Posted February 04, 2014
Today's CBO report highlighting the damage the President's health care law will do combined with the recent State Department report clearing the way for the Keystone XL Pipeline indicate that the President is in for another rough month.
Obamacare
Obamacare
- A brand new report from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO)states that Obamacare will reduce the number of full-time workers by roughly 2.3 million people through 2021.
- That same report goes onto say that Obamacare will insure 1 million fewer people this year than previously estimated.
- Additionally, the report states that the Obamacare will reduce aggregate labor compensation in the economy by about 1 percent.
- The Washington Post reported yesterday, that 22,000 Americans have filed requests with HHS to fix glitches in their health care coverage, but the computer program to process those requests has not even been built.
- The State Department’s recently issued a report stating that the environment impact of building the Keystone XL pipeline would be minimal.
- This morning, the President's former Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, appeared at a news conference in Trinidad and Tobago to say that the decision about whether to build the Keystone XL pipeline was 'a political one, not a scientific one.'
Posted January 29, 2014
Policy Feature Issue: State of the Union – President Obama’s Foreign Policy Strategy: Leading From Behind
As
President Obama delivered the State of the Union, minds undoubtedly
reflected on the state of America in the international community. A
partial review of the President’s foreign policy record reveals
disturbing trends: naiveté; failure to appreciate and adapt to changing
threats; lack of follow-through; and policies driven by public opinion,
rather than a broad foreign policy strategy. These trends stem from the
President’s policy of “leading from behind”—an approach that has,
instead, resulted in an absence of leadership. America’s reputation
abroad has suffered, influence has diminished, and relationships with
key allies have been weakened. Meanwhile, continuing conflict in the Middle East and increasing instability in the Asia-Pacific region strain U.S. resources and capabilities.The President has failed to appreciate the changing face of terrorism. In emphasizing a decline of al Qaeda in its previous form, he has failed to appreciate and respond to persistent and growing threats to the U.S. by terrorists and radical extremists.
The attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi evidenced this fact. Investigations by House Republicans have revealed the Administration’s disturbing lack of preparedness. A failure to recognize the danger presented on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks caused the White House to be caught flat-footed, unable to protect Americans serving abroad. Following the attacks, the Administration perpetuated a narrative that misled the American people about its mistakes.
The crisis in Syria revealed the Administration’s lack of understanding, strategy, and follow-through. By carelessly drawing a red line, the President committed to American involvement that he later, understandably, could not deliver. When seeking the use of military force, the President was unable to articulate a clear strategy or framework for assessing success. The Administration’s failure to enforce its red line weakened America’s credibility in other critical developments.
Despite the President’s commitment to preventing the spread of dangerous weapons, decreased U.S. credibility has weakened our hand in carrying out this commitment. This is especially critical in our efforts to prevent Iran from developing or obtaining a nuclear weapon. The recent interim agreement further exacerbates the problem, providing sanctions relief to Iran—which reduces our negotiating leverage—while allowing Iran’s nuclear program to continue.
These dynamics have weakened America’s relationships with key allies. The President promised to stand steadfast with Israel. Yet U.S. actions regarding Iran, an ambiguous posture in responding to the Arab Spring, has been detrimental to our relationship with the strongest ally in the region.
Posted January 29, 2014
Policy Feature Issue: State of the Union – The President’s Constitutional Duty to Enforce Existing Laws
The
Constitution clearly establishes the role of Congress to write our
nation’s laws. In turn, the President’s responsibility, according to
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, is “to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed.” However, the Obama Administration has
repeatedly failed to enforce Acts of Congress due to policy
disagreements with enacted federal legislation. This includes
everything for stretching his regulatory authority to enact policies
refused by Congress, to making wholesale changes to Obamacare, despite
the Administration’s lack of authority to do so. Moreover, the IRS
unfairly targeting conservative political groups and the Department of
Justice refusing to release records and enforce existing laws has
effectively prevented Congress from executing its Constitutional mandate
to conduct oversight.Current Issues:
- Obamacare – The most notable of these were the following: his unilateral delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate for one year; permitting States to ignore provisions in the law regarding the grandfathered status of insurance plans; rolling back income verification requirements for state health insurance exchanges until 2015; delaying the creation of the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP); and delaying numerous deadlines for enrollment in the exchanges. Most recently, the President extended coverage under the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) program – scheduled to close first at the end of the year, then at the end of January, and now will remain in place – until March 31, 2014.[1]
- IRS Targeting of Conservative Groups – In May of 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder ordered the FBI to open a criminal probe into the IRS, after evidence surfaced revealing that they had intentionally targeted conservative political groups for additional tax auditing.[2] On May 20, 2013, Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte sent a letter to the Attorney General urging him to investigate the matter thoroughly, including whether officials willfully concealed their conduct. The Committee has yet to receive a response to its letter, and the DOJ has been slow to release information related to the investigation. The IRS scandal is a clear example of the Administration using its position to discriminate on the basis of politics in his execution of the laws.
- Operation Fast and Furious – In 2011, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) ran operations in Arizona that purposely allowed federal firearms licensees to sell firearms to illegal buyers, in order to track them to Mexican drug cartels. However, these firearms were not properly tracked and many were used in the commission of crimes in the United States and Mexico, including in the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. After numerous Congressional inquiries for the release of DOJ documents related to Fast and Furious, the President invoked executive privilege when the administration refused to turn over the documents. On June 28, 2012, Eric Holder was held in criminal contempt of Congress, and litigation is currently underway in federal court to have the documents released. The validity of the President’s use of executive privilege has been questioned by judicial scholars, and the DOJ’s refusal to release further documents is in contradiction with Supreme Court precedent, which: 1) prohibits executive privilege from being invoked to shield wrongdoing; 2) entitles Congress to documentation that at least indicates who the final decision-maker was; and 3) yields to the need for information by other branches of government (meaning that even a proper invocation of executive privilege is not final).
- Immigration Enforcement – The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is responsible for the enforcement of immigration laws in the interior of the United States. However, the administration has stated that it will focus on deporting only illegal aliens with “serious” criminal records, meaning that enforcement will rarely be taken in other cases. In addition, the administration has expanded the scope of “deferred action” into a program called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which has granted temporary legal status to over 450,000 unlawful aliens who came to the U.S. before the age of 16 (the denial rate is about .1%). The President’s refusal to enforce existing immigration laws is problematic and unconstitutional.
- In a December 3, 2013 Judiciary Committee Hearing, Georgetown University Law Professor Nicholas Rosenkranz argued that the President’s actions have crossed the lines of Constitutionality: “The President has a personal obligation to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. . . .’ The President cannot suspend laws altogether. He cannot favor unenacted bills over duly enacted laws. And he cannot discriminate on the basis of politics in his execution of the laws. The President has crossed all three of these lines.”
- At the same hearing, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley agreed, and spoke of the dangers of his actions: “The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the President is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in a single branch.”
- The issue is not whether Americans agree with President Obama’s individual policy decisions; rather, the issue is that the President does not have the authority to unilaterally choose which laws to enforce and not enforce. Oversight of the Executive Branch should not be a partisan issue – it is the duty of Congress to ensure that the President faithfully executes existing laws and follows the Constitution.
Posted January 28, 2014
Policy Feature Issue: State of the Union – America Can’t Afford another Year of Obamacare
As
the President attempts to restore his credibility, Americans cannot
forget the past year of broken promises, website failures, fewer
doctors, and higher premiums – particularly for our nation’s youth.
America can expect more of the same in 2014.Website Failures
The cancellations came on top of the Administration’s refusal to heed the warning signs of a vulnerable website. In fact, both GAO and the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General identified security vulnerabilities associated with HealthCare.gov well before October 1, 2013. On June 19, 2013, GAO released two reports examining the SHOP and federal exchanges. GAO cited the exchange “implementation delays and missed deadlines” and the “potential for implementation challenges moving forward.” In particular, GAO cited concerns with the implementation of the online systems and data hub that will compile and verify personal information and that have yet to be completed – let alone tested. On August 2, 2013, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services reported “several critical tasks remain to be completed in a short period of time, such as the final independent testing of the Hub’s security controls, remediating security vulnerabilities identified during testing, and obtaining the security authorization decision for the Hub before opening the exchanges.”[1]
Broken Promises
The President over the last three years that Americans could keep their health care plan if they liked it, the Administration knew in 2010 that tens of millions of Americans in the private market could lose their current health care plan.[2] In fact, knowing of the need to drive individuals into the exchanges to make them financially feasible, the Administration specifically narrowed the interpretation of a grandfathered plan and acknowledged “that half of all employer health plans would lose grandfathered status by 2013 and the proportion of individual health plans losing grandfathered status would exceed the 40 to 67 percent range in a given year.”[3]
Fewer Doctors
Since 2009, the President has promised Americans that they can keep their existing doctor. Yet, insurers participating in the exchanges are limiting the number of doctors and hospitals covered under their insurance plans. Low reimbursements are also forcing doctors to reject insurers’ contracts. As a result, more and more doctors are either not included or are refusing to participate in the network of providers included on an exchange. For example, according to a recent survey conducted by the Washington Examiner, seven out of ten doctors in California are not included in the California exchange.[4] In Virginia, it is “estimated that participating doctor networks …are shrinking by 70 percent in the exchange plans.”[5] And, for the millions of Americans who have received cancellation notices, they will not only have to find new plans but new doctors as well.
Higher Premiums
The President promised that premiums would go down. Yet, Obamacare will disproportionately increase premiums for young adults. Due to age-rating restrictions, some reports estimate that premiums for young males with single coverage could increase by 180 percent if they are ineligible for premium assistance.[6] When new requirements on age ratings and required benefits are taken into account, new entrants in the individual market could see a premium increase of as much as 413 percent, and an average 96 percent nationally. 80 percent of young people living above the poverty line will see an increase in their healthcare costs.[7]
What’s next? More Cancellations and Higher Deductibles to Start
Americans are already seeing more employers drop health care coverage. Just last week, Target announced it was dropping coverage for its part-time workers, choosing instead to put them in the exchanges. Target joins Trader Joes, Home Depot, and other larger employers in dropping health care coverage for their part time employees.[8]
Moreover, Americans are feeling the impact of Obamacare not only in the form of higher premiums but higher deductibles. According to a report by HealthPocket Inc., the “average individual deductible for what is … a bronze plan on the [federal] exchange … is $5,081, 42 percent higher than the average deductible of $3,589 for an individually purchased plan in 2013.”[9] “For a couple, deductibles may be as high as $12,700.”[10] Cancelled health care coverage, higher health care costs, and fewer doctors are the last thing Americans need in fragile economy. The President promised on multiple occasions that the only individuals who would be impacted by Obamacare were those who were uninsured. Now, the President has upended a system with which most Americans were content. America can’t take another year of Obamcare.
[2] See http://www.crs.gov/pdfloader/R41166.
[3] See id.
[4]
See Washington Examiner, Survey finds doctors rebelling against
Obamacare, famous Hospitals declining to join, November 27, 2013.
[5] See id.
Posted January 28, 2014
Policy Feature Issue: Energy Policy under President Obama – More of the Same
In
his State of the Union address, President Obama is expected to announce
more of the same when it comes to U.S. energy policy. But what does
this mean? More permitting delays? More regulation? More lawsuits?
America deserves a true “all-of-the-above” energy policy that removes
barriers to affordable, reliable domestic energy sources.The nation is in the midst of an energy revolution, largely because of technological innovations that have allowed us to tap vast domestic oil and gas reserves. These previously inaccessible resources have been a game-changer, posturing America to lead the world in energy production by 2015. In a time of economic uncertainty, the energy sector has been a bright spot, creating jobs, increasing household incomes, and reducing energy bills and the cost of goods and services. Yet the President wants to limit this progress.
In his State of the Union address last year, the President announced a series of unilateral actions he would take to restrict greenhouse gas emissions and further eliminate energy sources relied upon by Americans. At the time, these policies were predicted to increase energy costs and put many people out of work. As they have been implemented, they are doing just that.
President Obama’s Policies:
- The Obama Administration proposed new regulations for hydraulic fracturing (HF) on public lands,[1] which threaten to significantly drive up costs. The Administration estimates the regulations will cost only $11,000 per well and have little impact on economic development; but a recent analysis estimates the regulations would cost $345 million annually—or $96,913 per well.[2]
- Burdensome regulations and permitting processes led natural gas production on federal lands to fall by 23% since FY 2007.[3] A 2012 report showed fossil fuel production on federal land at a ten-year low.[4]
- Offshore production, which represents a large portion of crude oil production on federal lands, “fell by 23 percent in fiscal year 2012,” and “The vast majority of areas of in the offshore United States remain off limits to leasing during the next 5 years . . . .”[5]
- Costly EPA regulations have already contributed to the closure of over 300 individual coal-fired electric generating units across 33 states.[6]
- Regulations proposed by the Administration would restrict emissions from new coal-fired power plants to a standard that no coal-fired power plant in the world currently can meet.
- The proposed regulations would require new coal-fired power plants to install “carbon capture and storage” (CCS) technologies, even though there are no full-scale commercial power plants in the world with the CCS technologies needed to meet the proposed standard.[7]
- Based on one estimate, adding CCS technologies for a new coal-fired power plant could increase capital costs by up to 60%.[8]
- Despite the enormous compliance cost, EPA’s own analysis “projects that [the proposed standard] will result in negligible CO2 emission changes . . . .”[9]
- If coal power were phased out over a twenty-year period, electricity prices could rise by 20% in the first sixteen years.[10]
- Innovations in horizontal drilling and HF have unlocked vast domestic oil and gas reserves, putting the U.S. on a path to lead the world in energy production by 2015.[11]
- “In 2000, shale gas provided 1% of our nation’s gas supplies; today it is 25%. Half of the natural gas consumed today is produce[d] from wells drilled within the last 3.5 years.”[12]
- “[S]hale oil and natural gas activity contributed over 1.7 million jobs in 2012 and will increase by over 45% to almost 2.5 million jobs in 2015.”[13]
- The amount the U.S. spends on energy imports has fallen by 40% since 2008.[14]
- “Unconventional oil and gas activity increased disposable income by an average of $1,200 per US household in 2012 in the form of lower energy bills as well as lower costs for all other goods and services. That figure is expected to grow to just over $2,000 in 2015 and reach more than $3,500 in 2025.”[15]
- According to a recent study, increasing offshore oil and natural gas production in the Atlantic alone would create 280,000 jobs by 2035; contribute up to $23.5 billion annually to the U.S. economy; and generate $51 billion in federal and state revenues.[16]
- Coal was the largest source of electricity generated in the U.S. in 2012, producing 37.4% of all electricity nationwide.[17]
- “Coal is used to generate electricity in 48 states” and it supplies “at least one quarter of the electricity in 29 states.”[18]
- Coal’s role in generating U.S. electricity is expected to increase to 40.5% of the nation’s electricity in 2014. This projection does not take into account new regulations that could hurt coal energy production.[19]
[1] Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Comment, Department of the Interior (May 2013). See also Interior Releases Updated Draft Rule for Hydraulic Fracturing on Public and Indian Lands for Public Comment (May 16, 2013).
[2] Business Impact of Revised Completion Regulations,
John Dunham & Associates (July 22, 2013). This assumes a best case
scenario in which BLM approves 100% of all applications.
[3] Marc Humphries, U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in Federal and Non-Federal Areas, Congressional Research Service (Mar. 7, 2013)at Table 2.
[4] Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low, Institute for Energy Research (June 10, 2013).
[5] Id.
[6] American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity: Coal Unit Shutdowns (Oct. 15, 2013).
[7] In its Sep. 2013 Proposed Rule,
EPA does not identify any currently operating commercial scale power
plants that are equipped with the CCS technologies that would meet the
requirements of the proposed rule.
[8] See EIA Report: Capital Cost for Electricity Plants
at Table 1 (Apr.12, 2013). Additionally, the Department of Energy’s
National Energy Technology Laboratory has estimated that using today’s
commercially available technologies could add 35-80 % to the cost of
generating electricity from coal plants. See 77 Fed. Reg. 22392 (Apr. 13, 2012) at 22415-22416.
[10] David W. Kreutzer, Nicolas D. Loris, and Kevin D. Dayaratna, Cost of a Climate Policy: The Economic Impact of Obama’s Climate Action Plan, Heritage Foundation (June 27, 2013).
[11] http://naturalresources.house.gov/legislation/hr2728/. See also http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/.
[12] House Committee Report 113-261 at 2.
[13] http://naturalresources.house.gov/legislation/hr2728/. See also America’s New Energy Future: The Unconventional Oil and Gas Revolution and the U.S. Economy (Oct. 2012) at 2.
[14] World Energy Outlook 2013 Factsheet, International Energy Agency at 2.
[16] The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S. Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic (Dec. 2013) at 3.
[17] American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity: Coal Facts (Oct. 17, 2013).
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
Posted January 28, 2014
Policy Feature Issue: Energy Policy under President Obama – More of the Same
In
his State of the Union address, President Obama is expected to announce
more of the same when it comes to U.S. energy policy. But what does
this mean? More permitting delays? More regulation? More lawsuits?
America deserves a true “all-of-the-above” energy policy that removes
barriers to affordable, reliable domestic energy sources.The nation is in the midst of an energy revolution, largely because of technological innovations that have allowed us to tap vast domestic oil and gas reserves. These previously inaccessible resources have been a game-changer, posturing America to lead the world in energy production by 2015. In a time of economic uncertainty, the energy sector has been a bright spot, creating jobs, increasing household incomes, and reducing energy bills and the cost of goods and services. Yet the President wants to limit this progress.
In his State of the Union address last year, the President announced a series of unilateral actions he would take to restrict greenhouse gas emissions and further eliminate energy sources relied upon by Americans. At the time, these policies were predicted to increase energy costs and put many people out of work. As they have been implemented, they are doing just that.
President Obama’s Policies:
- The Obama Administration proposed new regulations for hydraulic fracturing (HF) on public lands,[1] which threaten to significantly drive up costs. The Administration estimates the regulations will cost only $11,000 per well and have little impact on economic development; but a recent analysis estimates the regulations would cost $345 million annually—or $96,913 per well.[2]
- Burdensome regulations and permitting processes led natural gas production on federal lands to fall by 23% since FY 2007.[3] A 2012 report showed fossil fuel production on federal land at a ten-year low.[4]
- Offshore production, which represents a large portion of crude oil production on federal lands, “fell by 23 percent in fiscal year 2012,” and “The vast majority of areas of in the offshore United States remain off limits to leasing during the next 5 years . . . .”[5]
- Costly EPA regulations have already contributed to the closure of over 300 individual coal-fired electric generating units across 33 states.[6]
- Regulations proposed by the Administration would restrict emissions from new coal-fired power plants to a standard that no coal-fired power plant in the world currently can meet.
- The proposed regulations would require new coal-fired power plants to install “carbon capture and storage” (CCS) technologies, even though there are no full-scale commercial power plants in the world with the CCS technologies needed to meet the proposed standard.[7]
- Based on one estimate, adding CCS technologies for a new coal-fired power plant could increase capital costs by up to 60%.[8]
- Despite the enormous compliance cost, EPA’s own analysis “projects that [the proposed standard] will result in negligible CO2 emission changes . . . .”[9]
- If coal power were phased out over a twenty-year period, electricity prices could rise by 20% in the first sixteen years.[10]
- Innovations in horizontal drilling and HF have unlocked vast domestic oil and gas reserves, putting the U.S. on a path to lead the world in energy production by 2015.[11]
- “In 2000, shale gas provided 1% of our nation’s gas supplies; today it is 25%. Half of the natural gas consumed today is produce[d] from wells drilled within the last 3.5 years.”[12]
- “[S]hale oil and natural gas activity contributed over 1.7 million jobs in 2012 and will increase by over 45% to almost 2.5 million jobs in 2015.”[13]
- The amount the U.S. spends on energy imports has fallen by 40% since 2008.[14]
- “Unconventional oil and gas activity increased disposable income by an average of $1,200 per US household in 2012 in the form of lower energy bills as well as lower costs for all other goods and services. That figure is expected to grow to just over $2,000 in 2015 and reach more than $3,500 in 2025.”[15]
- According to a recent study, increasing offshore oil and natural gas production in the Atlantic alone would create 280,000 jobs by 2035; contribute up to $23.5 billion annually to the U.S. economy; and generate $51 billion in federal and state revenues.[16]
- Coal was the largest source of electricity generated in the U.S. in 2012, producing 37.4% of all electricity nationwide.[17]
- “Coal is used to generate electricity in 48 states” and it supplies “at least one quarter of the electricity in 29 states.”[18]
- Coal’s role in generating U.S. electricity is expected to increase to 40.5% of the nation’s electricity in 2014. This projection does not take into account new regulations that could hurt coal energy production.[19]
[1] Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for Comment, Department of the Interior (May 2013). See also Interior Releases Updated Draft Rule for Hydraulic Fracturing on Public and Indian Lands for Public Comment (May 16, 2013).
[2] Business Impact of Revised Completion Regulations,
John Dunham & Associates (July 22, 2013). This assumes a best case
scenario in which BLM approves 100% of all applications.
[3] Marc Humphries, U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in Federal and Non-Federal Areas, Congressional Research Service (Mar. 7, 2013)at Table 2.
[4] Fossil Fuel Production on Federal Lands at a Ten Year Low, Institute for Energy Research (June 10, 2013).
[5] Id.
[6] American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity: Coal Unit Shutdowns (Oct. 15, 2013).
[7] In its Sep. 2013 Proposed Rule,
EPA does not identify any currently operating commercial scale power
plants that are equipped with the CCS technologies that would meet the
requirements of the proposed rule.
[8] See EIA Report: Capital Cost for Electricity Plants
at Table 1 (Apr.12, 2013). Additionally, the Department of Energy’s
National Energy Technology Laboratory has estimated that using today’s
commercially available technologies could add 35-80 % to the cost of
generating electricity from coal plants. See 77 Fed. Reg. 22392 (Apr. 13, 2012) at 22415-22416.
[10] David W. Kreutzer, Nicolas D. Loris, and Kevin D. Dayaratna, Cost of a Climate Policy: The Economic Impact of Obama’s Climate Action Plan, Heritage Foundation (June 27, 2013).
[11] http://naturalresources.house.gov/legislation/hr2728/. See also http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/.
[12] House Committee Report 113-261 at 2.
[13] http://naturalresources.house.gov/legislation/hr2728/. See also America’s New Energy Future: The Unconventional Oil and Gas Revolution and the U.S. Economy (Oct. 2012) at 2.
[14] World Energy Outlook 2013 Factsheet, International Energy Agency at 2.
[16] The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S. Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic (Dec. 2013) at 3.
[17] American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity: Coal Facts (Oct. 17, 2013).
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
Posted January 27, 2014
Policy Feature Issue: State of the Union – The President’s “Year of Action,” The Economic Impact of Minimum Wage Increases
As
the economy continues to struggle to create jobs and improve economic
opportunity, the Administration continues to push an increase in the
federal minimum wage. Legislation has been introduced in both the House
and the Senate to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10
per hour.[1] Yet, what these proponents fail to talk about is how
little a federal minimum wage has done to create jobs or improve the
quality of life for our nation’s working poor. Rather, federal minimum
wage increases have historically served as a disincentive to hiring,
have led to wage increases among individuals in households above the
poverty line, and have done little to help those who live in poverty.
Moreover, there are other ways to increase wages such as eliminating
unnecessary regulations and improving economic growth.Background:
In 1938, Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which established a general minimum wage that must be paid to all covered workers.[2] The FLSA mandates broad minimum wage coverage, while establishing certain categories of workers who are not covered by FLSA wage standards.[3] The Wage and Hour Division (WHD) within the Department of Labor was created to administer and enforce the FLSA.[4]
The FLSA established a minimum wage of 25 cents an hour in 1938. Since then, the federal minimum wage has been increased 22 times.[5] The most recent adjustment occurred in 2007, when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour.[6] In 2009, a U.S. Department of Labor report estimated that 84 percent of the workforce (130 million workers) was covered by the FLSA.[7]
Facts You Need to Know:
- Currently, the federal minimum wage stands at $7.25 per hour.[8] A 2012 BLS report estimated that 75.3 million workers in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 59 percent of wage and salary workers.[9] 1.6 million of these hourly workers received exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage, and 2 million received pay below minimum wage.[10] These 3.6 million workers represent only 4.7 percent of total hourly paid workers.
- More importantly, only a small portion of the working population that would benefit from a minimum wage increase live in poor households. A 2010 study found that only 11.3 percent of workers who would gain from a federal wage increase to $9.50 per hour live in poor households.[11]
- The study found that “of those who will gain, 63.2 percent are second or third earners living in households with incomes twice the poverty line, and 42.3 percent live in households with incomes three times the poverty line.”[12]
- Moreover, evidence to suggest minimum wage increases drastically lower poverty rates is unsubstantiated. The same study found, after an analysis of state-level minimum wage increases, that there was “no evidence that minimum wage increases between 2003 and 2007 affected overall state poverty rates.”[13]
- Minimum wage increases also have a negative effect on the labor market. A 2007 analysis of 33 reports studying the effect of minimum wage increases on unemployment found that 28 of the reports (85 percent) estimated that minimum wage increases had negative employment effects.[14] The Heritage Foundation has estimated that a minimum wage increase to $10.10 would “likely eliminate 300,000 jobs per year and reduce gross domestic product (GDP) by over $40 billion annually.”[15] Other analysis suggests “Lower-bound elasticity estimates imply job losses of 467,000 to 1.40 million, while upper-bound estimates imply job losses of approximately 3 million to 4 million.”[16]
[1] James Sherk and John L. Ligon, Unprecedented Minimum-Wage Hike Would Hurt Jobs and the Economy, Heritage Foundation (Dec. 2013).
[2] David H. Bradley, The Federal Minimum Wage: In Brief, Congressional Research Service (May, 2013), p. 1.
[3]
Id. at 1. Note: The FLSA allows the payment of subminimum wage for
certain classes of workers, such as youth under the age of 20 (for 90
days), full-time students, individuals with disabilities, and workers
who receive tips. See Id. at 4.
[4] Id. at 1.
[5] Id. at 1.
[6] Id. at 1.
[7] U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Coverage Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Fact Sheet #14, Washington, DC (July, 2009), p. 1.
[11] Joseph J. Sabia and Richard V. Burkhauser, Minimum Wages and Poverty: Will a $9.50 Federal Minimum Wage Really Help the Working Poor?, Southern Economic Journal 76.3 (2010), p. 602.
[12] Id. at 602.
[13] Id. at 600.
[14] David Neumark and William L. Wascher, Minimum Wages and Employment, Foundations and Trends in Microeconomics 3.1 (2007), p. 164.
[15] James Sherk and John L. Ligon, Unprecedented Minimum-Wage Hike Would Hurt Jobs and the Economy, Heritage Foundation (Dec. 2013).
[16] Sabia and Burkhauser, Minimum Wages and Poverty, p. 606.
Posted January 27, 2014
Policy Feature Issue: State of the Union – The Country Cannot Afford Another “Year of Action,” The President’s Failed Economy
The
President promises us a “Year of Action.” But, the nation has had four
plus years of government action, including an $800 billion stimulus
package, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an EPA regulatory agenda that is putting
industries out of business, and record trillion-plus dollar deficits. But, what has that meant for Americans? The nation is in the midst of one the weakest recoveries in decades. In fact, we have a private sector jobs gap of more than 4.5 million compared to the average number of jobs created in previous recoveries. [1]
We have the lowest labor force participation rate since the Carter administration with more discouraged people leaving the job market than who enter.[2] This includes those individuals who are in their prime earning years, those ages 40-55 who are leaving the workforce.[3]
Moreover, there are almost four million Americans who have been unemployed for six months or longer[4]. There are also more Americans -- 7.8 million -- working part time because they have do not have prospects for full time work. This, combined with the millions of Americans who have lost their health insurance, and thousands who can no longer see the doctor of their choice, paint a bleak economic picture. Young people are fairing no better. Millions of college students are saddled with enormous debt with limited to no job prospects. Tens of thousands of college graduates are not considered “job ready” by employer standards.
No wonder a recent Gallup poll found that more than 42 percent of those Americans surveyed believe they are worse off financially than they were a year ago.[5] Moreover, 89 percent of Americans believe that focusing on the economy is the most important issue for Congress and the president to address in 2014.[6]
Yet, the solution to the economy is not another year of government action. Individuals – not the federal government hold the keys to success. Unleash the private sector. Eliminate needless regulations and bureaucracy; eliminate wasteful spending; invest in industry sectors that will grow the economy and create jobs such as domestic energy production.
[1] See Joint Economic Committee December Jobs Report.
[3] See Joint Economic Committee and BLS labor force participation rates.
Posted January 14, 2014
Policy Feature Issue: December Jobs Report
Last
week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its December
monthly jobs report. Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 74,000,
and the unemployment rate decreased to 6.7 percent.[1] However, Labor
Force Participation once again dropped to its lowest levels since the
Carter Administration (in 1978), as 347,000 Americans dropped out of the
workforce. As was the pattern throughout 2013, the president’s
economic recovery continues to fail, with millions of Americans still
unemployed, and millions who have just stopped working.Facts You Need to Know:
- The unemployment rate decreased in December from 7.0 percent to 6.7 percent.[2] The number of unemployed persons decreased by 490,000 in December.[3] Though the unemployment rate stands at 6.7 percent this month, this metric is misleading. The U-6 unemployment rate, a comprehensive measure of labor underutilization that takes into account persons marginally attached to the labor force as well as persons who would like to be employed full time but can only find part-time work, is 13.1 percent.[4]
- Long-term unemployment (those unemployed for more than 27 weeks) decreased to 3.87 million in the month of November.[5] However, much of this can be attributed to those individuals dropping out of the workforce.
- The Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR), which identifies the number of people who are active participants in the labor force (those who are employed and those who are unemployed but actively seeking work, relative to the total population), decreased to 62.8 percent in December from 63.0 percent in November.[6] In October and December, the LFPR dropped to its lowest level since March 1978.[7]
- The Employment-Population Ratio, a metric that establishes the raw employment rate, remained unchanged at 58.6 percent in December.[8] The employment population ratio remains 2.0 percent lower than it was when President Obama took office.[9]
- Labor force participation decreased by 0.2 percent in the month of December.[10] The LFPR reached its lowest rate since 1978 for the second time in 2013. In fact, labor force participation has yet to rise to pre-Obama Administration levels in the last five years, when the LFPR stood at 65.8 percent.[11]
- Some economists argue that the decline in labor force participation is the result of retiring baby boomers. However, according to calculations from the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), labor force participation among aged 55 or older has actually increased since the beginning of the recession. The combination of baby boomers working longer and a decline in labor force participation among younger people suggests that the poor job market and slow economic recovery are primarily responsible for the drop in labor force participation.
- Moreover, the number of working age Americans who are not participating in the labor force stood at 91.81 million people in December, an increase of 2.94 million since December, 2012, and an increase of 525,000 since November.[12] While factors such as the retirement of the baby boomers and an increase in secondary school enrollment has led an increase in the number of people not in the labor force, the overall sluggish rate of economic growth and job creation has discouraged millions of Americans from entering the labor force.
- Finally, an employment population ratio of 58.6 percent reflects the reluctance of Americans to reenter the workforce, believing that they are better off without a job. A higher employment-population ratio, facilitated by a pro-growth agenda, strengthens GDP per capita, leading to improvements in consumer spending, and greater growth.
- Americans deserve better than a weak recovery that is struggling to create jobs and grow the economy.
[4]
According to the BLS, “Persons marginally attached to the labor force
are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but
indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for
work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of
the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not
currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic
reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have
had to settle for a part-time schedule.” See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
[7] BLS, Historical Tables, Labor Force Participation Rate
Posted January 10, 2014
Policy Feature Issue: Read Out from the Natural Resources Committee Hearing on the Administration’s War on Coal
“Obama Administration’s War on Coal: The Recent Report by the Office of the Inspector General” House Natural Resources CommitteeWitness: Robert A. Knox, Assistant Inspector General for InvestigationsJanuary 9, 2014
The
Office of Inspector General recently released a report on the Obama
Administration’s rewrite of a coal production regulation, the 2008
Stream Buffer Zone Rule. The Administration has spent millions of
dollars, in secret, working on a new regulation that will put thousands
of Americans out of work and increase electricity costs.
Mr. Knox
testified that the IG’s investigation confirmed that this has been a
grossly mismanaged rulemaking process that has gone on for five years
and has cost over $9 million taxpayer dollars – with absolutely nothing
to show for it.Chairman Hastings questioned why the IG had provided only a redacted copy of its report to the Committee at the direction of the Department and expressed concern the most heavily redacted section apparently concerned similar issues with the current contractors.
Representative Lamborn asked whether a senior Department official provided untruthful testimony about the development of the job loss numbers when he testified in November 2011. Mr. Knox said the IG has been unable to determine whether the official’s testimony was inaccurate and was not planning to investigate further.
Other Members questioned Mr. Knox about political pressure to downplay the potential job losses, how the arbitrary litigation deadlines contributed to the contractor’s problems, and about wasteful spending associated with this rulemaking.
Posted January 09, 2014
Policy Committee Feature Issue of the Week: Trade
The
United States has Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) in place with 20
countries.[1] International Trade has been estimated to support more
than 38 million American jobs and account for more than 30 percent of
total U.S. GDP.[2] The United States’ use of Trade Promotion
Authority (TPA) has been important in securing these agreements,
expediting the implementation process, and enhancing the credibility of
U.S. negotiators. Currently, the United States is engaged in major
negotiations with 11 Asia-Pacific countries (“Trans Pacific
Partnership”), with the European Union, and with 22 other countries for a
trade in services agreement (“TISA”). Combined, U.S. negotiations with
the Asia-Pacific and the EU would open markets with nearly 1 billion
consumers, covering nearly two-thirds of global GDP, and 65% of global
trade. TISA covers about 50% of global GDP, as well, and over 70% of
global services trade.What is TPA?
This week, Chairman Camp introduced the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014. Senators Baucus and Hatch introduced identical legislation in the Senate.
Granted to every President since FDR, TPA includes three main components: (1) congressional negotiating objectives directing the Administration in negotiations; (2) robust consultations and access to information requirements for the Administration to engage Congress; and (3) rules that ensure Congress has the final say in approving trade agreements through procedures providing for an up-or-down vote on the final implementing bill without amendment.
TPA requires that Congress take an active and meaningful role in the negotiation and approval of trade agreements. TPA allows Congress to establish extensive negotiating objectives and consultation procedures for the Administration to follow. It mandates Congressional consultations prior to, during, and after negotiations. Moreover, Congress retains the right to consider final agreements with an up-or-down vote. Free trade agreements subject to TPA can only enter into force after Congressional approval. Although the Constitution assigns Congress the authority to regulate foreign trade, TPA is fundamentally important in providing U.S. negotiators the credibility needed to close negotiations and to ensure trading partners make their best offers. TPA expired for new agreements on July 1, 2007. TPA legislation introduced by Chairman Camp this week would extend TPA through 2018, with the possibility of further extension through 2021.
Additional Resources:
- Two-Page Overview of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014
- Trade Promotion Authority: An Important Tool for U.S. Economic Growth
- Trade Promotion Authority: Top 10 Myths and Realities
- Benefits of Trade & U.S. Trade Agreements Report
- State-by-State Benefits of Trade Fact Sheets
- Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade Policy – Congressional Research Service
[2] Business Round Table, “How the U.S. Economy Benefits from International Trade and Investment,” p.1.
Posted December 13, 2013
The past few weeks have been tough for the
President's poll numbers. We continue to see new lows for Obama mainly
driven by his health care law. Americans all across the country continue
to disapprove of Obamacare which begs the question: Is this the new
normal for the President?
"A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that more Americans disapprove of the president's job performance than ever before; half say they’re either disappointed or dissatisfied with his presidency and 54 percent believe he’s facing a long-term setback." - WSJ/NBC Poll 12/11/13
"President Barack Obama's job approval among American voters drops to a new low, a negative 38 - 57 percent, as the outlook for Democrats running for Congress and the U.S. Senate fades also, according to a national poll released today. He even gets a negative 41 - 49 percent among voters 18 to 29 years old and a lackluster 50 - 43 percent approval among Hispanic voters." Quinnipiac University Poll 12/10/13
"The percentage viewing Obama as “not trustworthy” has risen 15 points since January – from 30% to 45%. There has been a comparable increase in the share saying he is “not able to get things done” (from 37% to 51%)." Pew Research Poll 12/10/13
"Just 33% of all voters still believe the government should require every health insurance plan to cover the exact same set of procedures, down from 36% in early November and the lowest level of support measured. Forty-three percent (43%) now oppose this government requirement, up from 40% in November and the highest level measured this year." Rasmussen Poll 12/9/13
"President Barack Obama's job approval rating averaged 41% in November, down 12 percentage points from 53% last December, his high-water mark since his first year in office. Hispanics' approval has dropped 23 points over the last 12 months, the most among major subgroups, and nearly twice the national average. His approval rating also showed above-average declines among low-income Americans, nonwhites, moderates, and moderates who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party." Gallup Poll 12/5/13
"Only 41 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds say they approve of the job Obama is doing, according to the Harvard IOP poll, down 11 percentage points from April. Fifty-four percent say they disapprove. It's Obama's worst showing in the survey since becoming president." Harvard Institute of Politics 12/4/13
"45 percent of Illinois voters disapprove of the Affordable Care Act, while 44 percent approve of the law. Ten percent of voters in the state have not yet made up their mind about the the president’s signature domestic achievement." Public Policy Polling 12/3/13
"Given the problems associated with the law, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters believe Congress and the president should repeal it and start again from the beginning. That’s up from 43% support in late October. Another 31% think Congress and the president should go through the law piece by piece to improve it." Rasmussen Poll 12/3/13
"A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that more Americans disapprove of the president's job performance than ever before; half say they’re either disappointed or dissatisfied with his presidency and 54 percent believe he’s facing a long-term setback." - WSJ/NBC Poll 12/11/13
"President Barack Obama's job approval among American voters drops to a new low, a negative 38 - 57 percent, as the outlook for Democrats running for Congress and the U.S. Senate fades also, according to a national poll released today. He even gets a negative 41 - 49 percent among voters 18 to 29 years old and a lackluster 50 - 43 percent approval among Hispanic voters." Quinnipiac University Poll 12/10/13
"The percentage viewing Obama as “not trustworthy” has risen 15 points since January – from 30% to 45%. There has been a comparable increase in the share saying he is “not able to get things done” (from 37% to 51%)." Pew Research Poll 12/10/13
"Just 33% of all voters still believe the government should require every health insurance plan to cover the exact same set of procedures, down from 36% in early November and the lowest level of support measured. Forty-three percent (43%) now oppose this government requirement, up from 40% in November and the highest level measured this year." Rasmussen Poll 12/9/13
"President Barack Obama's job approval rating averaged 41% in November, down 12 percentage points from 53% last December, his high-water mark since his first year in office. Hispanics' approval has dropped 23 points over the last 12 months, the most among major subgroups, and nearly twice the national average. His approval rating also showed above-average declines among low-income Americans, nonwhites, moderates, and moderates who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party." Gallup Poll 12/5/13
"Only 41 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds say they approve of the job Obama is doing, according to the Harvard IOP poll, down 11 percentage points from April. Fifty-four percent say they disapprove. It's Obama's worst showing in the survey since becoming president." Harvard Institute of Politics 12/4/13
"45 percent of Illinois voters disapprove of the Affordable Care Act, while 44 percent approve of the law. Ten percent of voters in the state have not yet made up their mind about the the president’s signature domestic achievement." Public Policy Polling 12/3/13
"Given the problems associated with the law, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters believe Congress and the president should repeal it and start again from the beginning. That’s up from 43% support in late October. Another 31% think Congress and the president should go through the law piece by piece to improve it." Rasmussen Poll 12/3/13
Posted December 11, 2013
As the holiday season gets into full swing, what the American people are hoping for most of all is certainty.
Millions of Americans have had their health insurance canceled. People all across the country are being forced to pay higher premiums, and are losing access to their doctors.
It's time for real solutions.
Millions of Americans have had their health insurance canceled. People all across the country are being forced to pay higher premiums, and are losing access to their doctors.
It's time for real solutions.
Posted December 11, 2013
Obamacare continues to harm Americans all across this
country. Below are just a few stories that have been submitted to
www.gop.gov/yourstory highlighting the harmful impact of this unworkable
law.
Bruce Wright
Thornton, CO
-Wife’s company’s coverage is now increasing in cost, lowering in quality, their overall healthcare costs will increase as a result
Francisco Alvarado
Tucson, AZ
-23 year old college student, voted for Obama, now feels “deception and lies. Obama does not care.” Has seen an increase in cost for doctor/specialist visits recently.
Thurman Callendar
Van Nuys, CA
-received letter explaining employer no longer carrying his “excellent” medical plan. Lost his doctor – has been seeing him for decades, due to ACA – “Not by his choice interestingly enough, but because he "wasn't invited to participate."
Cynthia Crumb
Naugatuck, CT
-Nurse; received letter from Anthem BCBS stating that they will no longer be offering our current policy. It was non compliant with Obamacare. New plan up $500.00 monthly and up $3000.00
David
Los Altos Hills, CA
Small business owner, employees are he and his wife; had to drop group health plan due toACA provision 304 (“marriage penalty”).
Matthew Till
Grayslake, Il
Lost coverage of family of 3 (soon to be 4, wife is pregnant). All comparable plans more expensive; since October 1st, attempted to complete FOUR different applications on healthcare.gov. Each application had technical issues…
Kim Sherman
Sunnyvale, CA
57 year old stay-at-home mom; insurance cancelled Dec. 31; new plan 59.6% higher premiums, $2,000 higher deductible; higher co-pay; at least $2466.24 more than last year
Joan Thompson
Van Nuys, CA
Aetna dropping coverage 12/31; comparable plan is $300 more per month; 65, doesn’t want maternity coverage etc.
Jon
Maple Shade, NJ
His Fortune 500 company’s enrollment period ends, he’s left with lousy policies unlike anything he’s had in the past; 10-20% more money for less coverage; will spend $2350 more than last year
Chris Kmiec
Houston Tx
Recently had herniated disc, went to doctor, had MRI, 3 days later had surgery out-of-pocket; fears Obamacare would still have the herniated disc
Cheryl Tatreau
Gwynedd Valley, Pa
“One of the lucky ones;” Cross Blue Shield Policy is grandfathered; upset similar plans will no longer be offered thanks to ACA
Byron Bateman
Taylor, Az
Premium went up 14% as of November 2013; plan expires in 1 year due to ACA; can’t afford other options
Tim Johnson
Belle Isle, Fl
Medicare premium going up
Heather Cousins
Las Vegas, NV
Office manager for a local Chiropractor; frustrated that people have no idea what higher deductible really means; can’t afford premiums or the $6250.00 per person deductible for a family of 5
Tammy Weeden
Grandview, MO
Obamacare is affecting group insurance plans that are provided through the employer; 1/14 has to pay out of pocket up to deductible of $3500.00 per person; overall costs going up; afraid for 2015
Francis Berletic
Boardman, OH
Truck driver; believes in free market; opposes ACA; fears increased costs
Angela Davis
Marrero, LA
Website troubles; crashes twice; online chat person couldn’t help; was promised a paper copy in mail, still hasn’t come
Larry Gusto
Bath, ME
His company’s health insurance is cancelling policies due to ACA—upset, can’t keep existing coverage
Marina
Greenwich, Ct
Got letter from child’s pediatrician, practice will no longer accept any insurance because of the ACA, and will operate as a fee-per-service practice; Riverside Pediatrics in Greenwich CT; can provide copy of letter
Steve Diforio
Weston, CT
Extra $1,000/yr to maintain coverage
Tom McCowan
Forest Lakes, AZ
Lost healthcare due to ACA; now paying higher rate, told it will increase again
Robert Achten
Casa Grande, AZ
His worker’s comp won’t be renewed; has had for 30 years
Paul Marcus
Salem, OR
Had cancer in 2007, has $5,000/month treatments as a result; fears losing his current health insurance
Kyle
Huntingtown, MD
Husband a retired firefighter; expecting to be “dumped into Exchange.” Likes current insurance, didn’t want it to change
Sheila Tobler
Las Vegas, NV
Cancellation letter mid-Oct; agreed to increase to keep plan until 12/1/14; any other plans will be $900/month, higher deductible of $12,000; current premium is $414; can’t afford insurance after next Dec, will pay penalty
Arthur Brackmann
Nashville, TN
Major website problems, had no luck, never got past security questions; 65 and retiring next year
Virginia Murrell
Rancho Murieta, CA
Saratoga, CA
Bolingbrook, IL
Blairstown, IA
MO-5
Chicago, IL
San Rafael, CA
Estes Park, CO
Broomfield, CO
Ijamsville, MD
MA-6
Newburgh, NY
Can’t afford price increase; $261.00 per month; website troubles too
Sandra Cox
Blue Earth, MN
66 year old widow, scared she will lose Medicare or Health Partners, she and her son take medicine daily; “I am lost and afraid”
Bret Meissner
Montfort, WI
Independent computer consultant; has paid out of pocket for insurance; losing policy; having major website issues with accessing/logging into account
Carol Serpa
Boynton Beach, FL
Major website problems, poor filing, application status, no luck with speaking with person on the 800 number
Todd Biggs
Chandler, AZ
Out of work due to stroke; major difficulty with website; “We can't afford to feed our children how r we going to pay for insurance”
Lisa Ross
Annandale, VA
Pasted her conversation with ACA online chat; it’s a ridiculous conversation, ends with “Lisa My experience with the exchange has been awful. [4:40:01 pm]: No such user exists”
Lisa Zeimetz
New Lenox, IL
Trouble setting up with her married name; was told try maiden name; can’t get past security question stage
Dawn McFarlane
Orlando FL
Web troubles; can’t get past the “eligibility” page; tried live chat, said “sorry” and that’s about it; can’t look at plans
Mike Sabot
GA
Asked about exemption letter for IRS on ACA chat; explained law and exemptions to the ACA chat person; Premium half of her income (says there is an exemption if it's more than 8%)
Bruce Wright
Thornton, CO
-Wife’s company’s coverage is now increasing in cost, lowering in quality, their overall healthcare costs will increase as a result
Francisco Alvarado
Tucson, AZ
-23 year old college student, voted for Obama, now feels “deception and lies. Obama does not care.” Has seen an increase in cost for doctor/specialist visits recently.
Thurman Callendar
Van Nuys, CA
-received letter explaining employer no longer carrying his “excellent” medical plan. Lost his doctor – has been seeing him for decades, due to ACA – “Not by his choice interestingly enough, but because he "wasn't invited to participate."
Cynthia Crumb
Naugatuck, CT
-Nurse; received letter from Anthem BCBS stating that they will no longer be offering our current policy. It was non compliant with Obamacare. New plan up $500.00 monthly and up $3000.00
David
Los Altos Hills, CA
Small business owner, employees are he and his wife; had to drop group health plan due toACA provision 304 (“marriage penalty”).
Matthew Till
Grayslake, Il
Lost coverage of family of 3 (soon to be 4, wife is pregnant). All comparable plans more expensive; since October 1st, attempted to complete FOUR different applications on healthcare.gov. Each application had technical issues…
Kim Sherman
Sunnyvale, CA
57 year old stay-at-home mom; insurance cancelled Dec. 31; new plan 59.6% higher premiums, $2,000 higher deductible; higher co-pay; at least $2466.24 more than last year
Joan Thompson
Van Nuys, CA
Aetna dropping coverage 12/31; comparable plan is $300 more per month; 65, doesn’t want maternity coverage etc.
Jon
Maple Shade, NJ
His Fortune 500 company’s enrollment period ends, he’s left with lousy policies unlike anything he’s had in the past; 10-20% more money for less coverage; will spend $2350 more than last year
Chris Kmiec
Houston Tx
Recently had herniated disc, went to doctor, had MRI, 3 days later had surgery out-of-pocket; fears Obamacare would still have the herniated disc
Cheryl Tatreau
Gwynedd Valley, Pa
“One of the lucky ones;” Cross Blue Shield Policy is grandfathered; upset similar plans will no longer be offered thanks to ACA
Byron Bateman
Taylor, Az
Premium went up 14% as of November 2013; plan expires in 1 year due to ACA; can’t afford other options
Tim Johnson
Belle Isle, Fl
Medicare premium going up
Heather Cousins
Las Vegas, NV
Office manager for a local Chiropractor; frustrated that people have no idea what higher deductible really means; can’t afford premiums or the $6250.00 per person deductible for a family of 5
Tammy Weeden
Grandview, MO
Obamacare is affecting group insurance plans that are provided through the employer; 1/14 has to pay out of pocket up to deductible of $3500.00 per person; overall costs going up; afraid for 2015
Francis Berletic
Boardman, OH
Truck driver; believes in free market; opposes ACA; fears increased costs
Angela Davis
Marrero, LA
Website troubles; crashes twice; online chat person couldn’t help; was promised a paper copy in mail, still hasn’t come
Larry Gusto
Bath, ME
His company’s health insurance is cancelling policies due to ACA—upset, can’t keep existing coverage
Marina
Greenwich, Ct
Got letter from child’s pediatrician, practice will no longer accept any insurance because of the ACA, and will operate as a fee-per-service practice; Riverside Pediatrics in Greenwich CT; can provide copy of letter
Steve Diforio
Weston, CT
Extra $1,000/yr to maintain coverage
Tom McCowan
Forest Lakes, AZ
Lost healthcare due to ACA; now paying higher rate, told it will increase again
Robert Achten
Casa Grande, AZ
His worker’s comp won’t be renewed; has had for 30 years
Paul Marcus
Salem, OR
Had cancer in 2007, has $5,000/month treatments as a result; fears losing his current health insurance
Kyle
Huntingtown, MD
Husband a retired firefighter; expecting to be “dumped into Exchange.” Likes current insurance, didn’t want it to change
Sheila Tobler
Las Vegas, NV
Cancellation letter mid-Oct; agreed to increase to keep plan until 12/1/14; any other plans will be $900/month, higher deductible of $12,000; current premium is $414; can’t afford insurance after next Dec, will pay penalty
Arthur Brackmann
Nashville, TN
Major website problems, had no luck, never got past security questions; 65 and retiring next year
Virginia Murrell
Rancho Murieta, CA
- Received NOC last month from Health Net. Received quotes 40 to 50% higher with larger deductibles. I've had continuing health insurance coverage since the 1970's.
Saratoga, CA
- Current plan is not a grandfathered pre-2010 plan. We are happy to support ACA for greater social good. We weren't expecting for comparable coverage, an 80% rate increase with increased in out-of-pocket costs.
Bolingbrook, IL
- The cost /threat of Obamacare has cost our family more than $1000 in increased cost of the above listed insurances. I had to go to the doctor last month and paid $725 out of pocket expenses because my doctor no longer accepts our insurance.
Blairstown, IA
- Policy was cancelled. Next cheapest policy would be a 59% increase.
MO-5
- Lost coverage. Premium will be somewhere around 450 a month with a 6300 deductible up to 500+ a month for the best plan. Struggles to pay $187 a month right now with a 5000 deductible. “There is no way, no way I can afford this.”
Chicago, IL
- Social Security decided to change her disability coverage without consulting her or without her consent.
San Rafael, CA
- Has sign up for a private insurance plan with a 30+% overhead instead of the 10% overhead that Medicare shows.
Estes Park, CO
- The cheapest new policy I can get is $645 a month. My current policy is $293 a month.
Broomfield, CO
- Since 2010, premiums have steadily increased from $550 per/mo to more than $850 per/mo. Despite the higher premiums, they chose to stay on the current plan, but the plan was not grandfathered in to the ACA and was subsequently cancelled.
Ijamsville, MD
- Retired from IBM in 1992 & had IBM Ins until 1998 and had to trans to Kaiser Permanente (PK) due cost. IBM sent me a letter indicating I would NOT have KP in 2014 and must find INS elsewhere. Health Care (Gone), Doctor (Gone), Metlife Dental (Gone), my dentist who I Like (Gone), Must pay out of pocket until IBM/Extend Health pays that bill.
MA-6
- Retired from IBM in 1992 & had IBM Ins until 1998 and had to trans to Kaiser Permanente (PK) due cost. IBM sent me a letter indicating I would NOT have KP in 2014 and must find INS elsewhere. Health Care (Gone), Doctor (Gone), Metlife Dental (Gone), my dentist who I Like (Gone), Must pay out of pocket until IBM/Extend Health pays that bill.
Newburgh, NY
Can’t afford price increase; $261.00 per month; website troubles too
Sandra Cox
Blue Earth, MN
66 year old widow, scared she will lose Medicare or Health Partners, she and her son take medicine daily; “I am lost and afraid”
Bret Meissner
Montfort, WI
Independent computer consultant; has paid out of pocket for insurance; losing policy; having major website issues with accessing/logging into account
Carol Serpa
Boynton Beach, FL
Major website problems, poor filing, application status, no luck with speaking with person on the 800 number
Todd Biggs
Chandler, AZ
Out of work due to stroke; major difficulty with website; “We can't afford to feed our children how r we going to pay for insurance”
Lisa Ross
Annandale, VA
Pasted her conversation with ACA online chat; it’s a ridiculous conversation, ends with “Lisa My experience with the exchange has been awful. [4:40:01 pm]: No such user exists”
Lisa Zeimetz
New Lenox, IL
Trouble setting up with her married name; was told try maiden name; can’t get past security question stage
Dawn McFarlane
Orlando FL
Web troubles; can’t get past the “eligibility” page; tried live chat, said “sorry” and that’s about it; can’t look at plans
Mike Sabot
GA
Asked about exemption letter for IRS on ACA chat; explained law and exemptions to the ACA chat person; Premium half of her income (says there is an exemption if it's more than 8%)
Posted December 10, 2013
Policy Feature Issue: November Jobs Report
Last
week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its October monthly
jobs report. Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 203,000 in
November, and the unemployment rate decreased to 7.0
percent.[1] However, Labor Force Participation remains at historic highs
as an increasing number of Americans continue to leave the workforce.
As has been the case throughout 2013, the economic recovery continues to
lag behind past recoveries, with millions of Americans still out of
work, and millions more who have fallen out of the workforce entirely.Facts You Need to Know:
- The unemployment rate decreased in November from 7.3 percent to 7.0 percent.[2] The number of unemployed persons decreased by 365,000 in November.[3] Though the unemployment rate stands at 7.0 percent this month, this metric is largely misleading. The U-6 unemployment rate, a measure of labor underutilization that takes into account persons marginally attached to the labor force as well as persons employed part time for economic reasons (as a percentage of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force), is 13.2 percent.[4]
- Long-term unemployment (those unemployed for more than 27 weeks) remained unchanged at 4.06 million in the month of November.[5]
- The Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR), which identifies the number of people who are active participants in the labor force (relative to the total population), increased to 63.0 percent in November from 62.8 percent in October.[6] In October, the LFPR dropped to its lowest level since March 1978.[7]
- The Employment-Population Ratio, a metric that establishes the raw employment rate, increased from 58.3 percent to 58.6 percent in November.[8] The employment population ratio is 2.0 percent lower than it was when President Obama took office.[9]
- Labor force participation increased by 0.2 percent in the month of November.[10] Despite this increase, labor force participation has not recovered to pre-Obama Administration levels, when the LFPR stood at 65.8 percent.[11]
- Moreover, the number of working age Americans who are not participating in the labor force stood at 91.27 million people in October, an increase of 2.42 million since November, 2012.[12] While the number of Americans participating in the workforce increased from October, the overall sluggish rate of economic growth and job creation has discouraged millions of Americans from entering the labor force.
- Finally, an employment population ratio of 58.6 percent reflects the reluctance of Americans to reenter the workforce, believing that they are better off without a job. A higher employment-population ratio, facilitated by a pro-growth agenda, strengthens GDP per capita, leading to improvements in consumer spending, and greater growth.
- Americans deserve better than a weak recovery that is struggling to create jobs and grow the economy.
[4]
According to the BLS, “Persons marginally attached to the labor force
are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but
indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for
work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of
the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not
currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic
reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have
had to settle for a part-time schedule.” See: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
[7] BLS, Historical Tables, Labor Force Participation Rate
No comments:
Post a Comment