion in cuts for Home Health Care [Pages 307 and 308]
$171.8 Billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage [Pages 331 and 341]
Congressman Miller signs Americans for Tax Reform Taxpayer Protection Pledge
Congressman Gary Miller is a signer of the Americans for Tax Reform Taxpayer Protection Pledge and in the organization's most recent Congressional ratings received a 100%.
http://www.atr.org/
http://www.atr.org/
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Reason for Blog
This blog will discuss federal and state politics in the region of Southern California where Orange, San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties come together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)