ObamaCare: How can states ‘lose’ what they never had?

So, your boss promises to give you a raise next year, prompting you to make plans for how to spend that windfall. In the meantime, that boss is fired and replaced with a new boss, who nixes the raise. That means you “lost” money, right?

That’s how it works in Washington-speak.

According to Modern Healthcare, “Two nonpartisan analyses of the Graham-Cassidy bill show that many states represented by Republican senators would lose billions of dollars in federal healthcare funding through 2026 and far larger amounts after that.”

The morning paper says Nevada would lose $2 billion from 2020 to 2026.

Nevada Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval was one of 10 governors signing a letter opposing Graham-Cassidy, while Nevada Republican Sen. Dean Heller is a sponsor of the bill.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Graham-Cassidy would address the huge inequities in ObamaCare Medicaid funding between the states.

“According to the proposal’s authors, Washington in 2016 sent states anywhere from about $400 (Mississippi) to over $10,000 (Massachusetts) per beneficiary whose annual income was between 50% and 138% of the federal poverty level,” the paper reports. “In contrast, the size of the Graham-Cassidy block grant would not depend on whether a state chose to expand its Medicaid program. Thus, it would equalize the base per-person amount the federal government gives states. In 2026 it would be about $4,400 for each qualified beneficiary. The bill then adjusts these payments to compensate for factors such as demographic differences and various levels of illness among the states.”

So, some states will lose all ill-gotten windfall from ObamaCare.

Sen. Bill Cassidy at a health-care news conference in Washington earlier this month. (Getty Images via WSJ)

Advertisements

Zinke recommendation to reduce Gold Butte Monument size met with usual blather

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s memo to President Trump recommending an unspecified reduction in size of several recently created national monuments — including the 300,000-acre Gold Butte National Monument in Clark County — has sent the usual suspects into apoplexy.

Democrat Rep. Ruben Kihuen, whose district includes Gold Butte, screeched, “The latest leaks from this administration show that once again Secretary Zinke is ignoring the will of Nevadans by recommending that the size of Gold Butte National Monument be reduced. This decision will not only be detrimental to Nevada’s economy and shared cultural heritage, but it is further proof that the monument review process has been rigged from the start. Secretary Zinke promised that Nevadans’ voices would be heard. Instead, we got half-hearted attempts to meet with stakeholders and secret memos cooked up behind closed doors, all when the outcome was predetermined from the beginning. When it comes to altering our monuments and impacting our livelihood, Nevadans deserve more than unofficial leaks and uncorroborated reports. Secretary Zinke should look Nevadans in the eye and give it to us straight, rather than hide behind the administration’s continued shroud of secrecy.”

Secretary Ryan Zinke talks to media in Bunkerville during a visit to Gold Butte. (R-J pix)

Actually, the residents of Mesquite welcome the reduction, especially if the free land assures the town it will have access to springs in the region that will be needed to supply the growing community with drinking water in the future.

Zinke’s memo specifically noted that the water district has historic water rights to six springs and five of those are within the Obama-designated national monument boundaries.

Democrat Rep. Dina Titus weighed in by proclaiming, “Secretary Zinke leaked a memo in the middle of the night because he knows his plan to hack away at monuments like Gold Butte is an overreach opposed by the majority of Americans. Gold Butte’s opponents have created a straw man argument about water rights without mentioning that the monument’s proclamation includes language to protect them. Now we must recommit our effort to protect these precious public lands in the courts and send a strong message to Zinke and Trump to keep their hands off our monuments.”

Democrat Rep. Jacky Rosen claimed, “No President has unilateral power to revoke a national monument under the Antiquities Act and any decision to redefine protections for Nevada’s national monuments is a blatant overreach. This rash decision by the Trump Administration will not only endanger Nevada’s natural beauty and chip away at our cultural heritage, but it will also hurt our state’s outdoor recreation economy by eliminating jobs that have contributed significantly to our local tourism industry. I’ll continue to stand up to this administration, in every way I can, to protect Nevada’s public lands.”

Democrat Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto in the past has opposed reducing the footprint of any national monument.

But Republican Sen. Dean Heller and Rep. Mark Amodei had opposed the designation of Gold Butte and the 700,000-acre Basin and Range National Monument in Nye and Lincoln counties. Zike’s memo makes no mention of Basin and Range.

Heller said, “As a strong proponent of states’ rights, the Obama Administration’s decision to bypass Congress and designate two national monuments in Nevada despite widespread disagreement at the local level is an example of extreme overreach and the failed Washington-knows-best mentality. That is why I welcomed Secretary Zinke to Nevada to see first-hand the impact of monuments designated under the Antiquities Act with no local input. After talking to and meeting with the Secretary several times, I am pleased that he has taken my recommendation to ask the President to modify Gold Butte’s boundaries to allow the Virgin Valley Water District to access its water rights that were lost under the previous Administration. These actions recommended by me and Secretary Zinke prioritize local concerns over the opinion of Washington bureaucrats, and I hope that President Trump will agree with the Secretary.”

Frankly, the designations as national monuments did little more than create paperwork, because the all the land was under the jurisdiction of various federal land agencies, primarily the Bureau of Land Management. The monument designation does nothing to add actual protection for the few petroglyphs and other artifacts that are located on the sites.

Zinke noted this lack of protection and wrote that his agency “should work with Congress to secure funding for adequate infrastructure and management needs to protect objects effectively” in Gold Butte.

As we have already noted, these monuments need not be so large.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 was passed in order to protect prehistoric and Indian ruins and artifacts on federal land in the West and the law limits such designations to “the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects.” While earlier monuments averaged 422 acres, several of Obama’s designations exceeded a million acres.

The Gold Butte portion of the Zinke memo:

Editorial: A day worthy of celebrating: Constitution Day

This Sunday, Sept. 17, marks the anniversary of one of the most propitious days in the history of this country. On that day in 1787, the representatives at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia signed the Constitution. It was ratified by the states and went into effect on March 4, 1789.

You remember the Constitution don’t you?

That’s the document that says the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed …” Not waive, delay or ignore parts of laws the president doesn’t like, such as immigration laws, which the Constitution says: “The Congress shall have Power To … establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization …”

The Constitution also says, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives …”

But when it came to ObamaCare, which is replete with a panoply of revenue generating taxes to offset its expenses, the Senate grabbed an unrelated bill that had passed the House, cut the existing language and substituted the ObamaCare verbiage. The bill number was the only thing that originated in the House.

Yes, it’s those four-handwritten pages that give Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States …” Not to force people to engage in commerce by buying health insurance or pay a fine or a tax for not doing so.

That Commerce Clause also has been stretched to prohibit a farmer from growing grain to feed his own cattle because that affected demand for grain on the interstate market. The same rationale allows Congress to set minimum wages for jobs that have nothing to do with interstate commerce.

It also gave Congress the power to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Some wars get declared, while others are just military exercises.

The instrument also says the “President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.” Not decide for himself when the Senate is in session. At least the judiciary slapped Obama’s wrist on that one.

During ratification the Founders added the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment that says Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” That probably means Congress can’t order a religion to pay for contraceptions, abortifacients and sterilization against its beliefs.

We’re pretty sure the document did not envision a president’s administration creating by regulation laws the Congress refused to pass — think immigration enforcement and rules promulgated by the EPA, FEC, HHS, HUD or USDA without the consent of Congress.

Another clause gives Congress the power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States …” though the foregoing powers and powers vested by the Constitution part is largely ignored.

The Constitution also gave Congress the power “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever … to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings …” And just when did Congress purchase and the state Legislature consent to turning over 85 percent of Nevada’s land mass to the federal government?

As James Madison said, “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations …”

Happy Constitution Day, while it lasts.

A version of this editorial appeared this week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.

Editorial: Federal judge dismisses overtime rule change

A Texas federal court judge has struck down a rule change by Obama’s Labor Department that would have cost employers $1.2 billion a year by requiring overtime for an additional 4.2 million workers — or in reality, however many workers actually still had jobs after the costs were imposed.

The legal challenge was spearheaded by Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt on behalf of 21 states and a number of business entities.

The overtime rule change would have increased the minimum salary level for employees exempt from overtime — due to being engaged in executive, administrative or professional duties, so-called EAP workers — from $23,660 a year to $47,476.

U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant of Sherman, Texas, this past week ruled the salary qualification increase violated the clear intent of Congress when it passed the Fair Labor and Practices Act in 1938, which established minimum wages and required time-and-a-half overtime pay for hourly workers who work more than 40 hours a week. EAP employees were exempted from overtime requirements.

Judge Mazzant wrote, “This is not what Congress intended with the EAP exemption. Congress unambiguously directed the Department to exempt from overtime pay employees who perform ‘bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity’ duties. However, the Department creates a Final Rule that makes overtime status depend predominately on a minimum salary level, thereby supplanting an analysis of an employee’s job duties.”

He said nothing in the law allows the Labor Department to make salary rather than an employee’s duties determinative of whether an employee should be exempt from overtime pay.

“I applaud Judge Mazzant’s decision to permanently invalidate this Obama-era overtime rule that would have imposed millions of dollars of unfunded liabilities on the States and resulted in a loss of private sector jobs as well as onerous financial and regulatory burdens on small businesses in Nevada and around the country,” said Laxalt in a press release. “My office is proud to have led the charge towards a final ruling that brings clarity, certainty and closure to the business community and government alike.”

Additionally, Nevada’s senior Sen. Dean Heller, who has been challenging the overtime rule since it was proposed, put out a press release stating, “The former Obama Administration’s expansion of the federal overtime rule would have devastated Nevada’s business owners and job creators. Since the rule was issued last year, I have been strongly concerned about its impact because it would fundamentally change how employers compensate their workers, reducing Nevadans’ work hours and benefits. I’m pleased to see that a federal judge acknowledged the regulation’s harmful consequences and ruled it invalid today.”

Heller also commended Laxalt for leading the fight against the overtime rule change.

In addition to Nevada, the other states challenging the overtime rules were Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin. Missouri, Colorado, Montana and Wyoming filed friend of the court briefs backing the challenge.

In June, Trump’s Labor Department announced that it too wants salary level to count in deciding who is eligible for overtime pay, but it did not endorse the Obama administration’s salary level. The Labor secretary should heed Mazzant’s reasoning and the clear language of the law as it is currently written. If any changes are contemplated, they must be voted on by Congress.

This effort on behalf of Nevada’s state and local government employers, as well as countless businesses was well worth the time, effort and expense to save jobs and businesses.

A version of this editorial appeared this week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.

Anger aimed at Trump over DACA decision is off the mark

AG Jeff Sessions announces end of DACA. (Getty pix)

The vitriol being rained on President Trump for ending Obama’s unilateral executive order to defer deportation of illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children is over the top.

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto called Trump a racist and a xenophobe.

Obama called the decision cruel.

Rep. Jacky Rosen said it was wrong to invite “these young people to come out of the shadows, raise their hands, and make themselves known, the United States made a promise to those who came here as children. President Trump is now reneging on that promise …”

Rep. Ruben Kihuen, noting that he was once undocumented, said in an email that the decision tramples this country’s values and shatters the hopes and dreams of the 800,000 who have signed up for DACA.

Days before the announcement, Rep. Dina Titus said, “Ending DACA appeals to xenophobic beliefs and goes against the founding principles of our nation.”

Pay no heed to the fact it was Obama who made a promise he was not constitutionally empowered to make. Since 2001 there have been several bills introduced in Congress to do precisely what Obama did with a stroke of his pen, all those bills failed.

In a statement announcing the DACA decision, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said:

This policy was implemented unilaterally to great controversy and legal concern after Congress rejected legislative proposals to extend similar benefits on numerous occasions to this same group of illegal aliens.

In other words, the executive branch, through DACA, deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions. Such an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.

The effect of this unilateral executive amnesty, among other things, contributed to a surge of unaccompanied minors on the southern border that yielded terrible humanitarian consequences. It also denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same jobs to go to illegal aliens.

We inherited from our Founders — and have advanced — an unsurpassed legal heritage, which is the foundation of our freedom, safety, and prosperity.

As the Attorney General, it is my duty to ensure that the laws of the United States are enforced and that the Constitutional order is upheld.

No greater good can be done for the overall health and well-being of our Republic, than preserving and strengthening the impartial rule of law. Societies where the rule of law is treasured are societies that tend to flourish and succeed.

Societies where the rule of law is subject to political whims and personal biases tend to become societies afflicted by corruption, poverty, and human suffering.

Trump is giving Congress six months to pass such legislation, if it can, before dropping Obama’s promised deportation exemptions.

The criticism of Trump is misdirected in this case. It is Obama who opened this can of worms. One of the founding principles of our nation is that Congress makes laws, not the president.

 

 

Could North Korea actually defeat the U.S.?

Kim Jong Un with a reported hydrogen bomb. (Reuters pix via WSJ)

Decades ago while I was writing about the threat of a nuclear attack on the nearby Strategic Command Air Force base, my managing editor informed me who would be the unlucky ones in that eventually: Those who would look up and ask: What was that?

The threat then was the Soviet Union. Now North Korea has openly stated the possibility of attacking the U.S. with a single nuclear weapon at high altitude that could destroy much of this country’s electronic infrastructure.

The Wall Street Journal reports that North Korea’s state news agency on Sunday morning, after detonating another nuclear weapon test, specifically stated that it has “a multifunctional thermonuclear nuke with great destructive power which can be detonated even at high altitudes for super-powerful EMP attack.” EMP is an electromagnetic pulse that could cripple the power grid and destroy electronics that allow water to be pumped, food to be refrigerated, banking accounts to be accessed, fuel pumping, communications, electronics in many vehicles and so much more.

How big a threat is EMP? One report from a couple of years ago estimated as much as 90 percent of the population of the U.S. might die from starvation, disease and social tumult after such an attack.

In a 2015 newspaper column I wrote about what was being done to protect the country from such an attack. The answer: Virtually nothing. Because our “leaders” deemed global warming the biggest threat to mankind.

A year a ago I again wrote about the impact of an EMP attack.

In December I wrote about how Nevada could play a role in defense efforts. And there are a half dozen other blogs posted here about EMP.

The cost to harden the power grid against EMP has been placed at somewhere between a half a billion dollars and a couple of billion. Washington spends three times that in one minute.

Democrats dead set on punishing the rich no matter the outcome

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer opposes any tax cuts for the rich. (Getty pix)

In the wake of Trump’s tax reform speech in Missouri, Democrats are doubling down on their No. 1 priority — rich people must be punished for the sin of success and not be allowed to get one red cent in tax relief ever.

Pay no attention to the fact taxes are meant to fund the services needed by the people, to Democrats taxes are a weapon of social redistribution and retribution.

Senate Democratic leader Charles E. Schumer said Democrats would not support any plan that cuts taxes for the top 1 percent of earners.

This echoes a letter signed by 45 Senate Democrats — including Nevada’s Catherine Cortez Masto — on Aug. 1. That letter states “any reform effort should not benefit the wealthiest individuals, who have already seen outsized benefits from recent economic gains while working-class wages have remained stagnant. … Tax reform cannot be a cover story for delivering tax cuts to the wealthiest.  We will not support any tax reform plan that includes tax cuts for the top one percent.”

The letter also declares, “We will not support any effort to pass deficit-financed tax cuts, which would endanger critical programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other public investments in the future.”

Where have they been for the past couple of decades as deficit spending has skyrocketed?

Rep. Dina Titus also echoed the party line class warfare paean by saying, “The President’s so-called tax reform plan, which is full of vague promises, rigs the system to benefit the wealthy. We should know by now that ‘trickle down’ economics is a myth which allows the rich to get richer while causing middle-class families to fall further behind.”

But tax cuts can stimulate the whole economy, whether you call it trickle down or the Laffer Curve.

You tax the rich for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks, because that is where the money is, not as punishment.

If everyone gets to spend more of their own money, rich or poor, that will spread the wealth.

Democrats are short sighted. They can’t see past their hatred of the rich and their special interests.

For example, Titus recently said, “It is important that any federal tax reform keeps in place the ability to deduct state sales tax,” which of course would also keep the income tax deduction.

Pay not heed to the fact Nevada is in the bottom 10 of states for benefiting from local and state tax deductions, and that cutting the deductions could cut Nevadans’ actual overall tax rate.