In Saturday's weekly GOP address, Maryland Republican Rep. Andy Harris vowed his party will keep up the fight, discussing a report by the House Energy and Commerce Committee that detailed how insurance premiums will increase for many people under Obamacare, not lower them as promised.
“According to new data from the nation’s insurers, under ObamaCare, premiums in the individual market will skyrocket by an average of double what we pay now, with some rates rising by more than 400 percent," said Harris. The report said people in about 45 states may see premiums jump by about 100 percent, according to statistics from 17 insurance companies.
In addition to the higher premiums, Harris Saturday claimed Obamacare will be mismanaged by the Internal Revenue Service, The Hill reports.
The IRS has confirmed that it gave conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status extra scrutiny, and Republicans are trying to determine if the Obama administration was involved in the scandal.
“Now, just think about the fact that it’s the IRS that will be responsible for enforcing many of these regulations,” Harris said. “If we’ve learned anything this week, it’s that the IRS needs less power, not more.”
In addition, it was learned this past week that Sarah Hall Ingram, who was named as the director of the Affordable Care Act's office in the IRS, had been in charge of the office in the IRS that works on applications from tax-exempt groups. Harris said that Ingram's involvement also casts a shadow over Obamacare.
Ingram was in charge of the tax-exempt division from 2009 to 2012, overlapping with the time when targeting first began. She began overseeing the health law implementation in December 2010, six months before her subordinate found out about the profiling.
Her successor in the tax-exempt division, Joseph Grant, said he plans to retire on June 3, just as Congressional hearings are getting under way, and earlier this week, the fallout over the IRS scandal lead to the ouster of acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller.
But the Ingram connection is shaping up to be a key part of the Republicans' fight to repeal Obamacare.
"As a matter of fact, it turns out that the IRS official who oversaw the operation that’s under scrutiny for targeting conservatives is now in charge of the IRS’s Obamacare office,” said Harris. “You can’t make this stuff up.”
Lawyer confirms she asked planted question that broke open IRS scandal
ReplyDeleteThe first revelation that the IRS was targeting Tea Party groups came in a planted question during a lawyers’ conference earlier this month, the attorney who asked the question confirmed Saturday with Fox News.
The inspector general report on the IRS targeting Tea Party groups and other conservative-leaning political organizations applying for tax-exempt status was complete, so the agency had the question added to the conference’s Q&A session as part of prepared strategy to start getting out the bad news, outgoing IRS Commissioner Steven Miller said Friday before the House Ways and Means Committee.
On Saturday, Celia Roady -- the lawyer who asked the question of IRS official Lois Lerner at the May 10 American Bar Association conference -- issues the following statement to Fox:
“On May 9, I received a call from Lois Lerner, who told me that she wanted to address an issue after her prepared remarks … and asked if I would pose a question to her after her remarks. I agreed to do so.…We had no discussion thereafter on the topic of the question, nor had we spoken about any of this before I received her call. She did not tell me, and I did not know, how she would answer the question.”
In June 2010, Lerner, in charge of overseeing tax-exempt organizations, learned of the flagging and ordered the criteria to be changed right away, the inspector general said. The new guidance was more generic and stripped of any explicit partisan freight. But it did not last.
In January 2012, the screening was modified again, this time to watch for references to the Constitution or Bill of Rights, and for "political action type organizations involved in limiting-expanding government."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/18/lawyer-confirms-asked-planted-question-that-broke-open-irs-scandal/?intcmp=trending
quote:
ReplyDeleteMiller - "I have to refer to my notes for that, sir" "So, you have notes on that call?" Miller "I don't know."
re: IRS Acting Director Miller Live Testimony (Posted on 5/17/13 at 10:17 am to Bard)
I don't believe there is an obligation for me to report anything to Congress. But I will have to check.
re: IRS Acting Director Miller Live Testimony (Posted on 5/17/13 at 10:31 am to Politiceaux)
He doesn't think the former commissioner of exempt groups, who he promoted to commissioner of Obamacare implementation, would have any reason to know of what her inferiors were doing.
The same threat was made to conservative groups that might dare play in the election. As early as January 2010, Mr. Obama would, in his state of the union address, cast aspersions on the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, claiming that it "reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests" (read conservative groups).
ReplyDeleteThe president derided "tea baggers." Vice President Joe Biden compared them to "terrorists." In more than a dozen speeches Mr. Obama raised the specter that these groups represented nefarious interests that were perverting elections. "Nobody knows who's paying for these ads," he warned. "We don't know where this money is coming from," he intoned.
In case the IRS missed his point, he raised the threat of illegality: "All around this country there are groups with harmless-sounding names like Americans for Prosperity, who are running millions of dollars of ads against Democratic candidates . . . And they don't have to say who exactly the Americans for Prosperity are. You don't know if it's a foreign-controlled corporation."
Short of directly asking federal agencies to investigate these groups, this is as close as it gets. Especially as top congressional Democrats were putting in their own versions of phone calls, sending letters to the IRS that accused it of having "failed to address" the "problem" of groups that were "improperly engaged" in campaigns. Because guess who controls that "independent" agency's budget?
The IRS is easy to demonize, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It got its heading from a president, and his party, who did in fact send it orders—openly, for the world to see. In his Tuesday press grilling, no question agitated White House Press Secretary Jay Carney more than the one that got to the heart of the matter: Given the president's "animosity" toward Citizens United, might he have "appreciated or wanted the IRS to be looking and scrutinizing those . . ." Mr. Carney cut off the reporter with "That's a preposterous assertion."
Preposterous because, according to Mr. Obama, he is "outraged" and "angry" that the IRS looked into the very groups and individuals that he spent years claiming were shady, undemocratic, even lawbreaking. After all, he expects the IRS to "operate with absolute integrity." Even when he does not.
Write to kim@wsj.com.
A version of this article appeared May 17, 2013, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The IRS Scandal Started at the Top.
So what, as Hillary says, who cares.
ReplyDeleteThe PPACA will move forward.
Another fishing expedition of the Obama administration?.....
ReplyDeleteIRS sued for seizing 60 million medical records
A healthcare provider has sued the Internal Revenue Service and 15 of its agents, charging they wrongfully seized 60 million medical records from 10 million Americans.
The name of the provider is not yet known, United Press International said. But Courthouse News Service said the suit claims the agency violated the Fourth Amendment in 2011, when agents executed a search warrant for financial data on one employee – and that led to the seizure of information on 10 million, including state judges.
The search warrant did not specify that the IRS could take medical information, UPI said. And information technology officials warned the IRS about the potential to violate medical privacy laws before agents executed the warrant, the complaint said, as reported by UPI.
“Despite knowing that these medical records were not within the scope of the warrant, defendants threatened to ‘rip’ the servers containing the medical data out of the building if IT personnel would not voluntarily hand them over,” the complaint states, UPI reported.
The suit also says IRS agents seized workers’ phones and telephone data – more violations of the warrant, UPI reported.
The complaint alleges the IRS was “invasive and unlawful” and stole access to intimate medical records that included patients’ treatment plans and therapies, UPI said.
The suit seeks $25,000 in compensatory damages, per violation. The records’ seizure could impact up to one in 25 Americans, UPI said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/17/irs-sued-seizing-60-million-medical-records/
Wow! Lots of good information to consider here.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't get, the chilling, McCarthy-like actions aside, is why the administration would bring up someone who was in charge of that IRS division to take charge of the Obamacare responsibilities? Even if she wasn't involved in that mess, it just appears to be an insanely stupid decision, no?
ReplyDeleteJean
Agreed. It seems to make the administration's case worse. But, in D.C., nothing is what it seems. Real motives are seldom seen.
DeleteDOJ Targeting Of Fox News Reporter James Rosen Risks Criminalizing Journalism
ReplyDeletePosted: 05/20/2013 3:28 pm EDT | Updated: 05/20/2013 7:09 pm EDT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/20/doj-fox-news-james-rosen_n_3307422.html
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration’s Justice Department has moved beyond investigating and prosecuting leaks at an unprecedented level to claiming in court documents that committing a standard act of journalism may itself be criminal.
In 2010, FBI agent Reginald Reyes described a reporter, recently identified as Fox News' chief Washington correspondent James Rosen, as possibly being an “aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator” in the leaking of classified information. Reyes made that argument in his request for a warrant for Rosen’s personal email account as part of a leak investigation.
This is not the same story, but it's an interesting read http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/14/1208990/-GOP-helped-kill-legislation-sponsored-by-Obama-that-would-have-protected-AP
DeleteI have to admit, there is a touch of irony that Fox is outraged when minions of Murdoch were hacking the phones of countless people. Regardless, the link from dailykos makes a salient point in that story, Obama co sponsored the legislation, but didn't vote on it. Issa, of course, voted against it. What would be refreshing to me would be to see a genuine desire arise for objective information to be made public no matter who is POTUS. This is not a story without merit, but it's just the latest thing for you all to latch on to in desperate hopes to find something to impeach Obama with.
Max,
DeleteI read the article. Honestly, not all that much there. Politicians saying one thing and doing another seems to be so common, I think we could all do with a little less sanctimony and umbrage, false or not. As I posted below, I don't think anything just yet merits impeachment hearings. That's a bit drastic, and even with our inglorious leader, that could be bad for the country, don't you think? However, in my view, 'bad for the country' would rank below rule of law if any of this trash fishing lands something vile enough to start the process.
That Murdoch thing? I might be wrong, but hihghly placed individuals either resigned or lsot their jobs, and the hacking was related to some British gossip rag, wasn't it? It just so happened Murdoch's conglomerate also owns FOX.
There. No sentences ending in ',no?' or ',yes?'. I hope you appreciate that.
Jean
And that's just it. Nothing YET merits impeachment, but if we keep throwing shit against the wall, we will eventually catch them in a double speak, and when we find a soiled dress, it will ALL have been worthwhile. THAT, is the thinking driving this and it's what annoys me so much. It speaks to me of a bitterness so freaking deep that nothing short of an impeachment will eventually be satisfactory.
DeleteB. Hussein Obama won the election not once, but twice as did George Bush; it's time to move on. While I genuinely appreciate your personal view that an impeachment is not good for the country, I don't for a second believe that the majority of right leaning people could give a rats ass about what's best for the country as long as their political objectives are met. Impeachment is not good, and neither is holding the legislative process hostage by screaming in outrage everyday about some new scandal. And once again, didn't they have the 50th freaking vote to repeal Obama care in the congress? If you agree with that as a constructive use of legislative time, then continue to enjoy this ridiculous circus.
ReplyDeletePosted on May 19, 2013
WH's Pfeiffer: "Law Is Irrelevant" On IRS Scandal
"I can't speak to the law here. The law is irrelevant. The activity was outrageous and inexcusable, and it was stopped and it needs to be fixed so we ensure it never happens again," White House Senior Adviser Dan Pfeiffer said on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday morning.
"What I mean is, whether it’s legal or illegal is not important to the fact that the conduct doesn’t matter. The Department of Justice has said they’re looking into the legality of this," Pfeiffer added.
Sigh, I may vote Republican next election if no other reason then to silence a legion of assholes who do nothing but bitch and scream "WE MUST IMPEACH" for the entirety of a Democrat administration. Reading this blog makes me feel like what I imagine a stay at home mother feels like after a day with the kids, longing for adult conversation. Should I have used a semi colon after kids, Jean?
ReplyDeleteMax,
DeleteI don't think I've posted anything that suggests there is evidence any of this action is impeachable.
No, you did not need a semicolon after 'kids', but why ask me? I don't recall being appointed the blog grammarian.
Jean
Max, Please display one post where I called for Obama's impeachment.
DeleteWhy so paranoid on this subject?
1773-2009
Because William, as I said above, it's the same bullshit from Whitewater all over again. Can't get him on Benghazi, move on to the AP story, can't get him there, move on to the IRS scandal. EVERYTHING is a grand plot by Obama that must be stopped to save our freedom. You don't have to post you are calling for impeachment William because you are happily carrying the water of posting scandal outrage. You don't have to say it, it's tacitly implied.
DeleteMax, the administration is so target rich. Would you have illegal activities not investigated due to their quantity?
DeleteMany are saying that Obama didn't have to direct these scandals, they were tacitly implied to his true believers. They simply put into practice what his entire life has stood for.
1773-2009 The Tea Party will wave goodbye to Obama in it's rear view mirror.
I don't agree with everything William posts, but the most recent one articulates what I've been wondering, and thinking.
DeleteI don't know Obama's psyche, but he definitely comes across as arrogant, as a person who has, wants to, and will get his way to the maximum extent possible. That happened for two years. Nothing special about those characteristics, when discussing politicians. But it smells. Too much stuff. IT SMELLS.
Jean
"I don't know Obama's psyche, but he definitely comes across as arrogant, as a person who has, wants to, and will get his way to the maximum extent possible."
DeleteJean, please tell me what president in our lifetime HASN'T acted this way. There's a singe word that describes what you are saying here, uppity. Obama doesn't know his place, and that pisses a lot of people off. If you truly believe, Jean, that Bush and those around him were somehow less arrogant, then you don't possess any objectivity either. Perhaps you don't care.
To your point William, again, this about dumping Obama, not about protecting freedom. Your second para is kinda ridiculous. They put into practice what his entire life has stood for? They could just have easily been a bunch of Republicans annoyed by the Tea Party. It could have been as simple as the IRS decided to fuck with a group who believes there shouldn't be any taxes. There could be plenty of plausible reasons that have nothing to do with Obama. If we went back in time and ripped every administration apart the way Republicans now do when they aren't in power, I believe we would find plenty of targets for abuse of power.
Max,
Delete"Jean, please tell me what president in our lifetime HASN'T acted this way."
"Nothing special about those characteristics, when discussing politicians."
It just seems to me that it's a bit more pungent, so I'd say the difference is in degree, not kind. Even little things like 'voting for revenge' or 'to get revenge.' Operative word here: seems.
Jean
Max the Tea Party has never called for no taxes. We feel we are taxed enough already, and favor limited government, not no government.
DeleteIf you don't recognize the chilling effect that these targeted acts have caused and the loss of faith in the administration, then there is nothing left to say.
1773-2009 the Tea Party is four years old and growing stronger every day.
If this stuff happened while GWB was in office, Max would be singing a different tune.................
ReplyDeleteNo Brian, you are wrong. I did not wake up every day hoping that Bush or Cheney would be frog marched out of the office. This is one of several big differences between us Brian. You can never escape your right of center of view, at the least, you can't do it while Obama is still POTUS. If we get another Republican who is as bad a POTUS as Bush was, you might again realize how whacked the far far right in this country is.
DeleteFor as corrupt as our behavior was in going into Iraq, I accepted that the country basically wanted to continue punishing anyone possible for what happened on 9/11. Yes, the people were lied to by Bush and his cronies, but I don't think they really cared. To this day, there are plenty of idiots who truly believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Halfway into Bush's second term, I was just waiting for it to be over. I did not jump on the bandwagon of left outrage that erupted every day. A ton of shit happened while GW was in office that people should have gone to jail for. and even when there was a conviction, like Scooter Libby's, Bush just said, "Sorry, you won't punish me or my people". I've moved on.
Max,
DeleteI've heard that off and on about people thinking Saddam was involved in 9/11, but I don't recall the Bush administration ever holding to that contention.
By the way, for what it's worth, personal attacks, such as Brian's (Brian?) contention that you might look at things differently because of ideology, are distracting and don't add much to the conversation. My opinion.
Jean
Going after the tax evading tea party makes sense. Thank you IRS.
ReplyDelete