 |
| Repeating Lisa Benson's Previous Point: The Issue IS The Individual Mandate |
Passage of the bill, prevents another Congressional showdown between the Republican controlled House and the Democrat controlled Senate. The Senate amendment to H.R. 3606, which would allow companies to raise up to $1 million in investment capital from “crowdfunding” via the Internet. In addition, it would ensure protections for investors by requiring these companies to meet specific disclosure requirements. All other components of the House passed bill were unchanged.
The JOBS Act combines six bills, four of which have already been passed by the House with strong bipartisan support. In addition to the Reopening American Capital Markets to Emerging Growth Companies Act (H.R. 3606), this package includes the Small Company Capital Formation Act (H.R. 1070), the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act (H.R. 2940), the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act (H.R. 2930), the Private Company Flexibility and Growth Act (H.R. 2167), and the Capital Expansion Act (H.R. 4088). H.R. 4088 is similar to the Shareholder Threshold for SEC Registration Act (H.R. 1965), which passed the House on November 2, 2011.
------------------------
Today in Washington, DC - March 27, 2012:
The Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2204, a bill offered by Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) that would raise taxes on American energy producers. As reported yesterday, this latest Democrat bill raises taxes on American energy producers, does nothing to reduce gas prices, and is yet another example the President’s anti-energy administration whose actions have made gas prices worse, not better. This proposal would cost American jobs and punish a productive American industry and its workers. Raising taxes on oil and gas would cost over 150,000 American jobs, and would in fact increase the deficit. The call for new taxes on the energy industry is a politically motivated distraction from the critical work facing our lawmakers, and should be quickly and resolutely rejected.
This afternoon, it’s likely the Senate will have a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to S. 1789, the postal reform bill.
Yesterday, the House passed (357-36) H.R. 2682 — "To provide end user exemptions from certain provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and for other purposes." Today, the House may consider Concurrence in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3606 Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act and H.R. 3298 Homes For Heroes Act of 201; and and H.R. 4239 To provide an extension of Federal-aid highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a multiyear law reauthorizing such program.
However, concurrence by the US House with the changes by the US Senate to the House Jobs Act (H.R 3606) appears to have glitches. Yesterday, according to Reuters, "Republican and Democratic leaders in the U.S. Congress held talks on Monday over an extension of transport construction authority that would avert project shutdowns . . . Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and their staffs were discussing how to proceed after Boehner postponed a House vote on his proposal for a 90-day renewal of current law. If no action is taken by week's end, the government would have to stop collecting gasoline taxes and cut off the flow of money to road, bridge and mass transit projects, forcing the lay-off of tens of thousands of construction workers.
'We are in the midst of bipartisan conversations about a short-term extension of the highway bill,' Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner. 'To facilitate those conversations, the House vote on an extension will occur later this week rather than tonight.' . . . House Republicans are unlikely to adopt the Senate bill, which does not contain the energy provisions they favor, such as approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to Texas, and expanded offshore drilling opportunities. Boehner has touted the legislation as the Republicans' top jobs initiative this year."
This morning, oral arguments at the Supreme Court resumed in the landmark case where multiple states and the National Federation of Independent Business are challenging President Obama’s massive health care law. The focus of today’s hearing is on the constitutionality of the controversial, unpopular mandate that every American must purchase health insurance. The states and the NFIB are challenging this power-grab from the then Democrat-run Congress.
Senate Republicans, led by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the Court should rule the mandate unconstitutional. In their brief, they write, “Put simply, Congress acted without constitutional authority in enacting the Individual Mandate of the [Democrats’ health care law] … Because the Individual Mandate regulates a simple decision or choice not to purchase a particular product, it exceeds the proper scope of the Commerce Clause.” They add, “The step from regulating market participation to mandating participation in a market is novel and unprecedented. ... The fact that Congress in 200 years has not attempted to regulate inactivity to force market participation also strongly suggests it never has had such authority.” Further, Senate Republicans argue, “If Congress may punish a decision to refrain from engaging in a private activity (namely, the purchase of health insurance) because the consequences of not engaging in it, in the aggregate, could substantially affect interstate commerce, then the Congress can require the purchase of virtually anything.”
Discussing Commerce Clause precedents, the Senate GOP brief points out, “none even suggests that, under the Commerce Clause, Congress has the power to affirmatively obligate otherwise passive individuals to engage in a particular economic activity – to purchase a particular good or service – and to punish them if they choose not to do so. What the [Obama administration] urge[s], therefore, is frankly an unprecedented interpretation of the Commerce Clause – an interpretation that, if adopted, would result in a dramatic expansion of Congressional power without any realistic limitation on its reach. Because the Individual Mandate regulates a simple decision or choice not to purchase a particular product, it exceeds the proper scope of the Commerce Clause.”
Several lower courts have agreed with this argument. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded, “Economic mandates such as the one contained in the Act are so unprecedented, however, that the government has been unable, either in its briefs or at oral argument, to point this Court to Supreme Court precedent that addresses their constitutionality. Nor does our independent review reveal such a precedent.” The D.C. Circuit Court noted, “The Government concedes the novelty of the mandate and the lack of any doctrinal limiting principles; indeed, at oral argument, the Government could not identify any mandate to purchase a product or service in interstate commerce that would be unconstitutional, at least under the Commerce Clause.” According to the 6th Circuit Court, “The mandate is a novel exercise of Commerce Clause power. No prior exercise of that power has required individuals to purchase a good or service.” Further, the court said that “Congress crossed a constitutional line in imposing this unprecedented requirement.”
Even independent offices in Congress have recognized the unprecedented nature of the powers Democrats claimed for Congress in passing this bill. The Congressional Research Service wrote, “This is a novel issue: whether Congress can use its Commerce Clause authority to require a person to buy a good or a service and whether this type of required participation can be considered economic activity.” And back in 1994, the Congressional Budget Office noted, “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
Seventy-two percent of Americans think the individual mandate imposed by President Obama’s health care law is unconstitutional. And even a New York Times poll finds, “Two-thirds of Americans want the Supreme Court to overturn some or all of the health care law . . . . At the heart of the opposition is the individual mandate requiring Americans to obtain health insurance, the least popular part of the bill and a crucial piece at the center of the court arguments, which began Monday and will turn to the mandate on Tuesday.”
Leader McConnell said yesterday, “[A]s one of the many public officials who filed a brief before the court opposing this law, I believe strongly that the law is unconstitutional, and I hope the court agrees. But even if the court ends up disagreeing with me, the case for repeal has become increasingly difficult to refute. . . . [T]he bill [President Obama] gave us and that Democrats forced through Congress on a party-line vote just isn’t working. Instead of lowering costs, it’s increasing them. Instead of strengthening Medicare, it raided it. Instead of helping states, it’s created financial burdens they can’t even bear. Instead of lowering insurance premiums, it’s caused them to go up. When it comes to jobs, some have called the law the single biggest detriment to job creation in America right now. And most Americans believe it’s unconstitutional. This law is a mess, and regardless of what the court decides, it needs to be repealed and replaced with common sense reforms that actually lower costs and that Americans really want.”
Tags: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
0 comments:
Post a Comment