Sunlight Exposing the Cockroaches like Gruber

Posted on June 22, 2015June 22, 2015 by Denise Simon

‘When Gruber was called before Congress to explain his remarks and his role in the health care law this past year, Gruber claimed he was not really an architect and that he wasn’t “an expert on politics and my tone implied that I was.”‘

From Forbes:

Gruber, the Obamacare architect

Gruber was no independent expert. The Obama administration paid him nearly $400,000 as a consultant on Obamacare’s design, especially its new layer of federal health insurance regulation. But Gruber tried to avoid disclosing this conflict in his public commentary and appearances. Democratic officials did as well, in order to maintain the pose that Gruber’s opinions were non-partisan. Indeed, when Sen. Mike Enzi (R., Wyo.) specifically asked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for a list of all its paid consultants, Gruber’s name was mysteriously omitted.

From the Wall Street Journal: MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who claimed the authors of ObamaCare took advantage of what he called the “stupidity of the American voter,” played a much bigger role in the law’s drafting than previously acknowledged, according to a published report.

The Wall Street Journal, citing 20,000 pages of emails sent by Gruber between January 2009 and March 2010, reported Sunday that Gruber was frequently consulted by staffers and advisers for both the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about the Affordable Care Act. Among the topics that Gruber discusses in the emails are media interviews, consultations with lawmakers, and even how to publicly describe his role.

The emails were released as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on the legality of federal health insurance exchange subsidies.

The Journal reports that the officials Gruber contacted by e-mail included Peter Orszag, then the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); Jason Furman, an economic adviser to the president; and Ezekiel Emanuel, then a special adviser for health policy at OMB.

“His proximity to HHS and the White House was a whole lot tighter than they admitted,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R- Utah, chairman of the House oversight committee, told the Journal. “There’s no doubt he was a much more integral part of this than they’ve said. He put up this facade he was an arm’s length away. It was a farce.”

“As has been previously reported, Mr. Gruber was a widely used economic modeler for administrations and state governments run by both parties—both before and after the Affordable Care Act was passed,” HHS spokeswoman Meaghan Smith told the Journal in a statement. “These emails only echo old news.”

Gruber became the center of a political storm in November 2014, when a video surfaced of him taking part in a 2013 panel discussion about ObamaCare. At one point, Gruber said the Obama administration wrote the bill “in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies … Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

At the time of the controversy, President Obama referred to Gruber as “some adviser who never worked on our staff.” However, the Journal reports that Gruber’s emails appear to reference at least one meeting with Obama. Furthermore, one email from Jeanne Lambrew, a top Obama health adviser, thanks Gruber for “being an integral part of getting us to this historic moment”, while another message from Lambrew refers to Gruber as “our hero.”

Fox News previously reported that HHS retained Gruber in March 2009 on a $95,000 contract to produce “a series of technical memoranda on the estimated changes in health insurance coverage and associated costs and impacts to the government under alternative specifications of health system reform.” A second contract with HHS three months later saw Gruber receive an additional $297,600.

Gruber later apologized for his comments in a December 2014 hearing before the House Oversight Committee, calling the remarks “mean and insulting.”

Welfare Use by Immigrant Households with Children

Posted on June 18, 2015June 18, 2015 by Denise Simon

Some studies speak for themselves. This one is chilling. It demonstrates failure, lack of control and management as well as a continued monetary magnet that wont soon or ever go away.

A Look at Cash, Medicaid, Housing, and Food Programs

by: The Center for Immigration Studies

Thirteen years after welfare reform, the share of immigrant-headed households (legal and illegal) with a child (under age 18) using at least one welfare program continues to be very high. This is partly due to the large share of immigrants with low levels of education and their resulting low incomes — not their legal status or an unwillingness to work. The major welfare programs examined in this report include cash assistance, food assistance, Medicaid, and public and subsidized housing.

Among the findings:

In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.
Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).
The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).
We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.
Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.
High welfare use by immigrant-headed households with children is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school, 80 percent access the welfare system, compared to 25 percent for those headed by an immigrant who has at least a bachelor’s degree.
An unwillingness to work is not the reason immigrant welfare use is high. The vast majority (95 percent) of immigrant households with children had at least one worker in 2009. But their low education levels mean that more than half of these working immigrant households with children still accessed the welfare system during 2009.
If we exclude the primary refugee-sending countries, the share of immigrant households with children using at least one welfare program is still 57 percent.
Welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents. In 2009, 60 percent of households with children headed by an immigrant who arrived in 2000 or later used at least one welfare program; for households headed by immigrants who arrived before 2000 it was 55 percent.
For all households (those with and without children), the use rates were 37 percent for households headed by immigrants and 22 percent for those headed by natives.
Although most new legal immigrants are barred from using some welfare for the first five years, this provision has only a modest impact on household use rates because most immigrants have been in the United States for longer than five years; the ban only applies to some programs; some states provide welfare to new immigrants with their own money; by becoming citizens immigrants become eligible for all welfare programs; and perhaps most importantly, the U.S.-born children of immigrants (including those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically awarded American citizenship and are therefore eligible for all welfare programs at birth.
The eight major welfare programs examined in this report are SSI (Supplemental Security Income for low income elderly and disabled), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children food program), free/reduced school lunch, food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), Medicaid (health insurance for those with low incomes), public housing, and rent subsidies.

Introduction

Concern that immigrants may become a burden on society has been a long-standing issue in the United States. As far back as colonial times there were restrictions on the arrival of people who might become a burden on the community. This report analyzes survey data collected by the Census Bureau from 2002 to 2009 to examine use of welfare programs by immigrant and native households, particularly those with children. The Current Population Survey (CPS) asks respondents about their use of welfare programs in the year prior to the survey,¹ so we are examining self-reported welfare use rates from 2001 to 2009. The findings show that more than half of immigrant-headed households with children use at least one major welfare program, compared to about one-third of native-headed households. The primary reason immigrant households with children tend to have higher overall rates is their much higher use of food assistance programs and Medicaid; use of cash assistance and housing programs tends to be very similar to native households.

Why Study Immigrant Welfare Use?

Use of welfare programs by immigrants is important for two primary reasons. First, it is one measure of their impact on American society. If immigrants have high use rates it could be an indication that they are creating a net fiscal burden for the country. Welfare programs comprise a significant share of federal, and even state, expenditures. Total costs for the programs examined in this study were $517 billion in fiscal year 2008.² Moreover, those who receive welfare tend to pay little or no income tax. If use of welfare programs is considered a problem and if immigrant use of those programs is thought to be high, then it is an indication that immigration or immigrant policy needs to be a adjusted. Immigration policy is concerned with the number of immigrants allowed into the country and the selection criteria used for admission. It is also concerned with the level of resources devoted to controlling illegal immigration. Immigrant policy, on the other hand, is concerned with how we treat immigrants who are legally admitted to the country, such as welfare eligibility, citizenship requirements, and assimilation efforts.

The second reason to examine welfare use is that it can provide insight into how immigrants are doing in the United States. Accessing welfare programs can be seen as an indication that immigrants are having a difficult time in the United States. Or perhaps that some immigrants are assimilating into the welfare system. Thus, welfare use is both a good way of measuring immigration’s impact on American society and immigrants’ adaptation to life in the United States.

Read on if you dare by clicking here.

Rosa Parks on the Ten Dollar Bill?

Posted on June 17, 2015June 17, 2015 by Denise Simon

Redesigning the $10 Bill

From the Treasury Department: United States currency” and the images of great leaders and landmarks they depict has long been a way to honor our past and express our values. In 2013, we selected the $10 note for redesign based on a number of factors. The next generation of currency will revolve around the theme of democracy. The first note, the new $10, will feature a notable woman. In keeping with that theme, its important that you make your voice heard. Use #TheNew10 to tell us your ideas, symbols, designs or any other feedback that can inform the Secretary as he considers options for the $10 redesign.

***

A group called Women On 20s has urged President Barack Obama to replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with a woman. Organizers sent a petition to the White House last month calling for the change.

Respondents to their online poll chose Ms. Tubman for the slot.

Mr. Lew, however, said the $10 bill already was the next up for a redesign, making it the most practical vehicle for the symbolic portrait change.

From the Wall Street Journal:

The Treasury Department announced Wednesday it will include a woman on the redesigned $10 bill, which currently features the image of its own founder, Alexander Hamilton. Here’s some more details on the new bill:

Who’s going on the $10? The Treasury hasn’t decided. Ultimately, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew gets to make the call, but the department is asking Americans to submit their ideas on a website, thenew10.treasury.gov, or on Twitter with the hashtag #TheNew10. Mr. Lew will select a woman who is a “champion for our inclusive democracy,” the department said Wednesday. The selection will be announced later this year.

Are there any frontrunners? Candidates that have received some attention in a separate, grassroots campaign to put a woman on the paper currency include Eleanor Roosevelt, abolitionist Harriet Tubman, civil-rights icon Rosa Parks and suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

When will this happen? The Treasury Department says the redesigned $10 note will be unveiled in 2020, which is 100th anniversary of the 19th amendment that gave women the right to vote.

How often do they change the currency? American bills have undergone several redesigns beginning in the 1990s to prevent counterfeiting. The Treasury says it plans to redesign its currency every seven to 10 years. Changes to the portraits on the notes, however, are much more rare.

When was the last time we swapped out faces? The lineup of presidents and statesmen on the seven bills currently in circulation was selected in 1928, according to the Treasury Department.

Who makes these decisions? The Treasury secretary has final say over currency design, per an 1862 act of Congress. Several government agencies are involved in the process of security features on currency, including the U.S. Secret Service, the Federal Reserve Bank, and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

Are there any restrictions on who can go bills? By law, it can’t be a living person.

Why is it the $10 bill that’s getting changed? A redesign of the $10 bill was already in the works as part of an upgrade that will include tactile features on bills to assist the blind and visually impaired. Government agencies that oversee currency design and security recommended starting with the $10 bill in 2013, and outlined a timetable that could have the bill in circulation as early as 2020.

What happens to Alexander Hamilton? Mr. Lew said Wednesday that he’s looking at options to include Mr. Hamilton either on the redesigned $10 note or on a different bill, so it doesn’t appear that he’ll disappear entirely. Mr. Hamilton, a financier who served as the nation’s first Treasury secretary, was the architect of the early U.S. financial system. He’s also the only statesman on paper currency currently in production who wasn’t born in the U.S.

Why not dump Andrew Jackson instead? A grassroots campaign over the past year has lobbied President Barack Obama to put a woman on the $20 bill. But Mr. Jackson appears to be safe for now because the $10 note redesign was already in the works. Mr. Jackson, of course, was pretty far apart ideologically from Mr. Hamilton. The 7th U.S. president led a successful campaign to kill off the nation’s central bank and stridently argued against the dangers of a paper currency, which he said concentrated too much power in the hands of bankers. Until the 1928 redesign, Mr. Jackson had been on the $10 bill.

Has a woman been on the currency before? There’s the Sacagawea dollar, a golden coin that was first circulated in 2000 but that hasn’t been released since 2011 due to its low business use. And there have been other coins with women on them, such as the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin, which was minted from 1979-81 and again in 1999. But a woman hasn’t appeared on the paper currency since Martha Washington was on a $1 silver certificate in the late 1800s.

How many $10 notes are there? According to the Federal Reserve, there were 1.9 billion $10 bills circulating at the end of last year. In the current fiscal year, the government plans to print 627.2 million bills.

Will the old $10 bills still be money good? Yes. The Treasury doesn’t recall or devalue currency notes when they get redesigned.

Will we still be using paper money in 2020? Highly likely. Sorry, bitcoin.

Who’s on the paper currency today? There are seven bills in production today: George Washington on the $1 bill, Thomas Jefferson on the $2 bill, Abraham Lincoln on the $5 bill, Mr. Hamilton on the $10 bill, Mr. Jackson on the $20 bill, Ulysses S. Grant on the $50 bill, and Benjamin Franklin on the $100 bill.

There are other denominations that are no longer produced, including the $500 bill with William McKinley, the $1,000 bill with Grover Cleveland, the $5,000 bill with James Madison, the $10,000 bill with former Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, and the $100,000 currency note featuring Woodrow Wilson.