Small business and Obama

July 24, 2012

Makes sense to me, so I’ll pass it along.

I get e-mail from the Obama campaign, from Stephanie Cutter:

Romney claims the President told entrepreneurs they didn’t build their own businesses — an attack the Washington Post called “ridiculous.” If you’ve seen the President’s actual remarks, you know that all the President said was that, together, Americans built the free enterprise system we all benefit from.

President Obama has consistently fought for small businesses and entrepreneurs — he knows the American middle class was built by hardworking people turning ideas into successful businesses. But if the Romney campaign wants a debate about who’ll step up to support small business, we’re ready.

Take a look at this video I recorded to respond to Romney’s distortion, and help make sure people know the truth about President Obama and small businesses:

It’s the Truth Team’s job to push back against smears like this.

President Obama’s record shows his commitment to helping small business owners. His tax plan will extend tax cuts for 97 percent of American small business owners — building on the 18 tax cuts he’s already signed that are helping small businesses grow and create jobs. Romney opposes the President’s plan, and supports a plan that would favor large corporations and give tax breaks to companies that ship American jobs overseas. Check out this blog post comparing the President’s record to Romney’s, then share it with others.

This isn’t the first time the Romney campaign has twisted the President’s words. It won’t be the last. But every time they do this, we need to call them out — and this time is no different.

Here’s the relevant excerpt from President Obama’s speech in Roanoke, Virginia, on July 13:

You may see President Obama’s entire speech on C-SPAN, here.


Obama a socialist? You’re kidding, of course . . . Milos Forman

July 24, 2012

Wrote movie director Milos Forman, for The New York Times:

Milos Forman, PBS image

Milos Forman, PBS image, American Masters

When I was asked to direct One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, my friends warned me not to go anywhere near it. The story is so American, they argued, that I, an immigrant fresh off the boat, could not do it justice. They were surprised when I explained why I wanted to make the film. To me it was not just literature but real life, the life I lived in Czechoslovakia from my birth in 1932 until 1968. The Communist Party was my Nurse Ratched, telling me what I could and could not do; what I was or was not allowed to say; where I was and was not allowed to go; even who I was and was not.

Now, years later, I hear the word “socialist” being tossed around by the likes of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. President Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, “Obamacare is socialism!” They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism.

. . . Whatever his faults, I don’t see much of a socialist in Mr. Obama or, thankfully, signs of that system in this great nation.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Fred Clark writing at Slacktivist.

More information:


Sen. Marco Rubio’s call for a mediocre America

July 19, 2012

As good ideas go, it’s difficult to top the idea of public broadcasting, and particularly Lyndon Johnson‘s creation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the subsequent formation of NPR and PBS, and the proliferation of public broadcasting stations across the U.S.

For a small pittance of money from public coffers, the nation gets the massive advantage of working news networks dedicated to informing the public accurately, and great cultural preservation, including education of the very young.

Big Bird, wikipedia image from PBS

Florida’s U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio wants to kill the Big Bird that lays the golden eggs for our kids. Big Bird doesn’t make rude comments in response.

For-profit broadcasting has been absolutely unable to equal quality programs on television like “Sesame Street,” or “Masterpiece Theatre,” or “American Masters,” or “American Experience.  For-profit radio has nothing to equal “Morning Edition,” “All Things Considered,” “Prairie Home Companion,” or even “Car Talk.”

You know some politician is playing to the yahoos and anti-civilization types when he takes a swipe at schools, libraries, or public  broadcasting.

So, we know Marco Rubio‘s questioning of funding for CPB is a swing for the foul territory, an appeal for ignorance, to ignorance and ignorants.  ABC News, a rival of both NPR and PBS, reported the story with all its ironic drippings:

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., expressed worry this morning about broadcasting outlets that use taxpayer money to stay on the air.

But Rubio made his comments on NPR, a broadcasting outlet that uses taxpayer money to stay on the air.

“I do have concerns about spending money on public broadcasting,” Rubio told Diane Rehm during an hourlong Q&A on NPR.

NPR has been a source of criticism from congressional Republicans who view it as a liberal refuge that espouses its views courtesy of public funding. Although only 2 percent of NPR’s funding comes from government grants, the loss of federal funding would undermine the ability of NPR stations to pay for NPR programming, NPR says.

Rubio argued that private donations should support such an enterprise as NPR, and that plenty of outlets are available to house that ideology and format. He admitted, though, that he enjoys Rehm’s show and that NPR’s funding is low on the list of costs that should be cut.

A caller pointed out the irony of Rubio’s position, saying, “He’s spending an entire hour on the show today.”

Rubio countered that a half-century ago, a station like NPR might have been necessary, but “today there is no shortage of options” for news and opinion.

“I have 300 stations on my satellite radio,” Rubio boasted.

300 stations on his satellite — which most Americans cannot afford — and not a single station equal to the worst of NPR’s network.

Shame on Marco Rubio.  Tighten your seatbelts, America, it’s going to be a bumpy election, with lots of appeals to ignorance and praise for doing less than the best.

Do you know where the word “yahoo” comes from?  Rubio is one of the epitomes.

Now, here’s the trouble:  Is he making this appeal in hopes of winning votes, in hopes of getting Mitt Romney’s attention for the vice president’s slot on the ticket?  Or is he really just that anti-quality, anti-American?  Bet he doesn’t like baseball or apple pie, either — we won’t even mention Mom.


We don’t spend enough on foreign aid; U.S. should spend more

July 18, 2012

All that bellyaching about Obama’s out of control spending?  Bunk.

All that ballyhoo about how the U.S. spends way too much on foreign aid?  Dangerous anti-American propaganda; we don’t spend enough.

For evidence, look at the Congressional Budget Office‘s non-partisan analysis of the State Department reauthorization act for the coming year, Fiscal 2013.  And please, get the facts before you start to complain.

H.R. 6018, Foreign Relations Reauthorization Act, Fiscal Year 2013

Page 1 of CBO’s analysis:

H.R. 6018 would authorize appropriations for the Department of State and related agencies, the Peace Corps, and international broadcasting activities. CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $15.8 billion over the 2013-2017 period, assuming appropriation of the specified and estimated amounts.

We’re talking actual outlays for the State Department, for all of our diplomatic efforts to prevent war, secure and strengthen peace, represent U.S. interests in trade and defense and culture, and manage the provision of about $37 billion in aid to other nations, of a total around $9.3 billion for FY 2013.  (See page 2)

That’s a pittance.

Even if we include the $37 billion in foreign aid payouts, that’s less than $50 billion a year to manage and maintain our vital relationships in the world.

You can get the country-by-country breakdown of foreign aid, from the horse’s mouth, at this site.

Less than 1% of our national budget goes to foreign aid.

Less than 1 penny of every dollar you pay in taxes, goes to foreign aid.

How much would be enough?  We could double foreign aid without any significant effect to the deficits, but with huge effects in good will and actual production of peace overseas.

Most people think a “fair” percentage of the budget to dedicate to foreign aid would be about 10%.

This is no time for austerity in federal spending.

What’s changed in this chart from 2010?  Not much:


Woody Guthrie’s 100th birthday

July 14, 2012

Woody Guthrie singing, Smithsonian Folkways image

Woody Guthrie singing, Smithsonian Folkways image – The sticker on Woody’s guitar reads, “This Machine Kills Fascists.”  Woody regarded music as a great tool of democracy and freedom.

July 14, 2012, marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Woody Guthrie, folksinger, union organizer, chronicler of American values, troubles and change.

We’re already more than halfway through Woody’s centennial year — and what celebration took place at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub?  History slips by so fast.

Much celebration remains.  Get out your calendar and figure out which events you can join in.

Poster for the 2012 Woody Guthrie Folk Festival in Okemah, Oklahoma

Poster for the 2012 Woody Guthrie Folk Festival in Okemah, Oklahoma

Wonderfully, a website celebrates Woody’s 100th:

Perhaps fittingly, Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub hits the road again, today — off through Oklahoma.

In the interim, get out there, get the history, and join in the chorus!

More, Other Sources:

Page from booklet of Woody Guthrie sheet music...

Page from booklet of Woody Guthrie sheet music and lyrics (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


High political theatre: Video of Republicans voting to repeal Obamacare, again, 32nd time

July 11, 2012

You almost can’t believe this is real.  Boehner is the guy with the mustache, isn’t he?


EU climate authority approved Britain’s plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions

July 11, 2012

It’s stunning to listen to radio, or read newspaper letters-to-the-editor sections in the U.S., and see people who argue we have no need to control carbon emissions.

Meanwhile, in Europe, the European Commission (EC) Climate Change Committee (CCC) approved Britain’s plan to auction pollution rights, part of the UK plan to control and limit carbon emissions.

You’d think we don’t share the same planet.

Here’s the news, from Britain’s Department of Environment and Climate Change:

EU Emissions Trading System: European Commission approves the UK’s national auction platform

Press Notice 2012/081

11 July 2012

Today the European Commission (EC) Climate Change Committee (CCC) voted to approve the UK’s national auction platform for phase III and aviation auctions under the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).

Welcoming this important vote, Greg Barker said:

“This announcement is a further step towards ensuring that we can start auctioning phase III and aviation allowances as planned. The endorsement by the EU Climate Change Committee reflects the strength of the UK’s proposal and continued leading role in carbon auctioning.”

The CCC endorsement is the latest step in the UK’s preparations for auctioning phase III and aviation allowances. Under EU rules, the Commission and Member States in the form of the CCC must first approve the platform. This will be followed by a three month scrutiny period by the European Council and Parliament. The UK expects auctioning to start in November 2012, subject to successful completion of this scrutiny process.

Following a decision by the CCC last year, Member States are due to start auctioning some 120m phase III emissions allowances early before the end of this year. The UK’s share of these allowances is 12m. Subject to EU approval, it is expected that these allowances will be auctioned in November and December this year. In addition, the UK is expected to auction approximately 7m aviation allowances by the end of 2012.

Auctions of these allowances will be held separately during the same period.

Further detailed information on the UK’s phase III and aviation auctions, including the proposed auction calendar and how to access the auctions, will follow in due course.


Notes to editors

  • The European Union Emission Trading System (EU ETS) is at the heart of UK Government policy to tackle climate change
  • The rules governing the system are set out in the EU ETS Directive; it covers sectors responsible for around half of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions
  • In 2008, the EU ETS Directive was revised to make auctioning the main method for allocating emissions allowances in Phase III of the EU ETS (2013-2020). In Phase III, at least 50% of general emissions allowances will be auctioned across the EU. In addition, EU member states will auction 15% of aviation allowances
  • Under the rules set out in the EU Auctioning Regulation, Member States have the option to either auction via a common EU platform, or set up their own, national platform. The UK, Germany and Poland have opted to set up national auction platforms.
  • In April DECC announced that ICE Futures Europe was its preferred supplier for the contract to conduct auctions of phase III and aviation EU ETS. This followed an EU-wide competitive tender process that launched in December 2011.
  • Before auctions can begin on the UK platform, the platform must first be approved by the Climate Change Committee and then be subject to a 3 month scrutiny period by the European Parliament and Council. These requirements are set out in the EU Auctioning Regulation.
  • Both Germany and the European Commission (auctioning on behalf of 24 Member States) have announced their intention to start auctioning after the summer.

Further information can be found on:


Crank history assault on Alabama Public Television

July 10, 2012

Highly disturbing news from the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Alabama Public Television Apparently Heading Far Right

Posted in Extremist Propaganda

by Mark Potok on June 18, 2012

Lord help us. Alabama Public Television (APT), a voice of reason in a state that often seems to have very little, is apparently succumbing to the crazies.

Last week, the two top executives of the network were summarily fired by the Alabama Educational Television Commission, APT’s governing body, after they resisted an effort by a new commissioner to air DVDs produced by a far-right theocrat who has been roundly condemned by historians. In the days that followed, three members of a foundation set up to raise money for APT also resigned.

The videos were produced by David Barton, an evangelical propagandist who claims falsely that America was founded as a Christian nation and has also become Glenn Beck’s unofficial — and completely untrained — “historian.” The DVDs were suggested by commissioner Rodney Herring, an Opelika-based chiropractor who was appointed to the panel last year and elected its secretary in January.

Immediately after meeting in executive session June 12, commissioners ordered APT Executive Director Allan Pizzato and his deputy, Pauline Howland, to clear out their desks and leave APT’s Birmingham headquarters. Pizzato had been APT executive director for 12 years; Howland was his deputy director and the network’s chief financial officer.

Pizzato would not comment on the reasons for the firing, other than to say commissioners were seeking to go in “a new direction.” But Howland, in an interview with Current.org, a news service of the American University’s School of Communication, said that Pizzato and his staff had “grave concerns” about airing the videos, which strongly advocate a religious interpretation of the past that historians say is simply wrong. She said she was “baffled” by the firings but recalled Pizatto asking his staff for advice on how to respond to Herring’s proposal.

Commission Chairman Ferris Stephens disputed Current’s report in an interview with The Associated Press, but gave no specifics. Herring, for his part, claimed that disagreement over the Barton DVDs played an “at best minimal” role in the firings, which he described as part of an overall restructuring effort. “We believe it to be a positive change,” wrote another commissioner, conservative talk radio host J. Holland, in response to AP’s queries about the firings. “Simple as that.”

As simple as that? Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I don’t believe it.

Stephens told the AP that Barton’s videos had been discussed in the last meeting before the one that produced the firings last week. He said there was another item related to Barton’s organization, WallBuilders, on the agenda for last week’s meeting, but that the commission didn’t get to that item before adjourning. Herring, for his part, denied knowing that Pizzato and Howland had any opinion at all about the DVDs, although Howland told Current that Pizzato had made it clear that he thought the films were “inappropriate” for APT.

Why is it that Pizzato and Howland were fired just as the matter seemed to be coming to a head? Why won’t Stephens and the other commissioners cough up the real reason for the firings, if it wasn’t what seems obvious? When the AP story ran last week, Herring was quoted saying the station may indeed broadcast some of the Barton videos. In fact, he said the commission had consulted attorneys about that possibility. That’s a funny thing to do if you’re just deciding whether to show a film on public television, not making controversial personnel decisions.

The sad truth is, this kind of extremism is getting to be par for the course in Alabama. We passed the immigrant-bashing H.B. 56 and, when legal problems with it came up, our legislators responded by actually making the draconian bill even worse. Last month, the same legislature, after the John Birch Society warned hysterically about a United Nations global sustainability plan, actually passed a law saying that property here cannot be confiscated as part of Agenda 21 — even though that entirely voluntary plan does not and could not require that. One of our current congressmen even claimed a few years back that he knew of 17 “socialists” in the U.S. Congress — although, like Joe McCarthy, he declined to name them.

Why does Rodney Herring want to show Barton’s videos? He isn’t saying. But what Barton has to say should make Alabamians’ hair stand on end.

Barton doesn’t only not believe in global warming — he thinks reducing carbon dioxide emissions would actually devastate the planet. Barton fought to have the names of Martin Luther King Jr. and labor activist Cesar Chavez removed from public school textbooks. He says God set the borders of nations, so immigration reform is unnecessary. He argues that homosexuality should be regulated because gay people “die decades earlier than heterosexuals” and more than half of all gays have had more than 500 sex partners — both falsehoods.

It isn’t only liberals who dislike Barton. Derek Davis, director of the J.M. Dawson Institute on Church-State Studies at Baylor University, says “a lot of what he presents is a distortion of the truth.” J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee, says his writings are “laced with exaggerations, half-truths and misstatements of fact.” Mark Lilla, a scholar who has taught at University of Chicago and Columbia University, says Barton’s work is “schlock history written by [a] religious propagandist” and uses “selective quotations out of context.”

But none of this apparently came up when the commissioners, in their great wisdom, decided to fire Allan Pizzato and Pauline Howland. Instead, it looks like Barton’s backers succeeded, by a reported 5-2 vote, in silencing their own eminently sensible executives, and then refusing to come clean with the public about their action.

Once again, Alabama will be the poorer. Lord help us.

Supporters of Alabama Public Television set up a website to provide information on the fight to save APT.

David Barton is, of course, the voodoo history promoter from Texas, former vice-chairman of the Texas Republican Party who led the party into a variety of anti-education policies.  Barton’s organization to spread his bogus history claims is Wallbuilders.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Ellie.

More:


Mitt’s economic policy: Hair of the dog

July 7, 2012

As is often the case, Ben Sargent makes vague things crystal clear, in this case, Romney’s economic program:

Ben Sargent in the Austin American-Statesman, Romney's economic hair of the dog

Ben Sargent, in the Austin American-Statesman, May 17, 2012


Voter ID follies in Pennsylvania

July 6, 2012

Quick tally is done; the voter fraud count shows Republicans would steal 750,000 votes from citizens in Pennsylvania with their voter ID scheme.

ThinkProgress has the story.

Reread our earlier story about the woman who marched with Martin Luther King, Jr., 51 years ago to secure the right to vote for all Americans — but would be deprived of that right under the current law.

Sacrificing 750,000 Americans to stop a dozen cases of ID fraud.  Voter ID laws don’t even touch 90% of voter fraud, ID can’t prevent it.  This is lunacy.

Worse than lunacy:  Pennsylvania’s voter ID law is evil.

Pray for success of the ACLU challenge to this miscarriage of justice.


Student loans, and why and how your voice matters

July 6, 2012

I get e-mail from the White House from time to time (you can, too) (some links added):

The White House, Washington

Good afternoon —

It’s July, and because Congress finally took action, 7.4 million students no longer have to worry about the interest rates on their Stafford loans doubling.

That’s great news, but it was far from certain. Just a few weeks ago, it wasn’t clear that it would happen.

We got this done because of you.

Americans like you spoke up on this issue. You took to Twitter and Facebook. You sent emails and talked to your friends and neighbors. And in the end, your voices made all the difference.

Last week, we sat down with a group of students who were watching this fight closely — because the choice that Congress made would have an impact on each of them. They talked about what this legislation means, and why it was so important to speak out on this issue.

What they had to say was a powerful reminder of how everyday Americans can make their voices resonate in Washington — and it’s the kind of thing that can get you fired up for the fights ahead. Check it out:

Watch the video

Last year, when you spoke out on extending the payroll tax cut, you changed the debate. We saw the exact same thing last week with the fight for student loans.

These were both huge victories for the American middle class that couldn’t have happened without you.

And it’s exactly the kind of effort we’ll need in the weeks and months ahead.

We’re working to make it easier for responsible homeowners to refinance their mortgages. We’re pushing Congress to take action to create jobs and get our economy back on track. We’re working to reward businesses that create jobs here in America instead of the companies that ship jobs overseas.

And we need your voices in every single one of those fights.

We’ll be in touch with more ways you can stand with President Obama to move our country forward. But for now, check out this video to remind yourself of the power you have:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/why-your-voice-matters

Thank you,

David

David Plouffe
Senior Advisor to the President

P.S. — If you’re a homeowner struggling to refinance your home, we want to hear from you. Learn about the President’s plan to help responsible homeowners refinance and share your story:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/refi


Taj Clayton, running . . . er, ran for you

July 6, 2012

Utah Policy Daily tagged this ad for Taj Clayton’s campaign as a “prime example” of good political campaigning.

As of this minute, it’s got just under 33,000 hits.

That’s the good news.

Bad news?  The “rest of the story is that Clayton lost the primary, to incumbent Eddie Bernice Johnson, who will probably coast to victory in the general election in November (is there even a Republican in the race?).

After redistricting, we live and vote in Johnson’s district, Texas District 30.  Johnson won a three-way race, pulling in more than 50% of the total vote against Clayton and local political activist Barbara Mallory Callaway.  Clayton had a lot of signs up.  I got personal calls from his campaign early on, as opposed to the annoying robo-calls we got from Johnson in the last couple of days before the primary.  Incumbency is tough to beat, and even a great campaign ad won’t do it.

Where was Taj when we were in the 24th District, and we needed a good Democrat to beat Kenny Marchant?

It is a good advertisement.  Voters would probably like to see a lot more like it, to explain to them who the candidates are, and what the issues in the election are.  Ads of this type live in the endangered species zone, when attack ads and negative advertising carry so much clout.

Too bad.

More:


Patriot talk: Why conservatives fear Van Jones

July 4, 2012

Listen to him:  This is why conservatives fear Van Jones.  He speaks clearly, simply, and he’s right.

Are you a patriot?

“Who is fighting harder for liberty and justice for all than the progressives? We’re the ones fighting for that. Who is fighting, not just singing ‘America the Beautiful,’ who is defending America’s beauty from the oil spillers, from the clear cutters, from the mountain-top removers. That’s progressives. Who is honoring the Statue of Liberty when the statue says ‘Give me your tired, give me your poor, give me your huddled masses.’ You can’t be an anti-immigrant bigot and a patriot at the same time. Who are these people to claim that they’re patriots and we are not?”  (From The War Room, on Current)


America is not the greatest country in the world anymore — but we could be . . .

July 3, 2012

At some small risk of sacrificing the G rating of this blog, I offer this little scene from HBO’s “Newsroom,” a program I can’t see because our cable company is not customer-oriented (but we take it for the bundled internet package).  From this small snippet, I would say HBO is again showing how a cable program aimed at adult minds can achieve high quality, if not greatness.  Aaron Sorkin created and writes the thing, and Jeff Daniels stars as the television news guy.  This scene will give every patriotic American something to think about.

Something to think about, sure.

It’s not a question, or should not be a question, of whether one “believes in” American exceptionalism.  It is a question of whether we understand that what makes America exceptional is the people who work to make things better, the people who work to make change — and that exceptionalism slips from our mantle, and from our grasp, if we don’t work to keep it.

I’m also reminded of the two posters somebody put out that showed up in every speech department in every college in America when I was a speech graduate student.  They were based loosely on Plutarch‘s Lives, the book comparing biographies of great Romans and great Greeks, and the section that compared the two great orators, the later Roman, Cicero and the earlier Greek, Demosthenes.

One poster said, “When Cicero spoke, the people said how well he spoke.”

The second said, “When Demosthenes spoke, the people said ‘Let us march!‘”

Are you ready to march?  November’s election day comes sooner than we anticipate.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Jim Stanley.

More, and Resources:


Fact vs. Fiction on the Affordable Care Act (Sen. Leahy)

July 2, 2012

From the good offices of Vermont’s Sen. Pat Leahy (a few links added):

Fact vs. Fiction

It is disappointing that inaccurate and purposely misleading information regarding health care reform continues to be widely circulated. Throughout the past two years during the lengthy debate on Health Care Reform, Senator Leahy has continued to post updated information regarding the various health care legislative proposals being debated, including the full text of proposals, questions asked by directly by Vermonters, and daily updates on floor proceedings in the Senate in an effort to provide Vermonters with accurate and timely information on the health care reform debate.

Below are some of the most common myths regarding the Affordable Care Act with accurate information dispelling those myths and providing information about where to learn more.

To review some of the most commonly questions by Vermonters please also visit the Frequently Asked Questions page on this website.

To test your knowledge about what is actually included in the health care reform law visit the Kaiser Family Foundation website and take their Affordable Care Act quiz.

Fact vs. Fiction

  • Fiction

    If you don’t buy health insurance, you will be sent to jail.

  • Fact

    Taxpayers who are required to purchase health insurance and do not will receive a notice from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with the amount of the penalty they owe. Individuals who fail to pay the penalty are not subject to criminal prosecutions and the government cannot file notice of lien or levy any property for a taxpayer who doesn’t pay the penalty.

    The obligation for individuals to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014 was included as part of the Affordable Care Act.  The provision requires individuals to maintain minimum essential coverage for themselves and their dependents or pay a penalty of $95 in 2014. Families would pay half the amount for children, and the requirement includes a cap on the total allowable fine per family. If affordable health insurance coverage is not available to an individual, then the penalty would be waived.  Along with the individual responsibility requirement, the Affordable Care Act also provides subsidies to some individuals beginning in 2014 to help pay for their health insurance premiums and other costs associated with their health insurance.

    Taxpayers who are required to pay a fine but fail to do so will receive a notice from Internal Revenue Service (IRS). If an individual still neglects to pay the fine, the IRS can attempt to collect the funds by reducing the amount of their tax refund in the future.  Individuals who fail to pay the penalty, however, will not be subject to criminal prosecution. The government cannot file notice of lien or levy on any property for a taxpayer who does not pay the penalty.

    The aim of this provision is to encourage all Americans to obtain health insurance, which will result in lower health care costs for everyone. The Affordable Care Act relies on the shared responsibility of individuals, employers, states and the federal government.

    For additional information regarding the individual responsibility requirement please visit the Kaiser Family Foundation website.


  • Fiction

    Members of Congress are exempt from the health care reform law.

  • Fact

    No one has received a special exemption from the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the health care reform law explicitly includes language regarding the health insurance plans for Members of Congress and their staff.

    As a United States Senator, Senator Leahy’s health plan options are the same options offered to all federal employees.  Included in the Affordable Care Act, was a provision that requires that “the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and Congressional staff shall be health plans that are created under this Act or offered through an Exchange established under this Act.”  Members of Congress and their staffs can only purchase health insurance coverage from the health insurance exchanges that are made available for uninsured Americans. The full text of this provision is available on pages 80-81 in section 1312 of the Affordable Care Act which you can read here.


  • Fiction

    Health care reform will jeopardize Medicare and will mean cuts in services and benefits for seniors.

  • Fact

    Health care reform will help strengthen Medicare so that seniors can continue to receive quality health coverage for years to come.

    The Affordable Care Act explicitly states that no benefits guaranteed under Medicare will be cut as a result of health care reform legislation.  Today’s forecasts estimate that Medicare will be insolvent by 2017 because of ever-rising health care costs.  The Affordable Care Act takes aim at that unfolding threat by addressing cost inefficiencies now, instead of waiting until later.  The Affordable Care Act strengthens the financial stability of Medicare by targeting fraud and ending wasteful overpayments to insurance companies, while maintaining the benefits and services to seniors who use Medicare.  The Act also helps Medicare users by offering prescription drug discounts to seniors who are trapped in the “donut hole,” by creating a better pathway for generic drugs to enter the marketplace, by eliminating the cost-share for preventative services, and by promoting coordinated care to prevent avoidable hospital readmissions.

    For more information about what the health care reform law means for Medicare beneficiaries read Medicare and the New Health Law -What it Means for You prepared by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

    • Beginning January 1, 2011, Medicare beneficiaries entering the Medicare donut hole will get a 50% discount on brand name prescription drugs. Click here to learn more about this provision.

  • Fiction

    The health care reform law includes a tax on all real estate sales.

  • Fact

    Under the Affordable Care Act, only certain real estate transactions for certain individuals above a particular income level would be subject to a Medicare Tax.

    Unfortunately, much of the information widely circulated about a tax on home sales and other real estate transactions inaccurately describes the purpose and the effect of this provision. The 3.8 percent Medicare tax is often misunderstood, and has frequently been described as a 3.8 percent “sales tax” on all real estate transactions, which is inaccurate.

    The provision that establishes this tax can be found on page 946, Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act.  This tax is often referred to as the “Medicare tax,” because it was designed to raise funds for Medicare. The Medicare tax goes into effect after December 30, 2012.

    The Medicare tax is not a tax on all new home sales; it only applies to the profit that certain high income Americans make from the sale of their home.  The groups that may be affected by this provision are individuals with annual incomes over $200,000 and married couples with a joint income of over $250,000. The only home sellers who will be affected by this provision are those who fit the above description, and who sell their home for a profit of more than $250,000. The tax will not apply to the first $250,000 in profits for the individual selling his or her home or to the first $500,000 in profits for a married couple.

    While undoubtedly some home sales will see a tax increase under this provision, the tax will affect only a small percentage of home sales.  A report released by the Tax Foundation on April 15, 2010 predicts that the new tax on investment income (including real estate) will affect only the top-earning 2 percent of American families.

    The full text of the Affordable Care Act is available on the health care reform page of this website.


  • Fiction

    Health care reform will hurt small businesses.

  • Fact

    The Affordable Care Act will help small businesses, many of which are struggling now to even afford health plans for their employees.

    Small businesses are a vital engine of Vermont’s economy. Unfortunately, rising health care costs are hitting small businesses especially hard, putting them at an even greater disadvantage against larger corporations. The Affordable Care Act will help level the playing field and give affordable options to small businesses that wish to offer insurance to their workers.

    For example, the Affordable Care Act:

    • Provides tax credits to small businesses to help them offer health insurance to their employees;
    • Requires insurance companies to provide free preventative care so businesses do not suffer productivity costs because of sick employees;
    • End the “hidden insurance tax” that has prevented small businesses from being able to afford to offer insurance to their employees.  This hidden tax is built in to the premiums for insurance to compensate for the unpaid care given to the uninsured.  Health reform will help get Americans health insurance and will end the inflated premium costs.  And investments to lower health care costs overall will help spur the economy, enabling more businesses to thrive;

    For more information regarding how health care reform efforts will help small businesses please visit the Implementation Center on this website as well as the Small Business Administration website and the Small Business Majority website for additional resources.


  • Fiction

    The Affordable Care Act provides subsidies for illegal immigrants to receive health insurance.

  • Fact

    The Affordable Care Act explicitly defines who is eligible for federal payments, credits or subsidies for health insurance coverage and makes clear that undocumented immigrants are ineligible.

    Some have expressed concerned that undocumented immigrants will have the ability to receive subsidies for health insurance under the reform proposals in Congress.  Senator Leahy does not support using government funding to subsidize insurance for those who have entered the United States illegally or who are residing in the United States in an undocumented status. The full text of the law clearly defines who is eligible for federal payments, credits or subsidies.

    The relevant statutory language is below:

    Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
    Subtitle D—Available Coverage Choices for All Americans
    PART II–Consumer Choices and Insurance Competition Through Health Benefit Exchanges

    • Section 1312 (f)(3) makes clear that undocumented immigrants are ineligible to participate in the health insurance exchanges: “ACCESS LIMITED TO LAWFUL RESIDENTS- If an individual is not, or is not reasonably expected to be for the entire period for which enrollment is sought, a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States, the individual shall not be treated as a qualified individual and may not be covered under a qualified health plan in the individual market that is offered through an Exchange.”

    Subtitle E—Affordable Coverage Choices for All Americans
    PART I—PREMIUM TAX CREDITS AND COST SHARING REDUCTIONS
    Subpart B—Eligibility Determinations

    • Section 1412(d) unambiguously states “NO FEDERAL PAYMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS NOT LAWFULLY PRESENT.—Nothing in this subtitle or the amendments made by this subtitle allows Federal payments, credits, or cost-sharing reductions for individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

    The Act also establishes a fair process to accurately verify eligibility for participation in the benefits of health insurance reform that does not place unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles for U.S. Citizens nor undue administrative costs on the government.

    Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Subtitle E—Affordable Coverage Choices for All Americans
    PART I—PREMIUM TAX CREDITS AND COST SHARING REDUCTIONS
    Subpart B—Eligibility Determinations

    • Section 1411(a) required that the Secretary of Health and Human Services “shall establish a program . . . for determining . . . whether an individual who is to be covered in the individual market by a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange, or who is claiming a premium tax credit or reduced cost-sharing [is] a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States.”
    • Section 1411(b) requires applicants for enrollment in a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange in the individual market to provide “name, address, and date of birth.”  For those individuals claiming eligibility based on an attestation of citizenship, they must provide their social security number.  For those individuals whose eligibility is based on an attestation of their immigration status, they must provide “the enrollee’s social security number (if applicable) and such identifying information with respect to the enrollee’s immigration status as the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, determines appropriate.”

    Senator Leahy has also heard from Vermonters with small businesses who employ seasonal workers and their concern about the requirement that employers purchase health insurance for their employees.

    The Act exempts small businesses from the employer mandate to provide health insurance for employees, and employers are not subject to penalties if they employ 50 or fewer employees.  Seasonal workers do not count towards the 50 employee threshold.  And for those employers subject to the penalty, they are only responsible for providing health insurance for full-time employees.

    Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
    Subtitle F—Shared Responsibility for Health Care
    PART II—EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES
    Section 1513—Shared Responsibility For Employers

    • Section 1513(a) states:

    (B) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYERS-

    (i) IN GENERAL- An employer shall not be considered to employ more than 50 full-time employees if—

    (I) the employer’s workforce exceeds 50 full-time employees for 120 days or fewer during the calendar year, and

    (II) the employees in excess of 50 employed during such 120-day period were seasonal workers.

    (ii) DEFINITION OF SEASONAL WORKERS—The term `seasonal worker’ means a worker who performs labor or services on a seasonal basis as defined by the Secretary of Labor, including workers covered by section 500.20(s)(1) of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations and retail workers employed exclusively during holiday seasons.”


  • Fiction

    Health care reform will lead to rationing of health care

  • Fact

    Health care reform is aimed at increasing the options for Americans, not limiting them.

    Unfortunately, prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act rationing of health care happened all too often. Insurance companies decided whether or not beneficiaries could have a certain test or procedures, based not on medical necessity, but on the insurance plan and whether the test is affordable. This rationing left millions of Americans without adequate care or coverage and is taking away the decision making from patients and their doctors, putting those decisions instead in the hands of insurance company bureaucrats.

    The Affordable Care Act is intended to improve the ability of patients to receive the care they need by setting ground rules for insurance companies to follow.  No longer will insurance companies be allowed to deny coverage for preexisting medical conditions or to discriminate against consumers because of their gender. No longer will insurance companies be allowed to revoke insurance coverage from a patient who has been ill and deemed too sick for coverage. The government will have no role in telling patients what tests they can and cannot have. In fact, for the first time, the Affordable Care Act prohibits insurance companies from limiting choice of doctors.  The Affordable Care Act guarantees your right to choose a primary care doctor from any available participating provider, designate any available participating pediatrician as your child’s primary care provider, and prohibits insurers or employer-sponsored plans from requiring a referral for obstetrical or gynecological (OB-GYN) care. Additionally, the Affordable Care Act prohibits health insurers and plans from restricting access to and charging patients more for out-of-network emergency care.

    Health care reform is about improving choice for all Americans.


  • Fiction

    The health care reform law will force individuals to pay taxes on their health benefits.

  • Fact

    Health benefits will not be taxed under the Affordable Care Act, even though the value of your health insurance will be included on your W-2 form.

    Title IX of the Affordable Care Act, Section 9002 on page 800 states that beginning in the tax year 2011, employers are required to report the value of the health insurance coverage they provide employees on each employee’s annual W-2 Form so that employees can be informed consumers and know the full cost of their plan. The amount reported does not affect tax liability and the value of the employer contribution to health coverage will continue to be excludible from an employee’s income and is not taxable.

    Updates and guidance will be posted regularly on the IRS website regarding all tax provisions included in the Affordable Care Act.


  • Fiction

    The government will encourage or force seniors to choose euthanasia as an end-of-life option.

  • Fact

    This has been shown over and over again to be another false rumor.  Nothing in the Affordable Care Act requires that seniors participate in consultations about their end-of-life wishes.

    Unfortunately, this rumor has been spreading fast and is worrying many Vermonters and Americans across the country. Nothing in the Affordable Care Act will force seniors to have consultations regarding their end-of-life choices, or have a consultation to discuss suicide.

    Currently, voluntary end-of-life planning is covered as a part of the “Welcome to Medicare” doctor visits available to seniors with in the first year of joining the program.   The Affordable Care Act authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physician exams, or wellness visits for beneficiaries. Specifically, section 4103 of the Affordable Care Act provides coverage under Medicare, with no copayments or deductible, for an annual wellness visit and personalized prevention plan services.  Often times patients are not given the time to ask important questions about options available to them such as hospice, or home care, or additional services available to seniors.  This provision would simply give seniors the choice to have a discussion during their wellness visit, about the topics of their choosing, with their doctor. It empowers seniors to have conversations about living wills and other questions they might have but do not have the opportunity to ask.  In no way does the law mandate these conversations or tell doctors what options to discuss.  If seniors do not wish to have these discussions with their doctors and families, nothing will force them to.