On Ex-Im Bank, Boeing not a big fan of Jeb Hensarling

OnEx-ImBank,Boeingnotabigfan

Carney:WedisputetheGOP’spaidenrollmentnumbers

Carney: We dispute the GOP’s paid enrollment numbers for ObamaCare, and no, we don’t have any numbers of our own

posted at 4:21 pm on May 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

Have a laugh at the headline but there’s a fair critique hidden in his shpiel about that bombshell 67 percent figure that was dropped by the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday. I already gave you one potential flaw in the Committee’s analysis in my post on that — namely, it may be that populous states like California and New York, which operate their own independent state exchanges, are seeing higher rates of payment among enrollees. That data wasn’t included in the Committee’s analysis because they looked only at the federal exchange. If a big state like California, say, is seeing an 85 percent payment rate, that’s going to drag the total national payment rate up from 67 percent. And in fact, according to a report in March, that’s exactly what California’s seeing — 85 percent. That’s red flag number one.

Red flag number two is Carney’s point here about the surge in enrollment right before the deadline. Here’s Peter Suderman, making the same argument:

April 15 [the as-of date used by the Committee] is just too early to measure anything close to a final payment rate. A huge portion of Obamacare exchange sign ups came in the last few days of open enrollment, for coverage that doesn’t begin until the first day of May. More people signed up later in the month, in the law’s special open enrollment period, and in some cases their coverage won’t start until June. Since the first payments aren’t due until the first day coverage starts, or even as long as 10 days after, that means that lots of people who have signed up still have time to pay. The deadline hasn’t arrived yet. And one thing the end of March sign up spike revealed is that when it comes to health insurance under Obamacare, lots of people wait until the very last minute to take action.

In other words, the fact that 33 percent hadn’t paid as of April 15th doesn’t mean that most of them are deadbeats. What it could mean, given the huge spike in sign-ups in late March, is that a bunch of them simply hadn’t received their first bill yet or were waiting to pay their first bill during the second half of April. They’re not late in paying, they simply haven’t cut the check yet. That may explain the discrepancy between the shocking 67 percent payment rate detected by the Committee and the 80 percent payment rate that insurers have been whispering about for months. Maybe the 13 percent difference is just people who signed up on March 31st and were planning to pay on, say, April 20th. They wouldn’t show up in the Committee data, which ended on April 15th, but they’re valid enrollees nonetheless. For what it’s worth, WellPoint, a major insurer, says the payment rate among its customers is in the ballpark of 90 percent. Hmmmm.

If this is what’s happening, why would the Committee float a bombshell number that may very well turn out to be wrong? Could be it’s just their way of planting an extra seed of doubt in the public’s mind about O-Care: Even if the 67 percent figure is incorrect, it’ll stick in some voters’ minds. Seems awfully stupid, though, to give the White House a chance to say “I told you so” if the final payment rate ends up being much higher. By lowering public expectations to 67 percent, now the White House can spin an 80 percent rate as a “success” rather than the PR black eye that it is. (Twenty percent nonpayment would mean more than a million people would be tossed from the rolls.) I hope this doesn’t blow up in the Committee’s face.

Tags: 67 percent, carney, commerce, energy, enrollment, house, ObamaCare, paid, sign up

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

EPA:ExpandingourauthorityundertheCleanWater

EPA: Expanding our authority under the Clean Water Act is going to make everybody’s lives easier, we swear

posted at 7:21 pm on March 25, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

The Environmental Protection Agency has for awhile now been working on regulations to further — ahem — “clarify” the reach of their jurisdiction over the United States’ various bodies of water. A leaked draft report of the EPA’s proposal for granting more authority unto themselves had farmers, ranchers, and the energy and commerce industries up in arms over the possibilities for infringing on private property rights to micromanage even small and temporary bodies of water, and the draft’s official release this afternoon isn’t doing anything to dispel any of those business groups’ fears:

The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers unveiled rules designed to reverse the effects of the Supreme Court’s 2006 Rapanos ruling, which narrowed the government’s ability to enforce antipollution laws for smaller streams and bodies of water. The landmark ruling and other court decisions have hindered the government’s water enforcement efforts in recent years because of disputes over EPA jurisdiction.

The proposed rules would clarify which waterways are subject to federal antipollution regulations based on a scientific study on how discharges from certain classes of smaller bodies of water, including intermittent streams and wetlands, affect water quality downstream. …

The regulatory action may provoke legal challenges from several economic sectors, including the agriculture, construction and energy industries, because the rules could delay projects while permits are sought for dredging, filling or drainage in more areas.

“EPA has added just about everything into its jurisdiction by expanding the definition of a ‘tributary,’” said Kevin Kelly, president of the National Association of Home Builders. The organization said the regulations would greatly increase the number of construction sites that are required to obtain appropriate permits.

Our esteemed bureaucrats are waving away these concerns, claiming that the longstanding conservation exemptions for common agriculture and ranching operations will still apply, and that really, this effectively amounts to a cutting of red tape for businesses because the EPA simply wants to eliminate the uncertainty surrounding what is and is not a navigable water or wetland. …By, you know, expanding the definition of navigable waters and wetlands. Given the EPA’s recent history of using their federal regulatory hammer to  punish even private citizens for challenging alleged violations, I don’t think business groups or their Congresspeople are inclined to take the EPA at their word.

However, [Sen.] Vitter accused the EPA of “picking and choosing” its science while trying to “take another step toward outright permitting authority over virtually any wet area in the country.”  …

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, echoed those concerns, saying the change “could result in serious collateral damage to our economy.”

“[I]t appears that the EPA is seeking to dramatically expand its jurisdictional reach under the Clean Water Act,” she said in a statement. The senator added that the change could have a huge impact on Alaska.

“If EPA is not careful, this rule could effectively give the federal government control of nearly all of our state — and prove to be a showstopper for both traditional access and new development,” she said.

Tags: agriculture, bureaucracy, commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, overregulation, regulations, water

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Rubio:Obama’slawlessnessisthebiggestimpedimentto

Rubio: Obama’s lawlessness is the biggest impediment to passing immigration reform

posted at 7:21 pm on January 29, 2014 by Allahpundit

Before we begin, although I think these “he’s being friendly with Obama!” outrages are silly, I can’t resist tossing a little chum to the anti-Rubio sharks out there. I’m titling this one, “Pals.”

rubio's career is now over. also, stockman should photoshop cornyn in this… pic.twitter.com/mXpZkhbLat

— Ryan (@alwaysonoffense) January 29, 2014

Anyway, as the senator was saying:

Rubio said that the “fundamental” problem to passing immigration reform right now is skepticism on the right that the administration would enforce beefed up border security measures.

He said that Obama administration handling of the Internal Revenue Service scandal involving scrutiny of Tea Party groups and revelations about widespread National Security Administration spying have drummed up this skepticism.

“I don’t know if it can happen under this administration given its lack of willingness to enforce the law. It’s a real impediment,” he said. “I think that is the fundamental challenge right now … how do we gain people’s confidence that the enforcement will happen.”

“Where was this guy eight months ago?” wonders Mark Krikorian. When did it dawn on him, precisely, that a Democratic president can’t be trusted to be a hard-ass on the border even if Congress has authorized him to be one? I’ll up the ante by asking another question: When did Obama’s lawlessness become an “impediment” to passing immigration reform, as Rubio says here, rather than the whole reason for passing the bill in the first place? Back in August, he argued that it’s because we can’t trust Obama that Congress needs to act; if Congress stands pat and does nothing, O might turn around and try to amnestize America’s illegals via executive order. Better to have the legislature step up than leave President Powergrab to his own devices. Remember?

“I believe that this president will be tempted, if nothing happens in Congress, he will be tempted to issue an executive order like he did for the DREAM Act kids a year ago, where he basically legalizes 11 million people by the sign of a pen. Now, we won’t get an E-Verify, we won’t get any border security. But he’ll legalize them,” the Florida senator told Tallahassee radio host Preston Scott.

Why was he worried about border security and E-Verify back then if he doesn’t trust Obama to enforce them now? If you can’t trust O to carry out the law then logically it doesn’t much matter what Congress does. O’s going to do what he wants to do. In fact, if you’re worried about a backlash among conservatives against the GOP leadership if they pass a legalization bill, you’re arguably better off letting Obama do that himself via EO so that he takes all the political heat. The GOP can focus on border security instead and then, if Obama refuses to enforce the bill they pass, they can run on that in the midterms. It’d be superb motivation to get grassroots righties to turn out to beat the Democrats.

Ah, but there’s a flaw in that plan: The GOP needs to participate in the legalization process in order to impress Latino voters, right? Can’t let O do it himself. Then he’ll get all the electoral credit. As the head of the RNC put it, “I think you have general consensus that something big has to happen.” Does it, though? A smart conservative-leaning friend who follows politics e-mailed me today after the Ryan post with a provocative question: What if all the Republican blather about passing amnesty to woo Latinos is nonsense that even they don’t believe? Romney did get destroyed in that demographic in 2012, but contrary to popular belief, it didn’t cost him the election. Pushing a middle-class economic agenda would help Republicans with Latinos (and every other kind of voter) in 2016 irrespective of what happens with immigration reform; it’s also an open question whether Latinos, a key part of “the Obama coalition,” will show up in the same numbers two years from now when O’s no longer on the ballot. Republican leaders know all of this, my friend emphasized. So why continue to push the “we can’t win without amnesty!” canard?

His theory: Maybe the Democrats are right about the GOP, at least on this issue. Maybe Boehner and Ryan and the rest of them really are just toadies of the Chamber of Commerce and big business. The “Latinos won’t vote for us without this” might simply be what they feed the base to try to soften opposition among conservatives; after all, even if you hate the idea of amnesty, you’d hate losing to Hillary even more. Once grassroots opposition is sufficiently soft, the big immigration sellout on behalf of business interests can proceed. I don’t know if he’s right or wrong, but keep the possibility in mind as this plays out. All I’ll say is, while I don’t trust O to enforce the border as scrupulously as he could, there are few Republican would-be presidents that I’d trust either. This isn’t an “Obama’s gone rogue” problem. This is something bigger.

Tags: action, amnesty, border, chamber, commerce, executive, immigration, impediment, lawless, obama, rubio

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

ChamberofCommercetospendatleast$50

Chamber of Commerce to spend at least $50 million next year to promote centrist Republicans

posted at 4:01 pm on December 27, 2013 by Allahpundit

Meant to flag this yesterday but got sidetracked with other stuff. A simple question to warm you during New Year’s, my friends: Will 2014 be the year of the RINO?

GOP House leaders are taking steps to impose discipline on wavering committee chairmen and tea-party factions. Meanwhile, major donors and advocacy groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads, are preparing an aggressive effort to groom and support more centrist Republican candidates for Congress in 2014′s midterm elections…

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce early next year plans to roll out an aggressive effort—expected to cost at least $50 million—to support establishment, business-friendly candidates in primaries and the general election, with an aim of trying to win a Republican Senate majority.

“Our No. 1 focus is to make sure, when it comes to the Senate, that we have no loser candidates,” said the business group’s top political strategist, Scott Reed. “That will be our mantra: No fools on our ticket.”

Actually, is this news? It made the rounds on blogs yesterday but the only detail that’s new, I think, is the dollar amount. Some suspect the big-picture goal is to pave the way for more amnesty-minded Republicans before the new immigration-reform push next year. The Chamber is indeed pro-amnesty, but they claim their focus is on taking back the Senate, which already passed the Gang of Eight bill overwhelmingly. If they want to move immigration through, they should focus on the House, but it’s harder to dislodge a conservative incumbent in a red-district primary than it is to help a centrist defeat a tea partier in a statewide race like Senate. Besides, the votes are already there in the House for passing immigration reform; all Boehner needs is a few dozen Republicans to work up the nerve to vote with Democrats in passing it. If the Chamber wants amnesty that badly, they’re better off saving their money and offering it to Boehner as part of his new lobbyist payday if he agrees to violate the Hastert Rule to pass immigration reform, which would likely send him packing into retirement and onto K Street.

This is mainly about the shutdown, of course. The Chamber’s been kvetching loudly about tea partiers ever since the Cruz/Lee “defund” effort in October momentarily turned off the tap from Uncle Sam and screwed with their bottom line. There was a slew of articles in the aftermath about them vowing to make the tea party pay — WaPo, Politico, the Financial Times. McCain claimed around the same time that business groups had already approached him about running for reelection in 2016, for good reason: A state like Arizona could very well replace him with a conservative who’d ally himself with Cruz on a new shutdown effort in the future. As much as business interests might usually (but not always) prefer Republicans to Democrats in the general election, they’re more interested right now in making sure that the next crop of senators will blanch at the thought of a new shutdown or, worse, a new debt-ceiling crisis. There’s already a nucleus of dealmaking GOPers — McCain, Collins, Kirk, Murkowski, frequently Jeff Flake, a few others — that’s big enough to break filibusters so long as Reid has 55 Democrats in his pocket. But he won’t have that many come January 2015. The Chamber needs to add as many anti-shutdown Republicans to the chamber as it can to make beating back Cruz easier the next time righties try a little fiscal brinksmanship.

Why have the Chamber take the lead on this, though? Why not let Karl Rove’s outfit, American Crossroads and its anti-tea-party offshoot Conservative Victory Project, lead the campaign against tea partiers? Well, it seems the Rove brand has been … somewhat tarnished:

At least a dozen “super PACs” are setting up to back individual Republican candidates for the United States Senate, challenging the strategic and financial dominance that Karl Rove and the group he co-founded, American Crossroads, have enjoyed ever since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 cleared the way for unlimited independent spending…

Crossroads appears to be testing a new approach. The group has so far stayed out of Kentucky, for example, where Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, is facing both a Tea Party challenger in the primary and a strong Democratic opponent. Instead, Mr. McConnell is backed by a new group called Kentuckians for Strong Leadership. Although it is legally separate from Crossroads, most of its cash came from Crossroads donors, Mr. Law sits on its board, and the two organizations share a treasurer.

Crossroads has lobbied to help set up similar groups in races where its brand may be less appealing to voters or donors, according to two Republicans with knowledge of the conversations. But Mr. Rove has grown so controversial among some conservatives, the Republicans said, that candidates worry that donors will not contribute to a super PAC if it is connected to Crossroads.

When Conservative Victory Project was first revealed back in February, Erick Erickson wrote, “I dare say any candidate who gets this group’s support should be targeted for destruction by the conservative movement.” That’s the problem Crossroads is having right now in a nutshell — for various reasons, Rove is so closely identified with Beltway Republican elements who disdain the base that the Crossroads endorsement might operate like a RINO seal of approval, triggering a fierce tea party backlash in the primary. If you want to get centrist Republicans elected and are worried about conservatives turning out en masse to vote for their opponents, having the Chamber wade in is less likely to aggravate the grassroots than having Rove’s group would. But maybe, purely for reasons of ego, that’s unsustainable: No one expects Crossroads to cede the field to lower-profile groups and risk having them take all the credit next year if the GOP romps and takes back the Senate. They’d bleed donors and influence, and might never recover. So Rove and Crossroads will be part of this too, which will have unpredictable effects on primaries in the spring. Will the sheer volume of ad spending swamp righty candidates, or will the backlash be so ferocious among activists that Rove ends up fumbling away a seat or two that establishment types had coveted? Stay tuned.

Tags: chamber, commerce, conservative, grassroots, republican, rove, Senate, Tea Party

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair