Tuesday, June 2, 2015

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, June 2, 2015


OK, folks... let's make this TWO days in a row of newsbites...


Posted by at

9 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/18/this-program-epitomizes-waste-and-favoritism-lawmakers-now-have-a-chance-to-repeal-it/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojs6rLZKXonjHpfsX56%2BorWa6zlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4JT8ZgI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

Do legislators truly care about waste and cronyism?

* USUALLY NOT...

(*SIGH*)

We may get a chance to see how serious (or not) legislators are about these issues if the Senate takes up an amendment to repeal the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s catfish inspection program as part of its consideration of the trade promotion bill.

Admittedly, it’s easy to think the issue is not that big of a deal and maybe even amusing. But this program is the epitome of waste, trade protectionism and favoritism for a narrow special interest at the expense of the public.

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for inspecting both domestic and imported seafood. But in the 2008 farm bill, a special exception was created that requires the Department of Agriculture to inspect catfish.

* THE ALARM BELL SHOULD RING AT "SPECIAL EXCEPTION."

(*SMIRK*)

The program, which the department has estimated will cost about $14 million annually, will impose costly duplication because facilities that process seafood, including catfish, will be required to comply with regulations of both agencies. A final rule implementing the program could be published anytime.

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

The Government Accountability Office captured the problems with the program well: “[The catfish] inspection program would result in duplication of federal programs and cost taxpayers millions of dollars annually without enhancing the safety of catfish intended for human consumption.”

(*THROWING MY ARMS IN THE AIR*)

In addition, the program will hurt consumers by limiting competition and likely will harm industries by provoking retaliatory trade measures by foreign countries. The retaliation likely would come against industries other than the catfish industry, such as milk producers or meat packers.

(*NOD*)

Bryon Truglio, a retired chief of the Food and Drug Administration’s Seafood Processing and Technology Policy Branch, stated the problem well: “This group [‘lobbyists and a trade association representing elements of the American catfish producers’] has bullied Congress into moving catfish regulation to the USDA, making it harder for their foreign competitors to enter the U.S. market. This move is a win for U.S. catfish producers, but ultimately, a loss for American taxpayers and consumers.”

Repealing the USDA catfish inspection program should be a no-brainer. There are many achievable economic policy reforms that Congress could pass with wide support, but this should be one of the easiest.

June 2, 2015 at 12:59 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/05/19/hillary_clinton_press_conference_non_answers_to_bad_questions.html?wpsrc=slatest_newsletter&sid=5388d162dd52b8417a00fcbf

* FROM SLATE - 5/19/15

For the first time in 28 days, Hillary Clinton on Tuesday took questions from reporters.

During a brief unscheduled Q&A in Cedar Falls, Iowa, members of the press asked Clinton about the enormous income she and her husband earned from speaking gigs, the eventual release of her State Department email archive, and her receipt of advice from Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime ally who had reportedly been blocked from holding an official State Department job by the Obama White House.

Unfortunately... the questions that were put to the Democratic front-runner were vague enough that she was able to run out the clock without actually answering them.

Blumenthal, for example, is reported to have given Clinton Libya-related advice at the same time he was working as an adviser to a group that was hoping to do business in Libya after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi. Did Clinton know about Blumenthal’s apparent conflict of interest when she was weighing the U.S. government’s options in that country? It’s still not clear, because the reporter who asked about Blumenthal merely inquired whether Clinton would maintain relationships with “old friends” if she became president.

(*SNORT*)

What follows are suggestions for specific questions about Clinton’s Libya deliberations and her private email use that would be more likely to provoke a newsworthy answer.

1. When Sidney Blumenthal was sending you advice and information about Libya, were you aware that he was also working for a group with a financial interest in certain political outcomes in Libya?

2. Did you ever consider hiring Sidney Blumenthal as an employee in your State Department? And, if so, did the Obama administration block such a move as has been reported? Did the White House know that he provided you with unofficial advice nonetheless?

3. Several lawyers have suggested that, by law, Blumenthal should have registered as a foreign agent given that he provided you with information on behalf of a politician in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. Do you agree that he should have? If not, why?

4. In 2007 you described the use of private email accounts by several Bush administration officials as an insult to the Constitution. How was your use of a private email account as secretary of state any different?

5. In 2009, while you were secretary of state, a regulation was released stating that official email sent or received on a private email server should be turned over to the government for recordkeeping. Why did it take you five years — until December 2014 — to follow this guideline by turning over your emails to State?

6. You said in March you used private email for convenience at State so you wouldn’t have to carry around a smartphone for official email in addition to your regular phone. But in other interviews, you’ve told audiences you use an iPhone and a BlackBerry and also have an iPad and an iPad mini. Don’t those statements about your device preferences contradict each other?

(7. Did Tom Brady know about the deflated footballs, or what?)

Let’s hope Clinton takes questions again sometime soon, and that the reporters covering her don’t go straight to No. 7.

June 2, 2015 at 1:54 PM
William R. Barker said...

* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)

http://dailysignal.com/2015/05/28/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-houses-obamacare-lawsuit/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRogu6zBZKXonjHpfsX56%2BorWa6zlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4JScpkI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

The U.S. House of Representatives had its first day in court on May 28th after filing a lawsuit against the Obama administration for making unilateral changes to the Affordable Care Act in November.

Now, a district judge must rule on whether the case will proceed.

Lawyers representing the Obama administration and the House of Representatives gathered today before U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer for the first hearing in a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s changes to the health care law — namely his delay of the employer mandate and the authorization of payments from the Treasury Department to insurance providers.

Congress, the House of Representatives contends, did not appropriate funds for those payments, which will cost taxpayers more than $175 billion over the next 10 years.

The House and its lawyer, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, argue these changes to the law violate the Constitution and are suing the Departments of Treasury and Health and Human Services.

“In challenging these actions, this case addresses fundamental issues regarding the limits of executive power under our constitutional form of government, and the continued viability of the separation of powers doctrine upon which ‘the whole American fabric has been erected,’” Turley wrote in documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. “This lawsuit thus raises issues of exceptional importance, not only to plaintiff United States House of Representatives, but also to the entire nation.”

* UNFORTUNATELY... MOST OF THE NATION IS OBLIVIOUS. (AND MANY OF THOSE WHO AREN'T SUPPORT OBAMA!)

(*SNORT*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 2, 2015 at 2:10 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

Justice Department lawyers, led by Joel McElvain, motioned to have the lawsuit dismissed on the basis that the House lacks the legal standing to challenge the administration in court.

McElvain and the government argue U.S. law mandates that the House is required to prove it has been harmed in order to have standing.

“The U.S. House of Representatives now asks this court to decide a generalized, institutional dispute between the executive branch and one chamber of the legislative branch concerning the proper interpretation of federal law,” McElvain argued in documents filed with the court. “This novel tactic is unprecedented, and for good reason: the House has no standing to bring this suit.”

However, according to several reports, Collyer — who was appointed by President George W. Bush — repeatedly pushed McElvain today over his arguments for why the case should be dismissed.

“So is it your position that if the House of Representatives affirmatively voted not to fund something … then that vote can be ignored by the administration, because after all, no one can sue them?” Collyer asked McElvain.

(*CHUCKLE*)

Despite her pressure on the government, Collyer has not yet ruled on whether the case will be dismissed.

In an interview with The Daily Signal, Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, pointed to the constitutional infringements cited by the House as reason for why the case should proceed.

“This makes it a very basic constitutional issue, which is that the executive branch cannot spend money unless it’s been specifically appropriated by Congress. That’s been true for the 200 plus years we’ve been a country, no matter what the issue is,” said Spakovsky.

“This lawsuit talks about specific injury and a specific misuse of funds by the executive branch,” he said. “This makes it a very basic constitutional issue, which is that the executive branch cannot spend money unless it’s been specifically appropriated by Congress. That’s been true for the 200 plus years we’ve been a country, no matter what the issue is.”

Von Spakovsky went on to cite the authorization of the lawsuit by the full House as further evidence the lower chamber has standing.

“This throws this case on a completely different plane,” he said, contrasting this case with others in which just one or two lawmakers — such as Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson’s attempt to sue the administration — file suit.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 2, 2015 at 2:11 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

However, Timothy Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law, said the House cannot prove it has been harmed, which is required under U.S. law.

* BASICALLY JOST'S POSITION IS THAT "MIGHT MAKES RIGHT" - PRESIDENTIAL MIGHT.

“We have a constitutional system where Congress has certain powers and responsibilities, and the president has certain powers and responsibilities, and the courts have certain powers and responsibilities,” he said. “When Congress can’t get its act together to enforce its will, then it’s not legitimate for Congress to turn to the courts to sue the president, any more than it is for the president to sue Congress.”

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

“It has the power of the purse and the power to hold investigatory hearings, which it’s exercising,” Jost continued. “It’s not legitimate for [the House] to sue the courts to force the administration to do what it wants it to do.”

* BASICALLY JOSH IS SAYING THAT WHATEVER OBAMA DOES IS IPSO FACTO "CONSTITUTIONAL" UNLESS AND UNTIL CONGRESS IMPEACHES HIM AND REMOVES HIM FROM OFFICE - THUS TAKING HIS SELF-CLAIMED "POWERS" FROM HIM.

House Speaker John Boehner first announced he would pursue a lawsuit against the Obama administration in July 2014, which the House voted to authorize. The lawsuit was postponed until November, though, after two lawyers who initially represented the lower chamber dropped out. Turley is now representing the House.

“The very fact that the administration wants to avoid scrutiny — judicial or otherwise — shows you why this challenge is important,” Boehner said in a statement yesterday. “No one — especially the president — is above accountability to the Constitution and the rule of law.”

* ACTUALLY... HE IS... OR AT LEAST HAS BEEN.

(*SHRUG*)

Republicans in both chambers of Congress have frequently criticized the president for unilaterally changing different provisions of ObamaCare without consulting Congress, and this case is one of many filed against the administration over the health care law.

* AMERICA IS NO LONGER GOVERNED BY A CONSTITUTION.

(*ANOTHER SHRUG*)

June 2, 2015 at 2:11 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/01/how-affordable-will-health-insurance-be-in-2016/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRogu6nKZKXonjHpfsX56%2BorWa6zlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4JSsRgI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

For consumers purchasing health insurance under the Affordable Care Act next year, plans may no longer be quite as “affordable” as they were in the past.

Health insurance companies around the country are providing states with their proposed premium rates for 2016, and changes include rate hikes of up to 51% in New Mexico and more than 30% in Maryland and Tennessee.

The proposed rate changes come as the Supreme Court prepares to deliver its ruling on the case King v. Burwell, which will determine if consumers purchasing insurance on the federal exchange are eligible for subsidies, and as Republicans continue to push for a full repeal of the health care law.

“This is going to be a phenomenon of insurers that priced more optimistically instead of defensively,” Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal of providers with hefty rate increases.

Meanwhile, Connecticut’s HealthyCT, another co-op started under ObamaCare, asked to raise its rates by 14%, according to the state’s insurance department. UnitedHealthcare, a private insurance company selling plans on Connecticut’s state exchange, requested an average rate increase of 12.4%.

Haislmaier said local and nonprofit insurance providers, including many co-ops, kept premium prices low in 2015, but are now increasing their rates after seeing an influx of enrollees. Insurance companies with cheaper plans were unsure of how expensive new customers were going to be, and now, Haislmaier said, those companies are trying to play “catch up.”

By contrast, larger, for-profit providers such as Aetna, priced more defensively and are either reducing their rates or increasing them slightly.

“Insurers that were more optimistic in setting their premiums wound up having to play catch up,” Haislmaier said. “On one level, it’s completely ObamaCare. It’s catch-up by the ones who underpriced. The ones who had higher rates had realistic responses to ObamaCare, and the others are playing catch up.”

Some states have already published insurance providers’ proposed premium changes. The deadline for filing requests for rate changes is today. Insurance companies asking for increases of more than 10% must explain the reasons for the rate hikes.

States must approve the rate changes.

June 2, 2015 at 2:22 PM
William R. Barker said...

* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)

http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/02/new-report-on-export-import-bank-finds-problems-with-transparency-cronyism/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRogu6rIZKXonjHpfsX56%2BorWa6zlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4JSsVkI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

A new report that takes a deep dive into the Export-Import Bank’s transactions found that in addition to heavily subsidizing large corporations, the government agency benefited some small businesses while pushing others out of the market. It also rewarded a former employee who pleaded guilty for bribery with a six-figure salary and bonuses.

(*SMIRK*)

Open the Books, an online database of local, state and federal spending founded by Adam Andrzejewski, examined data from the Export-Import Bank available from 2007 and 2014. It found that the bank backed more than $172 billion in loans, loan guarantees and insurance contracts provided to close to 7,000 exporters. Taxpayers, according to the report, are on the hook for $140 billion in financing.

Ex-Im provides taxpayer-backed loans and loan guarantees to foreign countries and companies for the purchase of United States exports. The bank’s charter expires at the end of June, and Ex-Im’s reauthorization has created a sharp divide between congressional Republicans.

House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling is leading the charge against the bank’s reauthorization. The Texas Republican, along with Ex-Im opponents, argue the bank is an engine of cronyism and corporate welfare.

* WHICH IT IS...

Analysis by The Heritage Foundation and George Mason University’s Mercatus Center found that in dollars, small businesses benefit from less than 20% of Ex-Im’s financing.

* AND ISN'T SMALL BUSINESS THE ECONOMIC ENGINE OF AMERICA...?!

Additionally, Andrzejewski’s study found that Ex-Im’s financing, while helping some small businesses, harms others substantially.

* CRONY CAPITALISM 101 FOLKS!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 2, 2015 at 6:57 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

Zero Motorcycles, a California-based company that sells electric motorcycles, received multiple insurance policies from the Ex-Im bank totaling close to $3 million. The company is touted as a “success story” by Ex-Im, and Chairman Fred Hochberg toured Zero Motorcycles’ factory in March 2014.

In addition to benefiting from Ex-Im financing, the company also received grants from the California Energy Commission totaling close to $2 million.

* GRANTS! OUTRAGEOUS!

* IN ANY CASE...

(*SOUND OF THE OTHER SHOE DROPPING*)

Though the financing was a boon to Zero Motorcycles, its competitor, Oregon-based Brammo, closed its doors earlier this year.

The company was bought by Polaris in January.

While Brammo never received Ex-Im financing, Polaris alone benefited from more than $6.3 million in insurance and working capital from 2008 to 2013.

“Zero Motorcycles is an example of why watchdog organizations decry crony capitalism,” Andrzejewski wrote in the study. “From Governor Schwarzenegger’s endorsement to millions of dollars in Ex-Im credit, Zero’s competitors are having a tough go-of-it fighting government—picking the winners.”

* EXACTLY!

As has been thoroughly documented, aircraft manufacturer Boeing is Ex-Im’s biggest beneficiary, receiving more than $60 billion in financing from the bank. Because of Boeing’s position as the top recipient of its financing, Ex-Im is often referred to as the “Bank of Boeing.”

General Electric ($6 billion), Bechtel Power Corp. ($4.6 billion), CBI Americas Inc. ($3.2 billion) and Exxon Mobil ($3 billion) round out the remaining four of the bank’s top five exporters, respectively.

Ex-Im’s critics argue the bank benefits a handful of large, politically connected companies, many of which have the capabilities of securing loans, loan guarantees and insurance from their own financing arms.

* THEY "ARGUE THIS" BECAUSE IT'S TRUE!

(*SNORT*)

According to the report, the bank’s top 50 international importers account for close to $80 billion in financing. Of those 50 beneficiaries, 45 represent airlines and energy companies. Additionally, 18 of the bank’s top 50 foreign importers are backed by close to a dozen foreign governments, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and China.

* SO... RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU THINK TAXPAYER DOLLARS SHOULD BE GOING TO SUBSIDIZE SAUDI ARABIA, THE UAE, AND OUR ENEMY CHINA.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Those companies received more than $26 billion in Ex-Im financing.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 2, 2015 at 6:58 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

In February, Ex-Im came under fire for removing its dataset from the government’s information site, Data.gov. Many bank opponents argue the bank operates under a veil of secrecy, and Ex-Im’s decision to take the data off the website fueled their speculation.

The bank did eventually restore the information. However, it omitted three fields: primary buyer, primary source of repayment and primary supplier.

According to the report, the bank has failed to identify entities that account for $25.8 billion in Ex-Im transactions. The study found that entities classified as “unknown” or “to be determined” account for 15 percent of the bank’s activity since 2007.

The average salary for an Ex-Im employee is $109,285. In an April hearing, members of the House Financial Services and Oversight and Government Reform Committees learned it’s likely more than 31 investigations into alleged fraud at the bank could lead to employee indictments. The news came just days after the Justice Department charged Johnny Gutierrez, a former Ex-Im loan officer, with accepting $78,000 in bribes on 19 occasions between 2006 and 2013.

(He later pleaded guilty.)

According to the report, which examined employee salary data from Ex-Im, Gutierrez earned more than $112,000 in 2013. In 2007, he made $95,279. Additionally, the former loan officer received close to $2,000 in performance bonuses between 2008 and 2010.

June 2, 2015 at 6:58 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)