Skip to main content

Home/ Socialism and the End of the American Dream/ Group items matching "CATO-Institute" in title, tags, annotations or url

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

Sort By: Relevance | Date Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

Jobs Depend on Obamacare Defeat | Cato Institute - 0 views

www.cato.org/...jobs-depend-obamacare-defeat

ObamaCare King-v-Burwell

shared by Gary Edwards on 05 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • The Affordable Care Act authorizes the disputed “employer mandate” penalties and the health insurance subsidies that trigger them, only through insurance exchanges that are “established by the State.” Due to public opposition to Obamacare, at least 34 states, including Virginia, Utah and Indiana, failed to establish exchanges. Those states are being served — if that’s the word — by HealthCare.Gov, an exchange established by the federal government, which is clearly not a “State.” Ignoring the clear and unambiguous language of the statute, the IRS somehow decided to deploy the disputed taxes and spending in HealthCare.Gov states. Two lower courts found that Obamacare itself “unambiguously forecloses” the IRS’ “invalid” misinterpretation of the law. The plaintiffs in King v. Burwell represent Kevin Pace and tens of millions of other Americans who are injured by this breathtaking power grab.
  • If the King plaintiffs prevail before the Supreme Court, it will mean more jobs, more hours and higher incomes for millions of Americans — particularly part-time and minimum-wage workers. Employers will have more flexibility to structure their health benefits. States will be able to attract new businesses by shielding employers from Obamacare’s employer mandate. Critics complain such a ruling would eliminate subsidies in HealthCare.gov states, making the cost of Obamacare coverage transparent to enrollees. But those enrollees will be able to switch to lower-cost “catastrophic” plans — if the Obama administration allows it. To date, the administration has adamantly refused to say whether it would take even this small step to help affected HealthCare.gov enrollees.
  • More important, transparency is a good thing. If enrollees don’t want to pay the full cost of Obamacare coverage, that tells us something very important about Obamacare. It means nobody likes the way Obamacare actually works. Forcing the IRS to implement the law as written will thus create an opportunity for real health care reforms that actually reduce the cost of care. Reining in the IRS would affirm the rule of law, and lead to real health care reform. We should all hope for such an outcome.
  • Gary Edwards on 05 Mar 15
     
    "By Michael F. Cannon This article appeared on USA Today on March 4, 2015. As if Obamacare weren't problematic enough, two federal courts have found that the IRS unlawfully expanded the health care law's individual and employer mandates, by imposing them on tens of millions of Americans whom Congress exempted. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear King v. Burwell, a case challenging that illegal and ongoing attempt to expand Obamacare outside the legislative process. The victims of this illegal Obamacare expansion include Kevin Pace, a jazz musician and adjunct professor of music in Northern Virginia. Anticipating the Obamacare mandate that employers cover all workers who put in at least 30 hours a week, Pace's employer was forced to cut hours for part-time professors like him in order to avoid massive penalties. In 2013, The Washington Post reported that Pace was left with "an $8,000 pay cut." "Thousands of other workers in Virginia" also had their hours cut. Even though the Obama administration has delayed the employer mandate, many employers have left the cuts in place for when the rules are enforced. " King v. Burwell is about more than IRS rules; it could kill the employer mandate, too." This unlawful expansion of Obamacare's employer mandate is causing workers across the country to lose more income with every passing day. It forced Utah's Granite School District to cut hours for 1,200 part-timers. According to the state of Indiana, which filed a similar legal challenge, this IRS power grab pushed "many Indiana public school corporations (to) reduc(e) the working hours of instructional aides, substitute teachers, non-certified employees, cafeteria staff, bus drivers, coaches and leaders of extracurricular activities." Employers and consumers are also suffering. Pace's employer, for example, has less flexibility to structure its health benefits and less ability to offer attractive educational options to its stude
Gary Edwards

Seize First, Question Later: The Institute for Justice's New Report on the IRS' Abusive Civil Forfeiture Regime | Cato @ Liberty - 0 views

www.cato.org/...busive-civil-forfeiture-regime

IRS CATO-Institute Libertarian

shared by Gary Edwards on 07 Feb 15 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 07 Feb 15
     
    "Federal civil forfeiture laws give the Internal Revenue Service the power to clean out bank accounts without charging their owners with any crime. Making matters worse, the IRS considers a series of cash deposits or withdrawals below $10,000 enough evidence of "structuring" to take the money, without any other evidence of wrongdoing. Structuring-depositing or withdrawing smaller amounts to evade a federal law that requires banks to report transactions larger than $10,000 to the federal government-is illegal, but more importantly, structured funds are also subject to civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is the government's power to take property suspected of involvement in a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, no one needs to be convicted of-or even a charged with-a crime for the government to take the property. Lax civil forfeiture standards enable the IRS to "seize first and ask questions later," taking money without serious investigation and forcing owners into a long and difficult legal battle to try to stop the forfeiture. Any money forfeited is then used to fund further law enforcement efforts, giving agencies like the IRS an incentive to seize. Data provided by the IRS indicate that its civil forfeiture activities for suspected structuring are large and growing…"
Gary Edwards

Seven Things You Should Know about the IRS Rule Challenged in King v. Burwell | Cato Institute - 0 views

www.cato.org/...rule-challenged-king-v-burwell

ObamaCare King-v-Burwell

shared by Gary Edwards on 05 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 05 Mar 15
     
    "By Michael F. Cannon and Jonathan H. Adler This article appeared on National Review (Online) on March 4, 2015. This week, the Supreme Court considers King v. Burwell. At issue is whether the IRS exceeded its authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act by issuing a final IRS rule that expanded the application of the Act's subsidies and mandates beyond the limits imposed by the statute. King v. Burwell is not a constitutional challenge. It challenges an IRS rule as being inconsistent with the Act it purports to implement. The case is a straightforward question of statutory interpretation. Here are seven things everyone needs to know about how the IRS developed the rule at issue in King v. Burwell. But first, a little background. If you're familiar with the case, you can skip to number one. Background Section 1311 of the Act directs states to establish health-insurance "Exchanges." Section 1321 directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish Exchanges in states that "fail[]" to establish Exchanges. Confounding expectations, 38 states failed to establish Exchanges, in almost every case due to opposition to the Act. Section 1401 (creating I.R.C. § 36B) authorizes health-insurance subsidies (nominally, tax credits) "through an Exchange established by the State." The availability of those subsidies triggers tax penalties under the law's individual and employer mandates. In January 2014, the IRS began issuing those subsidies and imposing the resulting penalties through not only state-established Exchanges but also Exchanges established by the federal government as well (i.e., HealthCare.gov). In King v. Burwell, the plaintiffs allege that the IRS exceeded its powers under the Act by issuing a so-called final rule that purports to authorize subsidies in states with Exchanges established by the federal government. The plaintiffs claim that the rule and the subsidies being issued in such states are unlawful, because
Paul Merrell

U.S. Says It Spied on 89,000 Targets Last Year, But the Number Is Deceptive | Threat Level | WIRED - 0 views

www.wired.com/...foreigners-targeted-for-spying

surveillance-state NSA FBI stats 2013

shared by Paul Merrell on 29 Jun 14 - No Cached
  • About 89,000 foreigners or organizations were targeted for spying under a U.S. surveillance order last year, according to a new transparency report. The report was released for the first time Friday by the Office of the Director of Intelligence, upon order of the president, in the wake of surveillance leaks by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. But the report, which covers only surveillance orders issued in 2013, doesn’t tell the whole story about how many individuals the spying targeted or how many Americans were caught in the surveillance that targeted foreigners. Civil liberties groups say the real number is likely “orders of magnitude” larger than this. “Even if it was an honest definition of ‘target’—that is, an individual instead of a group—that also is not encompassing those who are ancillary to a target and are caught up in the dragnet,” says Kurt Opsahl, deputy general counsel of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
  • In its report, the government indicated that the 423 selectors involved just 248 “known or presumed” Americans whose information was collected by the agency in the database. But Opsahl says that both of these numbers are deceptive given what we know about the database and how it’s been used. “We know it’s affecting millions of people,” he points out. But “then we have estimated numbers of affected people [that are just] in the three digits. That requires some effort [on the government's part] to find a way to do the definition of the number [in such a way] to make it as small as possible.”
  • “If you’re actually trying to get a sense of the number of human beings affected or the number of Americans affected, the number of people affected is vastly, vastly larger,” says Julian Sanchez, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. “And how many of those are Americans is impossible to say. But [although] you may not think you are routinely communicating with foreign persons, [this] is not any kind of assurance that your communications are not part of the traffic subject to interception.” Sanchez points out that each individual targeted is likely communicating with dozens or hundred of others, whose communications will be picked up in the surveillance. “And probably a lot of these targets are not individuals but entire web sites or companies. While [a company like the Chinese firm] Huawei might be a target, thousands of emails used by thousands of employees will be swept up.” How many of those employees might be American or communicating with Americans is unknown.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Also revealed in today’s report is the number of times the government has queried the controversial phone records database it created by collecting the phone records of every subscriber from U.S. providers. According to the report, the government used 423 “selectors” to search its massive phone records database, which includes records going back to at least 2006 when the program began. A search involves querying a specific phone number or device ID that appears in the database. The government has long maintained that its collection of phone records isn’t a violation of its authority, since it only views the records of specific individuals targeted in an investigation. But such searches, even if targeted at phone numbers used by foreigners, would include calls made to and from Americans as well as calls exchanged with people two or three hops out from the targeted number.
  • The report, remarkably, shows that the government obtained just one order last year under Section 702 of FISA—which allows for bulk collection of data on foreigners—and that this one order covered 89,138 targets. But, as the report notes, “target” can refer to “an individual person, a group, an organization composed of multiple individuals or a foreign power that possesses or is likely to communicate foreign intelligence information.” Furthermore, Section 702 orders are actually certificates issued by the FISA Court that can cover surveillance of an entire facility. And since, as the government points out in its report, the government cannot know how many people use a facility, the figure only “reflects an estimate of the number of known users of particular facilities (sometimes referred to as selectors) subject to intelligence collection under those Certifications,” the report notes.
  • One additional figure today’s report covers is the number of National Security Letters the government issued last year to businesses to obtain data on accountholders and users—19,212. NSLs are written demands from the FBI that compel internet service providers, credit companies, financial institutions and others to hand over confidential records about their customers, such as subscriber information, phone numbers and e-mail addresses, websites visited, and more. These letters are a powerful tool because they do not require court approval, and they come with a built-in gag order, preventing recipients from disclosing to anyone that they have received an NSL. An FBI agent looking into a possible anti-terrorism case can self-issue an NSL to a credit bureau, ISP, or phone company with only the sign-off of the Special Agent in Charge of their office. The FBI has merely to assert that the information is “relevant” to an investigation into international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.
  • The FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of NSLs over the years and has been reprimanded for abusing them. Last year a federal judge ruled that the use of NSLs is unconstitutional, due to the gag order that accompanies them, and ordered the government to stop using them. Her ruling, however, was stayed pending the government’s appeal.
  • According to the government’s report today, the 19,000 NSLs issued last year involved more than 38,000 requests for information.
Gary Edwards

George W. Bush: The Biggest Spender Since LBJ : Business Insider / Cato Institute - 0 views

www.businessinsider.com/gest-spender-since-lbj-2009-12

GWB spending financial-crisis banksters

shared by Gary Edwards on 29 Dec 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 29 Dec 09
     
    Looking at the Facts.... on Dec 28, 4:18 PM said: Economy Comparison: William J. Clinton (WJC); George W. Bush (GWB) Average annual GDP growth: W.J. Clinton: 3.6%; G.W. Bush: 2.6% Real median household income: WJC: grew by $5,825; GWB: fell by $1,273 Unemployment: WJC: 7.3% -> 4.2%; GWB: 4.2% -> 6.5% Non-farm employment: WJC: 22.7 million jobs; GWB: 3 million jobs (worst record of any US president in 70 years) Poverty rate: WJC: fell 3.5% (6.4 million fewer people) GWB: rose 1.3% (5.4 million more people) Federal Spending as % of GDP: WJC: 22.1% (fiscal 1992) to 18.4% in 2000; GWB: back up to 20.8% -2006 Total executive branch employment (does not include classified numbers for CIA, DIA, NSA, & other intelligence agencies; does not include outsourced jobs): WJC: down by almost 450,000 (2.225 million -> 1.778 million); GWB: up by almost 100,000 (to 1.872 million). Federal Debt: WJC: inherited deficit of $290 billion -> surplus of $236 billion (fiscal 2000); GWB: increased by almost $3 trillion (as of 2006) Public Debt as % of GDP: WJC: -16.4%; GWB: +4.4%
Paul Merrell

FBI Flouts Obama Directive to Limit Gag Orders on National Security Letters - The Intercept - 0 views

firstlook.org/...ders-national-security-letters

surveillance state FBI NSLs litigation 1st Amendment civil-liberties

shared by Paul Merrell on 24 Feb 15 - No Cached
  • Despite the post-Snowden spotlight on mass surveillance, the intelligence community’s easiest end-run around the Fourth Amendment since 2001 has been something called a National Security Letter. FBI agents can demand that an Internet service provider, telephone company or financial institution turn over its records on any number of people — without any judicial review whatsoever — simply by writing a letter that says the information is needed for national security purposes. The FBI at one point was cranking out over 50,000 such letters a year; by the latest count, it still issues about 60 a day. The letters look like this:
  • Recipients are legally required to comply — but it doesn’t stop there. They also aren’t allowed to mention the order to anyone, least of all the person whose data is being searched. Ever. That’s because National Security Letters almost always come with eternal gag orders. Here’s that part:
  • That means the NSL process utterly disregards the First Amendment as well. More than a year ago, President Obama announced that he was ordering the Justice Department to terminate gag orders “within a fixed time unless the government demonstrates a real need for further secrecy.” And on Feb. 3, when the Office of the Director of National Intelligence announced a handful of baby steps resulting from its “comprehensive effort to examine and enhance [its] privacy and civil liberty protections” one of the most concrete was — finally — to cap the gag orders: In response to the President’s new direction, the FBI will now presumptively terminate National Security Letter nondisclosure orders at the earlier of three years after the opening of a fully predicated investigation or the investigation’s close. Continued nondisclosures orders beyond this period are permitted only if a Special Agent in Charge or a Deputy Assistant Director determines that the statutory standards for nondisclosure continue to be satisfied and that the case agent has justified, in writing, why continued nondisclosure is appropriate.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Despite the use of the word “now” in that first sentence, however, the FBI has yet to do any such thing. It has not announced any such change, nor explained how it will implement it, or when. Media inquiries were greeted with stalling and, finally, a no comment — ostensibly on advice of legal counsel. “There is pending litigation that deals with a lot of the same questions you’re asking, out of the Ninth Circuit,” FBI spokesman Chris Allen told me. “So for now, we’ll just have to decline to comment.” FBI lawyers are working on a court filing for that case, and “it will address” the new policy, he said. He would not say when to expect it.
  • There is indeed a significant case currently before the federal appeals court in San Francisco. Oral arguments were in October. A decision could come any time. But in that case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which is representing two unnamed communications companies that received NSLs, is calling for the entire NSL statute to be thrown out as unconstitutional — not for a tweak to the gag. And it has a March 2013 district court ruling in its favor. “The gag is a prior restraint under the First Amendment, and prior restraints have to meet an extremely high burden,” said Andrew Crocker, a legal fellow at EFF. That means going to court and meeting the burden of proof — not just signing a letter. Or as the Cato Institute’s Julian Sanchez put it, “To have such a low bar for denying persons or companies the right to speak about government orders they have been served with is anathema. And it is not very good for accountability.”
  • In a separate case, a wide range of media companies (including First Look Media, the non-profit digital media venture that produces The Intercept) are supporting a lawsuit filed by Twitter, demanding the right to say specifically how many NSLs it has received. But simply releasing companies from a gag doesn’t assure the kind of accountability that privacy advocates are saying is required by the Constitution. “What the public has to remember is a NSL is asking for your information, but it’s not asking it from you,” said Michael German, a former FBI agent who is now a fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice. “The vast majority of these things go to the very large telecommunications and financial companies who have a large stake in maintaining a good relationship with the government because they’re heavily regulated entities.”
  • So, German said, “the number of NSLs that would be exposed as a result of the release of the gag order is probably very few. The person whose records are being obtained is the one who should receive some notification.” A time limit on gags going forward also raises the question of whether past gag orders will now be withdrawn. “Obviously there are at this point literally hundreds of thousands of National Security Letters that are more than three years old,” said Sanchez. Individual review is therefore unlikely, but there ought to be some recourse, he said. And the further back you go, “it becomes increasingly implausible that a significant percentage of those are going to entail some dire national security risk.” The NSL program has a troubled history. The absolute secrecy of the program and resulting lack of accountability led to systemic abuse as documented by repeated inspector-general investigations, including improperly authorized NSLs, factual misstatements in the NSLs, improper requests under NSL statutes, requests for information based on First Amendment protected activity, “after-the-fact” blanket NSLs to “cover” illegal requests, and hundreds of NSLs for “community of interest” or “calling circle” information without any determination that the telephone numbers were relevant to authorized national security investigations.
  • Obama’s own hand-selected “Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies” recommended in December 2013 that NSLs should only be issued after judicial review — just like warrants — and that any gag should end within 180 days barring judicial re-approval. But FBI director James Comey objected to the idea, calling NSLs “a very important tool that is essential to the work we do.” His argument evidently prevailed with Obama.
  • NSLs have managed to stay largely under the American public’s radar. But, Crocker says, “pretty much every time I bring it up and give the thumbnail, people are shocked. Then you go into how many are issued every year, and they go crazy.” Want to send me your old NSL and see if we can set a new precedent? Here’s how to reach me. And here’s how to leak to me.
1 - 6 of 6
Showing 20▼ items per page