Not sure what you are reading here that is giving you that perspective. My initial thought seems to be being proven out, than an office got overwhelmed with applications, and was looking for shortcuts to help with their review time. When the info came out it was initially led to believe it was exclusively targeting Tea Party groups, but that is being shown to not be the case, it was any overtly political sounding application.

What posts here are showing zealous loyalty to Obama, or hatred of anything conservative?

Your initial thought was that there was no problem here because tea party groups submitted questionable applications and therefore it was OK for the IRS to check other tea-party-themed-groups with more scrutiny. That was wrong. You also found it "unsettling" that the IRS even could search for tea party-themed groups, since 501(c)(4) groups "can't be political". Which is also wrong. Now the rhetoric has been changed to, "well, the IRS does scrutinizes liberal groups sometimes, so the practices they engaged in here were OK." Apparently, you don't have the same "unsettled" feeling about liberal 505(c)(4) groups (how can the IRS target "liberal" groups that aren't, by your reading of 501(c)(4), supposed to even exist?)

As far as "what is being shown to be the case", are you of the opinion now that Obama screwed up here?

So you do think Obama was wrong to speak out against the IRS on this?

If the liberal groups were also submitting incorrect/incomplete applications (which wasn't being reported at the time the news first came out), then yes, of course I'm ok with related applications being flagged for closer scrutiny. That was my assertion all along. It wasn't ok to target solely on politics, but it was ok to flag them for further review based on a pattern of incomplete/incorrect submissions from groups. Not sure how you are reading into that a blind allegiance to Obama or hatred of anything conservative.

No.

But I think that the IRS should be scrutinizing ALL of these types of applications more carefully.

For that matter, let's point out a couple facts:

• Also worth pointing out: None of the organizations that the IRS scrutinized as a result of the ill-considered screening-by-name regime was denied tax exempt status.

Meanwhile, in real terms the IRS budget has been cut 17 percent per capita since 2002, even as Congress has piled on other new duties,

American Crossroads, Priorities USA - they're both 501(c)(4) exempt groups. That's ridiculous. How are they NOT primarily political? All they do is spend money on election advertising. It frigging pisses me off - that's one from the left and one from the right if you're "keeping score." I think it's fucking disgraceful that they're both getting this exemption and it makes me want to go postal.

Consider that in the context of a 1963 federal appeals court, which ruled that to qualify for tax exemption under 501(c)(4), “the organization must be a community movement designed to accomplish community ends.”

Or catering to the people who funnel money to their campaigns.

This is exactly what the IRS did and what caused the shit storm. What you condone is government abuse. I'm just trying to figure out if you condone it because its being directed towards conservative groups.

You stated it even more clearly earlier


NO. The IRS CANNOT DO THIS. This is exactly what they did here, and this is exactly why Obama and other Dems are pissed off. There was nothing else to it. There was nothing more nefarious than this. All they did is what you insist they can do. But they can't.

Which, as you say, is due to a few IRS employees fucking up. So where again is the blind loyalty to Obama and hatred of all things conservative?

They are required to scrutinize every one. So either everybody gets the exact same degree of scrutiny, or you develop some kind of criteria to target higher-risk filings more closely. The IRS has always done the latter for every kind of filing, and that's cool. There's all kinds of things on your personal income tax return that would cause more scrutiny. The only problem comes when type of political activity is the thing which the IRS uses to pre-screen people or groups for greater scrutiny. I agree that this happened not because the IRS hates the tea party, or wanted to help Obama win the election or anything like that. They were just lazy and took a shortcut, were getting a ton of new tea party-esque kind of filings, many of which were questionable, so they flagged filings based on that type of political activity. Which they are not allowed to do.

Whether tea party groups or moveon.org should have this exemption is another question, but clearly they do, and have for quite a while. I don't know who they turn down, but obviously, you can be very political on either side and get this exemption. I bet one reason this criteria has become soft is that the IRS doesn't want to be accused of accepting or denying groups because of their politics. So they were afraid of that trap and fell right into this one. It's difficult to apply that line with an entirely neutral political focus but that's their job. We can critique whether they're applying it correctly, but when they flag groups expressly with political terminology that is clearly designed to target one particular political viewpoint, then they've obviously gone too far past that line. The fact that they also give greater scrutiny to liberal groups doesn't make that flagging okay. I'm not comparing the two things any more deeply than this, but racial profiling isn't "cured" by the fact that the same police force also pulls over whites once in a while. It's not the end of the world, and I'm sure the IRS will be more careful about this in the future.

Here's how I see it:

Profiling based SOLELY on a political view: wrong and criminally liable

Profiling based on a pattern of incorrect/incomplete admissions: an administrative call. At worst a violation of administrative law, not criminal

I have made it very plain and direct multiple times that I didn't condone it if it was targeted towards a group SOLELY because of a political view. For whatever reason you can't seem to accept that.

The profiling that happened was most likely a hybrid of those two things. It isn't the clean distinction that you're trying to make. There's no evidence it was politically motivated, there's no evidence that they were out to get anyone. There is evidence that this WAS all based on a pattern of incorrect/incomplete admissions. Based on those filings, the IRS then utilizing political-themed flags to screen. That's where they erred. That's all they did. It was still wrong. They didn't get to take that administrative shortcut. Even if you get 25 incorrect tea party filings in a row, they are not allowed to screen out tea party filings for greater scrutiny. That's all that happened here, no more. That's the activity you appear to be condoning, but which every Dem in power has spoke out against.

Edit: I think maybe you thought that the IRS was being accused of more than that. I think maybe you thought this "scandal" was about the IRS being political and helping Obama and attacking the tea party. And you're saying, "hey, it wasn't like that, there were non-political reasons for the scrutiny!" And that's true. But that's still improper conduct. This "scandal" has never been about the IRS acting intentionally political. The reports don't indicate that's what happened. Doesn't matter. Your "defense theory" is what actually happened, and it's what they got in trouble for. Maybe the reason I'm kind of tuned into this is because I'm a lawyer, a field where you can be "unethical" on accident, so I'm more sensitive to that kind of thing. In that field, similarly to what the IRS does (and also similar to police officers), you can be unethical, abuse government power, undermine the system, entirely just because you're lazy and incompetent, not because you're intentionally evil. It's no defense to say that you weren't trying to abuse power. The net effect is the same.

So what set you off this morning, claiming a blind allegiance to Obama and a hatred of all things conservative?

Wait a minute. You mean there are people who actually believe this wasn't primarily political opportunism?

O.M.G.

:D

The fact that you were still defending the IRS' actions even where every Dem in power has spoken out against them. Which made you seem extreme-liberal. I wondered if the reason you found this to be OK was the fact that you just didn't like the tea party. It also seemed like you had a problem with conservative groups in particular getting this exemption. But I think maybe now, looking at the context, you were just defending against the more speculative, hypothetical attacks against the IRS. People who might say that the IRS tried to rig the election for Obama, or something. But what we know the IRS to actually have done was plenty enough for heads to roll.

What caught my attention early one was when you said something like, "Oh, this IRS thing was no big deal, it was just based on administrative stuff." Where I, and Obama, and every Dem in power saw the "mere" administrative stuff as a fairly big deal all itself.

I'm still not getting how an IRS office, whose job it is to determine if a group's aims are primarily political in nature, or social welfare in nature, in order to determine tax exempt status, is not supposed to take politics into context when reviewing the applications. It really seems like that is their job. I think what the politicians are against is how the office's actions are being publicly perceived, and that is what they are coming out against: The IRS being potentially misused as a political tool.

Dola,

I can understand any other IRS group not being allowed to consider politics when flagging things, but it really seems part and parcel of what this particular group needed to do their job.

What's really frustrating in this week of scandal is that two of the three issues could be fixed quickly with legislation. If congress tightened and clarified the definition of social welfare, that would largely remove the IRS from being able to make these kind of dumb decisions. If congress removed the no-review subpoena power from DoJ that would stop the AP issue from happening again. But instead of solving the problems we'll hold hearings, fire a few people and hope the next admin doesn't do the exact same thing, and we'll all pretend that something meaningful took place.

There was a bill to remove the no-review subpoena power, but then WikiLeaks happened, and the bill was shot down.

re: Benghazi, let's just put the whole thing to rest hmm?

Now it seems that the Republican furor over the quotes from those emails was completely manufactured - they made up the quotes in question.


"Wrong" there being a nice way of saying "made up/altered."

WH Benghazi emails have different quotes than earlier reported - CBS News

It's their job to consider whether the primary purpose of an organization is political, but it's not their job to decide which particular political viewpoints are not trustworthy and then to target those groups with greater scrutiny.

Which is a point I have never argued.

I'm sure either side would be willing to do that, as long as the reform targeted only groups supporting the opposing political ideology. There were a few Dems who proposed reform last year, but it was really just pitched as a "let's get rid of these tea party groups" plan, and "let's look into Karl Rove's role with these groups." Not that Congress could get anything like that done anyway, but where was that going to go?

You did argue that point a few pages ago. You argued that if there were 25 questionable fillings from groups of a certain ideology, then the IRS should more closely look into groups sharing that ideology. They can't do that. Nobody's saying that the IRS can't consider whether a group's primary purpose is political. They're actually required to make that determination for every group that seeks that exemption. What they're not allowed to do is flag certain political viewpoints for greater scrutiny, regardless of whether the motivation is political, or, as is more likely in this case, they were just lazy and incompetent.

Here's the live updates of the hearings this morning that is getting into the nuts and bolts of this.

Hearing on IRS scandal: Live updates

I didn't say look closer into the groups themselves, but look closer at their applications. That is a huge difference.

That just seems to be common sense. If your workload gets increased due to errors, you try to look for a common thread in the errors to reduce the time spent dealing with errors. No different than if a ton of incorrect/incomplete applications came in from addresses in Texas. It would be natural that you'd screen ones from Texas a little closer than elsewhere.

Sure, it's easier. And there's a logic to it. That's the same trap the IRS fell into. That's why we're having Congressional hearings this morning. The easy thing to do isn't always the right or ethical thing to do.

Me and Bucc always get laughed at as advocates for smaller government with the usual what about the roads, police, and schools response.

There is now a national "outrage" over whether or not polticial groups tried to take advanatage of the 73,000 page tax code and whether or not the 100,000+ employees of the IRS acted under orders or went "rogue". The solution will of course be more hearings, more bureaucracy, and in the end most likely a tax code that expands even more. Maybe this smaller federal government some of us advocate more might eliminate some of these problems.

I'm pretty certain that they weren't trying to take advantage of all 73,000 pages of the tax code, and not all 100,000+ employees of the IRS are under the microscope on this one.

I've stated in the past that the tax code is long due for an overhaul. Last one was in 1986.

They were being investgated on whether or not they were interpreting one of the 70,000+ pages of the tax code correctly if I am reading the news stories correctly. I've said all along this is no shock to me and is what happens with a huge federal bureaucracy. As a very conservative minded person this one incident doesn't really upset me in the least.

However it is hilarious that if you divided the members of this board based on political ideology and looked at those who are "outraged" and those who are defending the IRS but not defending the IRS ("it was wrong but...") it amazingly falls exactly along those same lines.

Feel free to consider me the exception you might need to prove that rule I guess.

Since this is kind of catch-all the political thread, here is an interesting graphic. Scott Walker promised job growth via a balanced budget. He'd be hard pressed to make the argument that austerity has helped job growth at this point.

Of course budget hawks can point to a balanced budget (so long as they use accounting methods he condemned in the past).

And the austerity measures taken in Europe mirror those job numbers as well.

States are required to balance their budgets. All that chart shows is that Wisconsin's unemployment rate is flat while most other states (who are all also required to balance their budgets) is declining.

Well, Walker's budget and attack on public sector unions was touted as being needed in order to create a business climate in Wisconsin that would lead to major job creation. That clearly hasn't happened. Minnesota has taken a different approach and the results have been much better.

Living in Wisconsin, I'm completely dumbfounded that the GOP would even be mentioning Scott Walker as a presidential candidate. Of course we do have a group of bumbling Democrats here that make him look much better than he actually is. I'm crossing my fingers for a Ron Kind run against Walker in 2014 as it will give the Democrats the crucial swing vote in Western Wisconsin. But knowing the Wisconsin Democrats, they will run another Madison or Milwaukee liberal that will doesn't connect with the rest of the state.

My question with this is how much of that is related to government jobs? If much of it is, I have no problem with it. Now if that is all private sector, than that is a different story.

Wisconsin ranked 44th out of 50 states for private sector job growth from September 2011 to September 2012. For context, in 2010, Wisconsin ranked 10th for the year before Walker took office.

dola

And the April jobs report had Wisconsin losing 22,000 jobs. Though that could be adjusted in time.

Um, what?

Technically, I guess that's right. In reality, it doesn't happen in many states. There's quite a few states where it's perfectly okay to issue themselves debt to "balance" their budget.

Under the cash accounting method (which Walker criticized in his first campaign), Wisconsin always has a balanced budget. We do not have a balanced budget under generally accepted accounting principles. Walker campaigned by saying he would balance the budget under GAAP, but once he couldn't do it, all of a sudden cash accounting was OK.

And yet another example of contractionary policy turning out to be contractionary.

Put people to work and the deficit will largely fix itself.

I guess I'm just not convinced of the correlation either way. Walker's claims that cutting spending would result in more jobs was phony campaign-speech stuff. But plenty of conservative-spending states are seeing their unemployment rates decline right now. I think its so much more about execution at the state level. There are well run conservative states and well run liberal states. And poorly run conservative and liberal states. When Idaho gets a surplus, they save it for a rainy day. Which can be frustrating sometimes, but I think that fits the character of the state and it helped them get through the worst times a little better than some other states. Other states might need to spend surplus money on infrastructure because of a fast-growing city or something. That might make sense for them at that time too. There's no inherently correctly political or spending ideology that you can slap on and immediately fix any issue. The only states that had increased unemployment rate in the last year are Illinois, Delaware, Indiana, Wisconsin, Mississippi and New Hampshire. The five states with the biggest drop-off in unemployment in the last year are Nevada, Rhode Island, California, Florida, and Washington. And overall, the five states with the lowest unemployment right now are North Dakota, Nebraska, Vermont, South Dakota, and Iowa. What common thread can you draw through those states to prove the superiority of your political opinions?

Not political opinions, economic. The governments of Europe are left-center to left, and Walker of Wisconsin is on the right.

OK, then what economic truths can we establish based on U.S. state-by-state unemployment data?

As for Europe, obviously austerity measures suck, the more important question to me is how can you run your state or country in such a way where that's not even on the table. Austerity measures (as least in their extreme form) are the end result of bad governance, not an economic strategy.

It can be on the table, but discussed honestly. Cutting government spending is not a panacea. If too much is cut, it has been shown to have a detrimental effect to a state/nation's economy.

Some people seem to have an idea that government spending exists in its own bubble separate from the rest of the economy, and cutting government spending won't have a down stream effect. Texas is held up as an example of low state government spending leading to growth. But the true picture is that to balance the state budget, Perry and his team had to request more Federal funds. Without the influx of additional cash from Washington, Texas would have been pretty far in the hole.

That's where I think politics get in the way of sensible state-running sometimes. As a state, you can be conservative with your own money (not necessarily slashing everything in sight but just trying to be sensible with surplus money and identifying waste to cut in the good times as well as the bad), but also try to get to the front of the line to get as much federal money as possible. Ya, that's inconsistent from a political ideology standpoint, but who gives a shit if your job is to run a state well? States should be concerned first with their own bottom line, not about what kind of political statements they're making through their actions or how they'll be covered on Fox News.

Edit: That's a big point of tension in Idaho sometimes. There's an ultra-conservative segment of the population that doesn't want to take money from the federal government. Which would obviously be a disaster if Idaho ever attempted that. But our governor is quite a bit more moderate when it comes to that kind of thing. At the same time, I don't think taking a shitload of money from the federal government means you have to put forth a reckless state budget just to stay politically consistent. You just don't have as much room for error and waste at the state level.

You bring up some good points, molson. There has been a problem with execution of Walker's economic agenda. The government run Department of Commerce was turned into a quasi-private Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation. This was supposed to be a driver of bringing business to Wisconsin. Unfortunately, it's been an unmitigated disaster. An audit revealed that it broke state law, failed to track money it awarded, and gave money to ineligible recipients. I can vouch firsthand that this has been very poorly run. We were awarded a low interest loan from the WI Department of Commerce several years back and have been steadily paying it down. The instant that the DOC morphed into the WEDC, our loan was lost. That sounds like a good thing (for me), but you know they'd eventually find it, which they did last fall. After the initial lost loan thing caused the original person in charge of the WEDC to resign, they brought in a new guy. Well, he resigned a few weeks ago after it was revealed he owed delinquent taxes.

I'm all for running a balanced budget except during extreme recessions. When demand plummets the only safety net is government deficit spending. Eventually the economy will correct itself without deficit spending, but a hell of a lot of people are going to needlessly suffer in the meantime. That's where we are now. Nobody seems to give a shit that unemployment is still near 8%. Imagine the outrage if in 2008 Obama had said he would let unemployment at 8% last for five years. Almost everyone in D.C. is bragging over how much their plan cuts the deficit when what we need to do is spend money and put people to work.

As to the question of state unemployment patterns, I don't think we have enough data to make any conclusions. The Dakotas, for example, are undergoing a massive natural resource extraction boom. Under those circumstances state spending doesn't make much difference.

Quite honestly, this is where the bias of the press shows the most. Under just about any other president I remember, the press would be up in arms. With Obama they either don't cover it, or give the guy a pass.

I don't buy it. We've just got a world where the media and the decision makers are all rich and disconnected from the people who are struggling. The GOP hardly ever talks about unemployment either and when they do it's just to score political points as they have no plan other than fire more government workers.

But if you're rich you've probably done really well in this economy, so why change it?

I would prefer if the US was the catalyst that solved the ME issue but we've had our chance and, for right or wrong, have not been able to do it. Maybe China will be viewed more as a honest broker.

A China "win" will be a US "loss". Nevertheless, good luck to them, the ME deserves some semblance of peace.

Will China mediate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process? - Behind The Wall

Edward,

Does China's regional resume in this brokerage arena suggest that this is promising?

I was surprised to see this story.

President Obama's approval rating at least stayed the same in all trackers this week, and even went up in a couple.. I guess that's because he smacked around the IRS (which everyone likes to see), the AP story folks are used to, and Benghazi is a non-story? (I seriously thought that he'd take a hit in the week, seeing all the scandals that came out)


Obama approval rating holding steady - POLITICO.com

I don't think Benghazi is really on the radar of the mainstream. I don't think people care beyond the right wing bloggers/commentators, who have tried to make it a bigger deal, but have failed. The tea party is a running joke in the mainstream, so people aren't going to care about them being mistreated. You'd think the AP thing would have more people upset, but there's a disconnect and apathy if there's no "us v. them" dynamic like we had when the Bush administration would do similar stuff. If both parties do it, there's not going to be as much anger.

Why?

Neither the proverbial live goat or dead child on the WH lawn is going to move things more than a point or two (and that's just sampling differences).

No, I don't think it would suggest its promising. Just interesting.

There is a new player and it changes the dynamics some and maybe not for the better.

China could side more with the Palestinians/Muslims and US-Israel ties deepen again creating a greater divide. I don't think its in China's nature to get involved in these things (not really within its historical sphere of influence).

Maybe its more economic vs political. I don't see Israel becoming very close to China other than economics.

I think the Benghazi is more Hillary in 2016 than Obama now.

Health Law Costs: Employers Eye Bare-Bones Plans - WSJ.com

(Hopefully the paywall doesn't show up, if it does)

By CHRISTOPHER WEAVER And ANNA WILDE MATHEWS

Employers are increasingly recognizing they may be able to avoid certain penalties under the federal health law by offering very limited plans that can lack key benefits such as hospital coverage.

Benefits advisers and insurance brokers—bucking a commonly held expectation that the law would broadly enrich benefits—are pitching these low-benefit plans around the country. They cover minimal requirements such as preventive services, but often little more. Some of the plans wouldn't cover surgery, X-rays or prenatal care at all. Others will be paired with limited packages to cover additional services, for instance, $100 a day for a hospital visit.

Enlarge Image
image
image
Getty Images

Tex-Mex restaurant chain El Fenix is looking to offer limited plans.

Federal officials say this type of plan, in concept, would appear to qualify as acceptable minimum coverage under the law, and let most employers avoid an across-the-workforce $2,000-per-worker penalty for firms that offer nothing. Employers could still face other penalties they anticipate would be far less costly.

It is unclear how many employers will adopt the strategy, but a handful of companies have signed on and an industry is sprouting around the tactic. More than a dozen brokers and benefit-administrators in 10 states said they were discussing the strategy with their clients.

"There had to be a way out" of the penalty for employers with low-wage workers, said Todd Dorton, a consultant and broker for Gallagher Benefit Services Inc., a unit of Arthur J. Gallagher AJG -0.51% & Co., who has enrolled several employers in the limited plans.

Pan-American Life Insurance Group Inc. has promoted a package including bare-bones plans, according to brokers in California, Kansas and other states and company documents. Carlo Mulvenna, an executive at New Orleans-based Pan-American, confirmed the firm is developing these types of products, and said it would adjust them as regulators clarify the law.

The idea that such plans would be allowable under the law has emerged only recently. Some benefits advisers still feel they could face regulatory uncertainty. The law requires employers with 50 or more workers to offer coverage to their workers or pay a penalty. Many employers and benefits experts have understood the rules to require robust insurance, covering a list of "essential" benefits such as mental-health services and a high percentage of workers' overall costs. Many employers, particularly in low-wage industries, worry about whether they—or their workers—can afford it.

But a close reading of the rules makes it clear that those mandates affect only plans sponsored by insurers that are sold to small businesses and individuals, federal officials confirm. That affects only about 30 million of the more than 160 million people with private insurance, including 19 million people covered by employers, according to a Citigroup Inc. C +0.04% report. Larger employers, generally with more than 50 workers, need cover only preventive services, without a lifetime or annual dollar-value limit, in order to avoid the across-the-workforce penalty.

Such policies would generally cost far less to provide than paying the penalty or providing more comprehensive benefits, say benefit-services firms. Some low-benefit plans would cost employers between $40 and $100 monthly per employee, according to benefit firms' estimates.

"For certain organizations, it may be an ideal solution to minimize the cost of opting out," said David Ellis, chief executive of Youngtown, Ariz.-based LifeStream Complete Senior Living, which employs about 350 workers, including low-wage housekeepers and kitchen staff. Mr. Ellis, who was recently pitched a low-benefit plan, said it is one option the firm may consider to lower costs and still comply with the law, he said.
[image]

Administration officials confirmed in interviews that the skinny plans, in concept, would be sufficient to avoid the across-the-workforce penalty. Several expressed surprise that employers would consider the approach.

"We wouldn't have anticipated that there'd be demand for these types of band-aid plans in 2014," said Robert Kocher, a former White House health adviser who helped shepherd the law. "Our expectation was that employers would offer high quality insurance." Part of the problem: lawmakers left vague the definition of employer-sponsored coverage, opening the door to unexpected interpretations, say people involved in drafting the law.

The low-benefit plans are just one strategy companies are exploring. Major insurers, including UnitedHealth Group Inc., UNH -0.21% Aetna Inc. AET -0.92% and Humana Inc., HUM -0.57% are offering small companies a chance to renew yearlong contracts toward the end of 2013. Early renewals of plans, particularly for small employers with healthy workforces, could yield significant savings because plans typically don't need to comply with some health law provisions that could raise costs until their first renewal after Jan. 1, 2014.

Insurers and health-benefits administrators are also offering small companies a chance to switch to self-insurance, a form of coverage traditionally used by bigger employers that will face fewer changes under the law. Employers are also considering limiting workers' hours to avoid the coverage requirements that apply only to full-time employees.

"You're looking at ways to avoid being subject to the law," said Christopher F. Koller, health insurance commissioner of Rhode Island.

Regulators worry that some of these strategies, if widely employed, could pose challenges to the new online health-insurance exchanges that are a centerpiece of the health law. Among employees offered low-benefit plans, sicker workers who need more coverage may be most likely to opt out of employer coverage and join the exchanges. That could drive up costs in the marketplaces.

"The whole idea is to get healthy people in and not-so-healthy people in" the marketplaces, said Linda Sheppard, special counsel for the Kansas Insurance Department.

Experts worried that plans lacking hospital or other major benefits could leave workers vulnerable to major accidents and illnesses. "A plan that just covers some doctor visits and preventive care, I wouldn't say that's real health-insurance protection," said Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation and former federal health official.

Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services said they haven't seen widespread evidence of such strategies. They said the health law would bring new options, including the subsidized exchange plans, to low-income workers, and that most employers who offer coverage now choose to provide much more robust benefits.

"Any activities that take place on the margins by a small number of employers would not have a significant impact on the small group or the individual market," said Mike Hash, director of the department's Office of Health Reform.

Limited plans may not appeal to all workers, and while employers would avoid the broader $2,000-per-worker penalty for all employees not offered coverage, they could still face a $3,000 individual fee for any employee who opts out and gets a subsidized policy on the exchanges.

But the approach could appeal to companies with a lot of low-wage workers such as retailers and restaurant operators, who are willing to bet that those fees would add up slowly because even with subsidies, many workers won't want to pay the cost of the richer exchange coverage.

A full-time worker earning $9 an hour would have to pay as much as $70 a month for a midlevel exchange plan, even with the subsidies, according to Kaiser. At $12 an hour, the workers' share of the premium would rise to as much as $140 a month.

Firms now offering low-cost policies known as mini-meds, generally plans that cap benefits at low levels, could favor the tactic. Companies sought federal health department waivers to cover nearly four million with mini-meds and other similar plans, which will be barred next year. Some employers are "thinking of this as a replacement for the mini-med plan," said Tracy Watts, national leader for health-care reform at Mercer, a consulting unit of Marsh & McLennan Cos. MMC -0.07%

San Antonio-based Bill Miller Bar-B-Q, a 4,200-worker chain, will replace its own mini-med with a new, skinny plan in July and will aim to price the plan at less than $50 a month, about the same as the current policy, said Barbara Newman, the chain's controller. The new plan will have no dollar limits on benefits, but will cover only preventive services, six annual doctors' visits and generic drugs. X-rays and tests at a local urgent care chain will also be covered. It wouldn't cover surgeries or hospital stays.

Because the coverage is limited, workers who need richer benefits can still go to the exchanges, where plans would likely be cheaper than a more robust plan Bill Miller has historically offered to management and that costs more than $200 per month. The chain plans to pay the $3,000 penalty for each worker who gets an exchange-plan subsidy.

But, "those are going to be the people who will be ill and need a more robust plan," and insuring them directly could cost even more, Ms. Newman said.

Many more workers, she expects, will continue to go without insurance, despite the exchanges and the limited plan. Currently, only one-quarter of workers eligible for the mini-med plan take it. Ms. Newman said, "We really feel like the people who are not taking it now will not take it then."

Tex-Mex restaurant chain El Fenix also said it would offer limited plans to its 1,200 workers, covering doctors visits, preventive care and drugs, but not hospital stays or surgery. "What our goal was all along was to make [offering coverage] financially palatable for the company as a whole, so we didn't do damage and have to let people go or slow down our growth," said Brian Livingston, chief financial officer of Dallas-based Firebird Restaurant Group LLC, owner of El Fenix.

Some benefits advisers worry that since the idea of the low-benefit plans is so new, they could yet invite scrutiny from regulators, and may run afoul of other health law requirements.

John Owens, a broker for the Lewer Agency in Kansas City, Mo., said a large Midwestern convenience store chain is considering signing up for such a policy and is awaiting guidance from regulators.

"What I'm telling people is, this may work, but you better have a plan B," said Andrew Ky Haynes, a Kansas City, Mo.-based benefits lawyer.

Write to Christopher Weaver at [email protected] and Anna Wilde Mathews at [email protected]

A version of this article appeared May 20, 2013, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Employers Eye Bare-Bones Health Plans Under New Law.

I don't think it's fair to compare the two. I can live a much better life if I run up my credit cards every month. Just as a state could have far less unemployed if they spend more than they bring in.

Walker was full of shit about the balanced budget bringing in more jobs, but I don't necessarily think it's bad that he balanced it. Someone has to pay those bills at some point. Illinois overpaid for years and now people like me are having to pay the price for that with higher taxes.

States are tough to compare because they don't all pay in evenly to the federal government. Idaho is able to balance its budget in large part to the fact that they are a welfare state when it comes to federal taxes. They bring in far more than they pay in. If a state like Illinois was getting back what they were paying in, they may be able to balance their budget and even produce more jobs.

Illinois has a lot more wealth to draw from. They can do whatever they want with that money. Federal money subsidizes a lot of Idaho state programs that probably wouldn't exist otherwise. Idaho residents pay the same federal tax rates Illinois residents do, they just have a much smaller collective and average income. Could a rich person balance their budget better if they didn't have to pay so much in taxes? I guess, or they'd probably just spend more and be in the same hole. Is your view about individuals the same? Maybe rich people shouldn't have to pay so much in taxes so they can have fewer financial problems.

I know you love to beat your chest about the "welfare state" thing and that's how you assign value to different states, but every state has a different situation, different resources, different challenges. Every state can be run either well or poorly based on the cards its been handed. Rich states aren't automatically run well just because they're rich, and vice versa with the poor states. There's nothing policy-wise Idaho can do in the next few years to create a Chicago or New York City or Los Angeles within its borders (though if there was, I doubt increasing everyone's taxes, or turning down federal money, or whatever else you're suggesting would be the thing to make it happen.)

Edit: It would be an interesting calculation though to see how much you'd have to cut the federal income tax rates of Illinois residents in order to for the state "to get back what they're paying in" on the whole. Or how high you'd have to raise Idaho residents' federal income tax rates in order to get the same kind of equality. Cut taxes on the rich, raise them on the poor, until we're all putting in and taking the same out of government - not sure what the point of government would be in that instance.

I get if it's necessary to provide certain programs. I'm not complaining about that. But don't brag about Idaho being great at balancing their budget when they are only able to do that because people like me are paying their bills. Idaho wouldn't be in their position if it wasn't for states like Illinois who cover their expenses.

That's not how it works. Illinois pays way more in federal taxes because their residents have much more income. That fact doesn't prevent Illinois from running its state well. It actually should help. That's the difference between the "givers" and the "takers". They're poor v. rich.

As for the spending, we know what the federal government spends money on - defense, healthcare, social security. I don't know how defense spending is broken down on a state-by-state level for purposes of "giving v. taking" analysis. I would presume that social security would be spread pretty evenly, and the health care spending would disproportionately help the poor, which I think is the point. So how are you "paying Idaho's bills" exactly? The state of Idaho wouldn't be spending hundreds of billions in defense if the United States wasn't. Though its true that Illinois residents, at least the rich ones, have a much greater personal financial stake in that national spending. Rich Idahoans do to, there just isn't as many of them.

I don't think this should be a surprise to anyone. Anyone who thought that this law would somehow even the playing field was fooling themselves. If anything, the median level of insurance likely has gone down.

Only if you don't count the 40 million that didn't have insurance before.

No arguments here. I'm not arguing that balancing the budget was a bad thing. It had to be done either way. But Walker did not use all his methods at his disposal. A slight tax increase along with slightly lesser concessions from public employee unions would have accomplished the same. Walker's assertion was that any increase in taxes would have a detrimental affect on job growth. We can't really go back and see how a tax increase would have affected it now, but I think it's pretty clear that staying the line on taxes (and now he wants to decrease the income tax) hasn't helped create jobs.

Idaho takes back more than it pays in. My state pays in more than it takes back. I'm not saying that shouldn't be the case. I'm just saying it's much easier to balance your budget when other states are subsidizing you.

If we are comparing how states handle their budgets, it's fair to note when certain states are being subsidized by others.

You seriously think the median plan has increased under the new law? I'd find that very hard to believe. Adding those 40M insured (all won't be added but we have to assume all will fall under the current median) isn't going to make a lick of difference on the median. In fact, if those people receive a plan similar to the one being discussed in the article, it won't make a difference at all. The median would drop 15-20M spots and would guarantee a lower median plan.

You're going to have a situation which hospitals have been fearing. They're going to be billing more people directly for their care rather than trying to collect from the government. That's going to result in a greater number of payment defaults and the health industry is going to have to find a way to pay for that. Health care workers shouldn't be in that position.

Illinois TAXPAYERS pay more in federal taxes, Idaho taxpayers pay less. That has nothing to do with how well the states are run. Illinois doesn't subsidize the Idaho state budget. They just, as a group, pay a higher % of the costs of national spending. That doesn't make it any easier for Idaho to balance its budget, and all of those wealthy Illinois taxpayers doesn't make things harder on the Illinois state budget.

My only problem with Walker is that he just doesn't come out and say what is really the issue. Taxpayers in Wisconsin don't want to increase their already high state income taxes to pay for the incredibly high benefits of others. He hid his reasoning behind job growth and other talking points not based in reality, but I still think he made the right decision on the matter.

We are talking about different points of data. I'm not talking about what percent a state is paying in to the federal government. I'm talking about how much they receive back along with what they pay in. This number isn't derived by taking all federal revenue and dividing it by 50 and assuming each state receives the same amount of federal support.

Let me try to break down the two parts of it again them. And to try to see how Illinois "subsidizes" the Idaho budget or how the fact that Idaho is a "welfare state" makes it easier to balance the the budget.

1. Money to the federal government. This is tax revenue. Illinois taxpayers pay much more in federal tax revenue, both as a whole, and on average, than a poorer state like Idaho. This is both because Illinois a more populous state, and a higher income state. How having richer people hurts Illinois state budget, you haven't yet explained.

2. Money from the federal government. It appears you think that the Idaho state government just gets a big check of federal money that came directly from Illinois taxpayers, and they just easily balance their budget with that. That's not how it works. Most federal spending comes in the form of defense, social security, and healthcare spending. I don't know how that's broken down by state for the purposes of determining which states are "welfare states", but it's definitely true that Idaho citizens rely much more per capita on federal healthcare spending, federal welfare programs, federal unemployment benefits, than would the citizens from a richer state. The citizens of Idaho are definitely "takers" in that sense - as a group, they don't pay a lot of taxes, and they get a lot of federal benefits. I think that's the heart of the "welfare state" analysis - poor people are "freeloaders" and get more than they put in. That doesn't really implicate the state budget either. I guess you could argue that the state would have to pay more to fill the gap if those federal programs were cut. They might, they might not, but I'm sure if they did, they'd have to cut something else to make up the difference. They state government here is going to be conservative and balance the budget, using conservative revenue estimates, no matter what. If they estimated revenue too low (like they did this year), and have a huge surplus, they're still not spending any more. Maybe next year, if things still look good, they'll start to expand the budget, as they did in the late 90s, but they'll be very cautious in doing so. Just their fiscal philosophy. There's downsides to that philosophy, but definitely an upside when the economy turns bad.

Point is, whether you're a poor state, or a rich state, or whether you're a individual making $20k or $10 million, you can either be good with your money or bad with it. I'd say it's easier to be good with it the more you have. You're actually talking about how hard it is for the rich to make ends meet since they have to pay taxes to support the poor. Which isn't a very sympathetic viewpoint to have.

Again, they don't have that money. Illinois residents are forced to pay federal income tax. A percent of that money leaves the state and never comes back. Idaho pays federal income tax and is getting back all that revenue they paid in and then some. You can point out that Illinois is a wealthier state and all that does is show how much more money they are pumping in to the system vs other states. 75 cents on the dollar is a much bigger deficit for a wealthy state than a poor state.

Yes every state can be good and bad with their money. Illinois getting back what they paid in may not fix their bad budgets. But my point still stands that it is much easier to balance a budget in a state that is receiving financial assistance from other states than it is to balance a budget in a state that has to provide financial assistance to other states.

Everything did kind of snowball. The unions did agree to the concessions but then Walker went after collective bargaining. If he would've stopped at the concessions, you wouldn't have seen the uproar that resulted, but to Walker's credit it has worked out politically so far. He's survived a recall and the Republicans still control both the Senate and Assembly.

Illinois pays more because they have more to begin with, that's how taxes work. That's not a detriment to them. Rich guys shouldn't be having financial problems that resulted from the high taxes they have to pay. I know that actually does happen to people and states, but they're doing it wrong.

And Idaho doesn't receive financial assistance from Illinois. I don't know how else to lay that out. Poorer Idaho taxpayers get money from the federal government, which got some of that money from rich Illinois taxpayers. In the same way, poor Illinois residents get federal benefits, which are paid, in part, indirectly, by rich Idaho taxpayers. That doesn't implicate state budgets. If the fed went nuts and cut Idaho off entirely tomorrow, Idaho would still have a balanced state budget. It would suck for poor people, but you can always restrict your spending to how much revenue you have, whether or not that's the right thing to do, you can always do it at the state level. If Illinois taxpayers' federal tax rates were slashed overnight, there would probably be somewhat more sales tax revenue in the state (as long as the taxpayers were spending their tax savings), but the Illinois state government could easily botch the surplus and dig themselves into a worse financial hole. Certainly, having insane amounts of revenue derived from all those rich people in the state already hasn't solved all their problems.

The rich person in Idaho is seeing $1.21 of every $1 they put in coming back to their state. Not to them personally, but to people or infrastructure in their state. The rich person in Illinois is not having that money come back to the state they lives in.

I'm saying that you are calculating the pre-ACA median without including the 40 million uninsured. Add those in and the median is a hell of a lot lower.

If it means anything, I'm renewing my company plan this week and the rates are about 7-10% higher than last year. I don't know if that is the new healthcare plan or not. But even before Obama took office, rates would go up around that much each year. I feel like a big chunk of the rising prices are the rising prices of healthcare as a whole.

20k!

Because I haven't had anything to add to politics threads in about a decade.

The Idaho budget would be balanced and conservative regardless of the numbers. Even without the fed support of the poor. Believe me, it wouldn't be difficult, they'd enjoy the cutting.

The real issue I have is the implication behind the numbers. Rich states and rich people are always going to be the givers and poor states and poor people are always going to be takers. It's strictly a rich/poor distinction you're making. Most of the time, when that's emphasized, the point behind it is hostile, that the the poor shouldn't complain, that they have less say, and that their opinions' matter less. Like Romney's thing that 60% of America or whatever it is has no real stake because they're dependent on the government.

Edit: If a poor person took advantage of federal benefits, balanced his budget, ran his own little life well, I guess a rich person could say, "fuck you, I paid for those benefits, and now I can't manage my own finances because of all these taxes I have to pay", but he probably wouldn't be very popular.

Texas is the ginormous exception to that.

E.W. Jackson, Virginia Lieutenant Governor Candidate, Compared Planned Parenthood To KKK

Virginia doubling down on teaparty crazy in their governor-Lt Governor pair.

While it would be terrible policy, I have thought for years the Dems could make political hay out of a push for each state to get back what it contributes to the federal treasury. If a group of House Dems started screaming about that it would put the GOP in a tricky position and also have no chance of becoming law.

A Texas judge ruled that one of the tea party groups that got non-profit status was actually an unregistered PAC.

Judge rules tea party group a PAC, not a nonprofit - Houston Chronicle

I'm pretty sure it'd be unconstitutional to withhold federal benefits from poor people based on what state they happen to live in.

Edit: Maybe that's the disconnect here. Federal spending isn't state-based. It's mostly either national (like the military), or based on individual income and job status (like healthcare, unemployment benefits). The latter is obviously going to disproprtionatly flow into states with more poor individuals. The fact that you think it would be so popular among Dems to curb that flow is interesting. Where would the money go instead? Back to the taxpayers (the rich people), or would it go towards enhanced benefits for the poor fortunate enough to live in states that are already rich?

Dola, you would think rich states would be more annoyed with poor states that spend themselves into trouble than ones who more carefully manage their limited resources. Of course, what this really all goes back to is whether people are voting the right way. I guess I can understand the gut desire of wanting to deprive any benefits of obamacare from people who didn't vote for obama (though, that would suck for the young and poor of Idaho, many of whom DID actually vote for Obama - Obama actually won in my local district, as did a lesbian state congresswoman), but if we take a step back, no, we don't condition government benefits on peoples' speech and votes in America.

I don't know about unconstitutional, but it's terrible policy. I don't want to see it passed, but watching the GOP sputter about the fairness of generally spending more on red states would be fun.

But a lot of spending trickles into the states, even things like defense. If a military base is located in Oregon, federal money is being pumped into that area. The thousands of military personnel, the construction workers who need to build and maintain the facilities, janitorial services, and everything else involved. It's why local representatives push so hard to keep bases open in their area.

Appropriations are always heavily fought over in Washington. States routinely keep money they don't need because they can. Just look at the Gravina Island Highway in Alaska. Alaska is a state that takes in far more than they pay in, yet accepted millions in appropriations for a road they didn't need.

I'm not saying it should be even or that it even can be even. Just that when we try and compare how states handle their own budgets, we have to take into account whether they are hamstrung by where federal spending is allocated.

I guess the concern is the precedence it sets but I'm okay with it. If it becomes once a day then I'll have issues but think Obama's policy is measured.

Holder: Drone strikes have killed four Americans since 2009 - CNN.com

Sad how the debate has shifted from whether its okay to pour water over a foreign fighters face without due process to it being okay to kill American citizens without due process. I really wish McCain or Romney had won because it seems like this should be getting more resistance than it is. Edward needs 365 murders a year to give him pause, 4 is more than enough for me. 5th amendment and rule of law be damned we have cleaver wielding terrorists on rampages in London. There ain't time for those stupid 18th century relics like warrants and due process when there is so much terror in the world.

I generally agree but at what's point does somebody simply become an enemy in an undeclared Civil War?

The Ohio Sec. State ordered every possible case of voter fraud in 2012 investigated. The end result is the referral of 135 people out of 5.6 million voters, and most of those were highlighted in ways that would work without voter ID. I'd bet anything that far more than 135 people were unable to vote due to lack of ID.

McCain?
John McCain, Lindsey Graham assail Rand Paul for his drone filibuster - UPI.com

Romney?
John McCain, Lindsey Graham assail Rand Paul for his drone filibuster - UPI.com

I couldn't find a McCain, Romney quote specific to US citizens being killed by drone strikes, but let me know if you find anything to the contrary.

You're misunderstanding me I think. I meant that a lot more people would be speaking out against it because conservatives like this policy and liberals like the home team but hate it otherwise. Much like when Obama is in office a lot more people speak out against the bad economic policies of the federal government because liberals love spending money but so do conservatives when their guy is in power and so when they're not they see the errors of big government spending. My point being that there might actually be a louder voice than far left liberals and libertarians on this issue.

We should apply the same logic to gun sales and the silly background checks.

We have voting shows where you can vote without registering?

Maybe, but maybe most support it and don't care ... unless its on US soil.
The reality is Americans aren't that concerned about drones | Harry J Enten | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Yes, people do it in Chicago all the time.

And my contention is that a lot more liberals would care if the president had an R by his name. (Which isn't a complaint it would make me very happy). Look no further than Guantonimo Bay for an example of vigilant (impeachment talk) opposition until their guy came into power and said he was shutting it down and then did nothing... silence (from mainstream not antiwar etc) for five years.

Just correcting one part of this. Obama tried to close Guantanamo and Congress refused.

You do agree though that if '08 went to McCain and he was on his second term that the drone killings might have a little more opposition?