WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's health care law created a $5 billion fund to shore up coverage for early retirees, and some of that money is flowing to places you might not expect.
Two Texas public employee programs are among the top 25 recipients of the federal subsidy despite Texas Gov. Rick Perry's opposition to the law Republicans derisively call "Obamacare."
And records show the Huntsman family business, where GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman sharpened his executive skills, received about $1 million.
It highlights the gap between dire Republican rhetoric about the health care overhaul and the pragmatic impulse to cash in on a new government benefit.
Employer-sponsored health insurance for retirees has been shriveling for years, ever since companies were required to report the estimated liability to investors. Democrats who wrote the new law wanted to provide an incentive for employers to keep offering coverage. Only about 6 percent of private companies currently offer such a benefit for early retirees, according to the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute.
But that still works out to more than 400,000 companies. Add state and local government agencies, as well as union plans, and the number swells. Indeed, the Obama administration's subsidy program got so many applications it stopped accepting new ones after approving more than 6,000. The program pays 80 percent of the claims amount for early retirees ages 55 to 64 whose care costs between $15,000 and $90,000.
The top beneficiary: the United Auto Workers retiree medical plan, which has collected more than $220 million.
"Some people have described this program as 'Cash for Clunkers,' in the sense that if you want it, you have to get in line first," said Paul Fronstin, an economist with the research group. "There was a lot of advice given to be first in line." The original Cash for Clunkers was an Obama administration program that paid people to trade in gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient transportation. It created a marketing sensation before running out of cash.
Texas, it seems, heeded the advice. So did Huntsman International.
Source: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/article/20111103/NEWS01/111103013/1060/news01
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
My favorite holiday: Buy Nothing Day
Source: Adbusters
Dreading the holiday season? The frantic rush and stress? The to-do lists and sales hype? The spiritless hours trapped in malls?
This year, why not gather together your loved ones and decide to do things differently? With the simplest of plans you can create a new rhythm, purpose and meaning for the holidays. Why not take the spirit of Buy Nothing Day and morph it into Buy Nothing Christmas?
With catastrophic climate change looming, we the rich one billion people on the planet have to consume less! And if that's too extreme for grandma and the kids, try for a Buy Less Christmas. And maybe a buy local, buy fairer, buy indie Christmas. Whatever you decide, 'tis the season to reclaim our year-end celebrations and make them our own again.
Dreading the holiday season? The frantic rush and stress? The to-do lists and sales hype? The spiritless hours trapped in malls?
This year, why not gather together your loved ones and decide to do things differently? With the simplest of plans you can create a new rhythm, purpose and meaning for the holidays. Why not take the spirit of Buy Nothing Day and morph it into Buy Nothing Christmas?
With catastrophic climate change looming, we the rich one billion people on the planet have to consume less! And if that's too extreme for grandma and the kids, try for a Buy Less Christmas. And maybe a buy local, buy fairer, buy indie Christmas. Whatever you decide, 'tis the season to reclaim our year-end celebrations and make them our own again.
If you want to go one step further off the consumer treadmill, consider one of these actions from previous holiday seasons:
- Give your friends and family a "gift exemption" card
- Ask shoppers "What Would Jesus Buy?"
- Get some friends together (or go solo), dress as santa and meditate in the middle of a busy shopping mall
- Check out buynothingchristmas.org to check out more actions (or inactions) you can take this holiday season
 |
Sen. Tom Udall introduced a constitutional amendment on Tuesday. |
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court may treat corporations like people who can spend whatever they want on elections, but the American people don't have to accept it, said Democratic senators who proposed a constitutional amendment Tuesday to retake control of campaign spending.
The amendment, introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), doesn't directly address the justices' legal finding that corporations have a right to free speech that was curtailed by election law. Instead, it would add to the Constitution language that says Congress and the states can regulate campaign contributions and expenditures.
The amendment would effectively reverse two landmark Supreme Court decisions -- the 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, which said spending money in elections is a form of speech, and the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled it unconstitutional to regulate the money spent to influence elections by corporations and unions.
The Citizens United ruling has unleashed a flood of cash from corporations and super PACs, which can spend as much as they want and do so nearly in secret.
"Letting this go unchecked is a threat to our democracy. Campaigns should be about the best ideas, not the biggest checkbooks," Udall said at the press conference.
The amendment has three main focuses: to authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal political campaign contributions and expenditures (including independent expenditures), to allow states to regulate that raising and spending at their level, and to permit Congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation that could withstand constitutional challenges. It does not specify what the reforms should be.
Also at the press conference, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a co-sponsor of the proposed amendment, called the Buckley case "one of the worst decisions that the Supreme Court has rendered in the last hundred years" and described the Citizens United ruling as "Buckley on steroids."
A constitutional amendment could be a welcome proposal for the thousands of demonstrators involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, which holds a reversal of the Citizens United ruling as one of its oft-repeated demands.
"The extent to which money and corporations have taken over the [campaign] process is reflected across our cities in the Occupy movement," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), another co-sponsor. "It is something we have to do something about if we are going to reclaim American democracy as the shining light to other countries that it has always been."
The amendment faces a long, unlikely path even to win initial congressional approval. Senate Republicans last year opposed a Schumer measure, the Disclose Act, that would have just required more disclosure about campaign spenders.
Author:
Hayley Miller hayley.miller@huffingtonpost.com
The amendment, introduced by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), doesn't directly address the justices' legal finding that corporations have a right to free speech that was curtailed by election law. Instead, it would add to the Constitution language that says Congress and the states can regulate campaign contributions and expenditures.
The amendment would effectively reverse two landmark Supreme Court decisions -- the 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, which said spending money in elections is a form of speech, and the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled it unconstitutional to regulate the money spent to influence elections by corporations and unions.
The Citizens United ruling has unleashed a flood of cash from corporations and super PACs, which can spend as much as they want and do so nearly in secret.
"Letting this go unchecked is a threat to our democracy. Campaigns should be about the best ideas, not the biggest checkbooks," Udall said at the press conference.
The amendment has three main focuses: to authorize Congress to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal political campaign contributions and expenditures (including independent expenditures), to allow states to regulate that raising and spending at their level, and to permit Congress to pass campaign finance reform legislation that could withstand constitutional challenges. It does not specify what the reforms should be.
Also at the press conference, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a co-sponsor of the proposed amendment, called the Buckley case "one of the worst decisions that the Supreme Court has rendered in the last hundred years" and described the Citizens United ruling as "Buckley on steroids."
A constitutional amendment could be a welcome proposal for the thousands of demonstrators involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement, which holds a reversal of the Citizens United ruling as one of its oft-repeated demands.
"The extent to which money and corporations have taken over the [campaign] process is reflected across our cities in the Occupy movement," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), another co-sponsor. "It is something we have to do something about if we are going to reclaim American democracy as the shining light to other countries that it has always been."
The amendment faces a long, unlikely path even to win initial congressional approval. Senate Republicans last year opposed a Schumer measure, the Disclose Act, that would have just required more disclosure about campaign spenders.
Author:
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Monday, October 31, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)