The US Senate voted to repeal the onerous 1099 provision that would have burdened businesses to report to the IRS any purchases of goods and services over $600 a year from another business or individual. The repeal enjoyed broad bipartisan support, passing 81-17, but all 17 opposing were Democrats (or Bernie Saunders), including NY Senators Gillibrand and Schumer.
The 1099 measure was designed to help capture income to balance the overall health care reform package (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; PPACA of 2010). The repeal provided some adjustments in how the OMB should cut unnecessary unobligated spending (discretionary spending) to reflect the adjustment in revenues expected and due.
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
US Senate Reaches Compromise on Zadroga 9/11 Compensation Fund Package; UPDATE: Passes Senate On Unanimous Consent - Back To House
The James Zadroga 9/11 compensation bill may be approved this afternoon after Senate reached a compromise - reducing the package to $4.3 billion (originally $7+ billion).
What it does is it leaves the VCF open for another five years to allow for new claims- which allows responders who become ill up to 13/14 years after the attacks to file claims. The health registry will also be funded.
Mind you that there are still questions about what ailments are actually attributable to Ground Zero exposures. Proponents of the Zadroga bill say that hundreds have died from Ground Zero exposures, while epidemiologists and medical experts are divided on the actual number of cases attributed to 9/11 exposure.
What will be interesting is how people who were involved in the 9/11 suit with the City respond - with no double dipping, some may lose out on the additional compensation via the VCF. That's going to be a major source of trouble. Rescuers and others who worked at Ground Zero after the attacks were told to take that deal because the $712 million deal would be the best they could hope to get from the City of New York and its co-defendants. If these personnel choose to receive compensation from the settlement, that would prevent them from taking part in the VCF, even if their ailment expresses itself within the next five years.
These people are in a no-win situation.
UPDATE:
Curiously, the readers at Hot Air are miffed at the Republicans for rolling over and accepting even this deal (such as here, here, and here). They are fit to be tied over spending $4.3 billion, ignoring the fact that these people went into the Pile to rescue and recover thousands murdered on 9/11 and were reassured that the air was safe to breath by the US government (EPA) and state and local officials. They are suffering ailments from exposures and now these people think that this is somehow an entitlement for unions and Democrats?
Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it.
The government had a responsibility to look out for these responders and provide compensation for illnesses suffered as a result of their exposure. This bill makes sure that many of these people will get compensated for their health ailments. This isn't a sop to unions or Democrats, and it isn't in the same class of out-of-control spending as the stimulus package or even the Omnibus bill that was defeated. Republican obstructionism did not do the GOP any favors and the reduced price tag on this bill wasn't worth the cost politically.
UPDATE:
The bill has passed on unanimous consent. Because different versions are involved, it has to go back to the House for ultimate passage - but I think this version will ultimately be passed.
The scaled-down $4.3 billion agreement to aid ill 9/11 responders is set to be approved by the Senate as soon as Wednesday afternoon. The initial Zadroga bill called for a 10-year, $7.4 billion treatment and compensation package. To win GOP support, the proposal was trimmed down to 5 years at $4.3 billion.The bill cuts the time frame that the VCF will remain open to five years, which is the main reason that the fund cost is decreased. This doesn't mean that Congress wont go back and reopen the fund, just as they're about to do with this measure.
The last-minute deal also opens the 9/11 Victims' Compensation Fund, but caps lawyers fees at 10%.
And it bars ailing responders from double-dipping on payouts from the recent 9/11 health settlement.
What it does is it leaves the VCF open for another five years to allow for new claims- which allows responders who become ill up to 13/14 years after the attacks to file claims. The health registry will also be funded.
Mind you that there are still questions about what ailments are actually attributable to Ground Zero exposures. Proponents of the Zadroga bill say that hundreds have died from Ground Zero exposures, while epidemiologists and medical experts are divided on the actual number of cases attributed to 9/11 exposure.
What will be interesting is how people who were involved in the 9/11 suit with the City respond - with no double dipping, some may lose out on the additional compensation via the VCF. That's going to be a major source of trouble. Rescuers and others who worked at Ground Zero after the attacks were told to take that deal because the $712 million deal would be the best they could hope to get from the City of New York and its co-defendants. If these personnel choose to receive compensation from the settlement, that would prevent them from taking part in the VCF, even if their ailment expresses itself within the next five years.
These people are in a no-win situation.
UPDATE:
Curiously, the readers at Hot Air are miffed at the Republicans for rolling over and accepting even this deal (such as here, here, and here). They are fit to be tied over spending $4.3 billion, ignoring the fact that these people went into the Pile to rescue and recover thousands murdered on 9/11 and were reassured that the air was safe to breath by the US government (EPA) and state and local officials. They are suffering ailments from exposures and now these people think that this is somehow an entitlement for unions and Democrats?
Sorry, but that just doesn't cut it.
The government had a responsibility to look out for these responders and provide compensation for illnesses suffered as a result of their exposure. This bill makes sure that many of these people will get compensated for their health ailments. This isn't a sop to unions or Democrats, and it isn't in the same class of out-of-control spending as the stimulus package or even the Omnibus bill that was defeated. Republican obstructionism did not do the GOP any favors and the reduced price tag on this bill wasn't worth the cost politically.
UPDATE:
The bill has passed on unanimous consent. Because different versions are involved, it has to go back to the House for ultimate passage - but I think this version will ultimately be passed.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Senate Health Care Bill Proposes Cosmetic Procedure Tax
Once again, the way that the Democrats are pushing new taxes and fees to secure passage of a health care funding overhaul, the need to tax anything that moves was a given.
The problem is that this latest proposal (or revisiting of an earlier proposal) to tax cosmetic procedures, isn't going to generate the kind of money needed to fund the kind of health care reform the Democrats are looking for. They figure it might generate $5 billion over 10 years.
It's going to fall short. Way short.
That's the experience in New Jersey, which imposed a tax on cosmetic surgical procedures, and it has never lived up to expectations. Moreover, cosmetic surgical procedures are the one area in which costs and prices are least likely covered by insurance and therefore are more market driven.
The problem is that this latest proposal (or revisiting of an earlier proposal) to tax cosmetic procedures, isn't going to generate the kind of money needed to fund the kind of health care reform the Democrats are looking for. They figure it might generate $5 billion over 10 years.
It's going to fall short. Way short.
That's the experience in New Jersey, which imposed a tax on cosmetic surgical procedures, and it has never lived up to expectations. Moreover, cosmetic surgical procedures are the one area in which costs and prices are least likely covered by insurance and therefore are more market driven.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Senate Confirms Sotomayor 68-31
The outcome was never in doubt. Judge Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the full US Senate 68-31. She will be sworn in with more than enough time to start the October session of the Court.
Congratulations to Justice Sotomayor and my only hope is that she follows the law and the US Constitution and doesn't freelance policy into her decisions.
The GOP that voted for her confirmation may not be in the good graces with the conservative elements within the party, but they did do the right thing by confirming a candidate who was qualified for the position, even if you can disagree with her policy positions and judicial philosophy.
That was the quandary faced by the Senate Republicans, and while some pursued the political angle to denounce her policy choices and preferences, the job of the US Senate is to weigh the qualifications, not the policy choices.
I know that's now how this process has been handled, but that's how it should be done. The Democrats repeatedly did this to eminently qualified GOP nominees, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.
What this does is lay the groundwork for the next confirmation when that eventually occurs.
Congratulations to Justice Sotomayor and my only hope is that she follows the law and the US Constitution and doesn't freelance policy into her decisions.
The GOP that voted for her confirmation may not be in the good graces with the conservative elements within the party, but they did do the right thing by confirming a candidate who was qualified for the position, even if you can disagree with her policy positions and judicial philosophy.
That was the quandary faced by the Senate Republicans, and while some pursued the political angle to denounce her policy choices and preferences, the job of the US Senate is to weigh the qualifications, not the policy choices.
I know that's now how this process has been handled, but that's how it should be done. The Democrats repeatedly did this to eminently qualified GOP nominees, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.
What this does is lay the groundwork for the next confirmation when that eventually occurs.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings Day 2
Today we get into the meat and potatoes of the confirmation, where members of the Senate Judiciary Committee ask Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor questions about her judicial philosophy. The Times and Scotusblog are live blogging the hearings.
Don't expect much in the way of fireworks or new details to emerge from the hearings. I do hope that the Committee asks her about her procedural treatment of Ricci, a decision in which all nine members of the US Supreme Court found wanting, even if four members agreed with the ultimate decision of the Second Circuit. The four dissenting members found that while they may have agreed with the outcome of the case, Sotomayor used the wrong standard to reach that end, and if it was a summary judgment, why did they grant it to New Haven.
Don't expect much in the way of fireworks or new details to emerge from the hearings. I do hope that the Committee asks her about her procedural treatment of Ricci, a decision in which all nine members of the US Supreme Court found wanting, even if four members agreed with the ultimate decision of the Second Circuit. The four dissenting members found that while they may have agreed with the outcome of the case, Sotomayor used the wrong standard to reach that end, and if it was a summary judgment, why did they grant it to New Haven.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Senate Nanny Staters Seek Soda Tax
You knew that this idea wouldn't die, not with the massive deficits being run up by the states and the federal government. They need the revenues and are more than willing to tax the bejeebus out of anyone and everything.
With that in mind, there are US Senators looking to impose a national sales tax on soda and other sugared beverages to pay for President Obama's massive health care proposal (despite the President saying that he would not raise taxes on most Americans).
That benefit will run $1.2 trillion. This tax would raise a fraction of that total. Never mind that the costs to implement the latest sin tax would erode the revenues raised in the first place, and would further drain the pockets of all Americans, especially those in the low income brackets because it would be a disproportionate and regressive tax on those people.
It's all about the sin taxes and that government knows better than the individual what's good for them.
Well, everyone should know by now that President Obama's statements and positions come with expiration dates, but the imposition of still more taxes will not solve a problem that doesn't exist. Health care is available to everyone in the nation, but people can and do get sticker shock from the costs. Not everyone has health insurance, but that doesn't mean that they can't get health care. The health care debate has muddied the waters on that front and conflated access to health care with affordability of that care.
What this comes down to is that the government under the Obama Administration thinks that it should be the answer to all areas of the economy, rather than letting the market dictate prices and availability of services. We've repeatedly seen that the government cannot get service delivery right - whether it is the decades long problems with providing health care to current and former military service members or the ballooning costs for federal entitlements.
The Administration continues spending more than it is taking in, and yet another major program will only add to the deficit, which is rising faster in Obama's first 100 days than at any other point in the nation's history.
UPDATE:
Don Surber notes that we might be better off if the nation stopped subsidizing sugar in the first place. Well, that and people made the personal choice to stop eating so many donuts and sugared beverages. The former is far more likely to happen than the latter, and both are pretty unlikely to happen.
According to CATO, the US subsidizes sugar prices to the tune of $2 billion annually. That more that doubles the cost of sugar in the US, and that inflates the costs of food products as well.
I'd also note that higher sugar prices sent food processors to seek out alternative sweeteners, which resulted in corn syrup being the product of choice, until those prices rose as the government mandated the use of biofuels. Now, some of those same food processors are back to using sugar because it is cheaper.
UPDATE:
To reinforce the collapsing house of cards that are otherwise known as Social Security and Medicare, a new report finds that both programs will become insolvent far sooner than previously indicated because the recession is sapping the funds for both. In fact, the situation with Medicare is dire, and nothing that Obama proposes provides a fix:
With that in mind, there are US Senators looking to impose a national sales tax on soda and other sugared beverages to pay for President Obama's massive health care proposal (despite the President saying that he would not raise taxes on most Americans).
The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.Never mind that the soda tax would never cover the costs, which are in the hundreds of billions (just think of the costs relating to the federal prescription drug program established under President Bush).
On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee is set to hear proposals from about a dozen experts about how to pay for the comprehensive health-care overhaul that President Barack Obama wants to enact this year. Early estimates put the cost of the plan at around $1.2 trillion. The administration has so far only earmarked funds for about half of that amount.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages. Excise taxes are levied on goods and manufacturers typically pass them on to consumers.
Senior staff members for some Democratic senators at the center of the effort to craft health-care legislation are weighing the idea behind closed doors, Senate aides said.
The Congressional Budget Office, which is providing lawmakers with cost estimates for each potential change in the health overhaul, included the option in a broad report on health-system financing in December. The office estimated that adding a tax of three cents per 12-ounce serving to these types of sweetened drinks would generate $24 billion over the next four years. So far, lawmakers have not indicated how big a tax they are considering.
That benefit will run $1.2 trillion. This tax would raise a fraction of that total. Never mind that the costs to implement the latest sin tax would erode the revenues raised in the first place, and would further drain the pockets of all Americans, especially those in the low income brackets because it would be a disproportionate and regressive tax on those people.
It's all about the sin taxes and that government knows better than the individual what's good for them.
Well, everyone should know by now that President Obama's statements and positions come with expiration dates, but the imposition of still more taxes will not solve a problem that doesn't exist. Health care is available to everyone in the nation, but people can and do get sticker shock from the costs. Not everyone has health insurance, but that doesn't mean that they can't get health care. The health care debate has muddied the waters on that front and conflated access to health care with affordability of that care.
What this comes down to is that the government under the Obama Administration thinks that it should be the answer to all areas of the economy, rather than letting the market dictate prices and availability of services. We've repeatedly seen that the government cannot get service delivery right - whether it is the decades long problems with providing health care to current and former military service members or the ballooning costs for federal entitlements.
The Administration continues spending more than it is taking in, and yet another major program will only add to the deficit, which is rising faster in Obama's first 100 days than at any other point in the nation's history.
UPDATE:
Don Surber notes that we might be better off if the nation stopped subsidizing sugar in the first place. Well, that and people made the personal choice to stop eating so many donuts and sugared beverages. The former is far more likely to happen than the latter, and both are pretty unlikely to happen.
According to CATO, the US subsidizes sugar prices to the tune of $2 billion annually. That more that doubles the cost of sugar in the US, and that inflates the costs of food products as well.
I'd also note that higher sugar prices sent food processors to seek out alternative sweeteners, which resulted in corn syrup being the product of choice, until those prices rose as the government mandated the use of biofuels. Now, some of those same food processors are back to using sugar because it is cheaper.
UPDATE:
To reinforce the collapsing house of cards that are otherwise known as Social Security and Medicare, a new report finds that both programs will become insolvent far sooner than previously indicated because the recession is sapping the funds for both. In fact, the situation with Medicare is dire, and nothing that Obama proposes provides a fix:
The trustees for Social Security and Medicare are scheduled to provide their annual report on the finances of both programs on Tuesday. In advance of the release, many private analysts said they expected both programs could run out of cash sooner than last predicted.
A year ago, the trustees projected that the Social Security trust fund would start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2017 and that the trust fund would be depleted in 2041.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
For the Medicare trust fund, which pays for hospital care, the situation was more urgent. It was projected to start paying more in benefits than it collects in taxes within a year, and the trustees forecast that it would be depleted by 2019.
But many analysts said the worst recession in decades will produce a bleaker forecast for both Social Security and Medicare in the new trustees' report. The downturn has resulted in a loss of 5.7 million payroll jobs since it began in December 2007 and an unemployment rate that hit a 25-year high of 8.9 percent in April.
Friday, January 23, 2009
New York Gov. Paterson Picks Kristen Gillibrand For Clinton Senate Seat
The long wait is over. Governor David Paterson, who had courted with the idea of passing the seat on to Caroline Kennedy, has settled upon upstate Democrat Kristen Gillibrand.
However, that isn't sitting well with some of the leading contenders for the position, including Carolyn Maloney, who is a staunch gun control advocate. Expect top Democrats to come out and challenge Gov. Paterson when he comes up for reelection, as well as Gillibrand when her term is up in 2010.
Gov. Paterson, defying the liberal wing of his Democratic Party, has chosen little-known, NRA-backed, upstate Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as New York's junior senator, it was learned last night.There are more Democrats in New York than Republicans, and not all Democrats in the state are as liberal as the downstate contingent who are already represented by the likes of Charles Schumer. Gillibrand was actually supported by Schumer in this move precisely because of the need to increase the voice of upstate Democrats. This is a sign that Paterson is attempting to provide a greater voice to upstate New Yorkers. Like him or hate him, Schumer is a very savvy politician who has steered the Democrats to a comfortable advantage in the Senate.
The surprising - and, for many Democrats shocking - decision to pick the conservative Gillibrand, 42, from Hudson in Columbia County, was disclosed by the governor in calls to party officials and some members of the state's congressional delegation, many of whom said they were unhappy with the selection, sources said.
However, that isn't sitting well with some of the leading contenders for the position, including Carolyn Maloney, who is a staunch gun control advocate. Expect top Democrats to come out and challenge Gov. Paterson when he comes up for reelection, as well as Gillibrand when her term is up in 2010.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
President Elect Obama To Resign Senate Seat Sunday
It is rare for a sitting Senator to become President, and it makes for some unusual occurrences. President-elect Barack Obama will be stepping down from his Senate seat on Sunday to devote his full time to preparing for assuming the White House on January 20.
This also means that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich gets to choose who will replace Obama in the Senate.
This also means that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich gets to choose who will replace Obama in the Senate.
All political eyes in Illinois are on Gov. Rod Blagojevich to see who he will select to replace Obama for the two years remaining in his term. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) has been the most overt in positioning himself, but other frontrunners include Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Illinois Veterans Affairs Chief Tammy Duckworth, who Obama appeared with on Veterans Day.Obama needs to spend all the time he can preparing for his new office and is going to need all the luck he can possibly muster.
Blagojevich is under no legal deadline to select an Obama replacement. It's been a long time since an Illinois governor had this juicy a plum to give away: the last Senate vacancy was in 1969 when Ralph Tyler Smith was selected by then Gov. Richard Ogilvie to fill the slot left vacant by the death of Sen. Everett Dirksen.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Senate Approves Higher Mileage Requirements
On its face, raising the CAFE standards to 35 mpg sounds like a good idea. Better gas mileage means that a person could go further on a tank of gas, which would also mean less pollutants emitted per mile driven.
Another problem is that better gas mileage might actually encourage even more people to drive more, negating any benefits from increased efficiency. It is that conundrum that would lead one to suspect the only way to alter consumer behavior to get out of the habit of driving everywhere is to heavily tax gasoline. Well, I'm sure legislators are licking their chops at that prospect as well.
As for the issue with ethanol, consider that every gallon of ethanol produced means that there's corn not being used for food - increasing the cost of various food products significantly as demand continues to soar. This isn't good for consumers either.
UPDATE:
Instapundit opposes raising the CAFE standards, but notes various ways that the carmakers can get it done. Nearly all of the methods involve higher prices for the consumer. Figures.
The vote, 65 to 27, was a major defeat for car manufacturers, which had fought for a much smaller increase in fuel economy standards and is expected to keep fighting as the House takes up the issue.One possible problem is that there appears to be a relationship between the institution of higher CAFE standards and the death rates of vehicle occupants. When the mileage requirements were made more stringent, there was an increase in the death rate, and it is a concern that the new requirements might cause a similar increase, especially as consumers continue to flock to SUVs. Don Surber has the details.
But Senate Democrats also fell short of their own goals. In a victory for the oil industry, Republican lawmakers successfully blocked a crucial component of the Democratic plan that would have raised taxes on oil companies by about $32 billion and used the money on tax breaks for wind power, solar power, ethanol and other renewable fuels.
Republicans also blocked a provision of the legislation that would have required electric utilities to greatly increase the share of power they get from renewable sources of energy.
As a result, Senate Democrats had to settle for a bill that calls for a vast expansion of renewable fuels over the next decade — to 36 billion gallons a year of alternatives to gasoline — but does little to actually promote those fuels through tax breaks or other subsidies.
Another problem is that better gas mileage might actually encourage even more people to drive more, negating any benefits from increased efficiency. It is that conundrum that would lead one to suspect the only way to alter consumer behavior to get out of the habit of driving everywhere is to heavily tax gasoline. Well, I'm sure legislators are licking their chops at that prospect as well.
As for the issue with ethanol, consider that every gallon of ethanol produced means that there's corn not being used for food - increasing the cost of various food products significantly as demand continues to soar. This isn't good for consumers either.
UPDATE:
Instapundit opposes raising the CAFE standards, but notes various ways that the carmakers can get it done. Nearly all of the methods involve higher prices for the consumer. Figures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)