“For us, it’s all about jobs,” Ellicott Dredges CEO Peter Bowe said during his testimony Thursday before a House small business committee hearing.

“I think environmentalists are people, too,” Bowe said Thursday. “But the trouble is many of them are extremists who frankly would like to see businesses like mine, they wouldn’t care if it was put out of business, because they don’t care if we have cars and trucks that move goods around this country.”

“I think the majority of people do want that type of activity going on, so we should move ahead with this as quickly as we can,” he continued.

The president’s dark money group Organizing for Action has drawn scrutiny this week for its refusal to take a position on Keystone, despite its posture as a nonpartisan policy-based group.

Similarly, 52 percent of owners say the [Affordable Care Act] ACA is going to reduce the quality of healthcare they and their employees receive. This contrasts with 13 percent who feel it will improve the quality of care their employees get, and 30 percent who see no impact.

Additionally, 42 percent of small business owners say they are not hiring new employees and 38 percent have “pulled back on plans to grow their business” in response to Obamacare.

About four in 10 say they are holding off on hiring and new growth plans. About one in five say they are letting people go or cutting employees’ hours. Even after discounting small-business owners’ political views, these actions suggest the ACA could be a significant drag on the U.S. economy — at least in the short term.

The Washington Post initially reported that the IRS targeted “Tea Party” and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status with the IRS. The inspector general’s report is likely to be released later this week.

IRS officials first began looking for “Tea Party” and other groups around March 1, 2010, more than eight months before the mid-term election that would see Republicans make historic gains in the House of Representatives, the timeline indicates.

“Determinations Unit personnel indicated that they used the description Tea Party as a shorthand way of referring to the group of cases involving political campaign intervention rather than to target any particular group. The specialist used Tea Party, Patriots, and 9/12 as part of the criteria for these searches,” according to a timeline note.

The designation 9/12 refers to a project launched by conservative pundit Glenn Beck, while “Tea Party” typically refers to a broad array of conservative grassroots groups that arose in opposition to the Obama administration’s policies, especially Obamacare and large fiscal deficits.

The IRS actions came several months after the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which overturned limits on independence expenditures by corporations and labor unions, among other associations.

The IRS identified 10 initial “Tea Party” cases and over the next month began to train its employees in “an emerging issue referred to as Tea Party Cases,” according to the June 7, 2010, entry in the timeline. The next month, managers instructed employees to “be on the lookout for Tea Party applications.”

The IRS developed official BOLO (be on the look out) criteria for groups to receive extra scrutiny in August 2010. The criteria expressly targeted “various local organizations in the Tea Party movement,” according to the official timeline.

The “Acting Director, Rulings and Agreements” inquired into the criteria used for “Tea Party cases” at the beginning of June 2011. He received a “very different” answer than the initial BOLO criteria, according to the timeline, and expressed concern that the criteria might have been overly broad.

A meeting with the Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner (referred to as “Director, EO”) at the end of June 2011 revealed the extent of the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups. The criteria used to target groups for extra scrutiny was extremely broad, according to the timeline.

Groups only had to mention “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” or “9/12 Project,” focus at all on fiscal issues, or “criticize how the country is being run” in their case file in order to earn extra scrutiny from the IRS.

Lerner expressed concern over the criteria and ordered they be “immediately revised,” according to the timeline.

The criteria were broadened in early July to “organizations involved with political, lobbying, or advocacy for exemption under 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4),” according to the timeline.

However, more than 100 groups had already been subjected to heightened scrutiny.

IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified in March 2012 that the IRS had not been targeting conservative groups over eight months after Lerner learned about the discriminatory criteria, according to the Washington Post.

The initially targeted groups were still scrutinized even after the criteria were revised, according to the timeline. The IRS conducted a “triage” of the cases to deal with and dispense with them through the end of the year and into 2012.

The IRS sent out a “first batch of letters” requesting additional or missing information from groups undergoing extra scrutiny in January 2012.

At the end of the month, the BOLO criteria were again updated, this time narrowing them to “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement.”

The Tea Party groups were known for touting adherence to the Constitution and the liberties protected in it as part of their platform.

At the end of February, Lerner stopped all requests for more information from going out “until new guidance was provided to the Determinations Unit,” according to the timeline.

At the beginning of March 2012, the IRS prepared a draft list of questions for the targeted groups, including inquiries into the groups’ donors.

Around this same time, media reports began popping up about the IRS’s unfair treatment of conservative groups.

This attention was not lost on the IRS. Two officials, the “Senior Technical Advisor to the Acting Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, and the Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement,” discussed the attention that the Tea Party groups were receiving from the media, and the deputy commissioner asked the technical advisor to look into the matter and make recommendations.

On May 17, 2012, the IRS again changed the BOLO criteria. The new criteria focused on “501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), and 501(c)(6) organizations with indicators of significant amounts of political campaign intervention (raising questions as to exempt purpose and/or excess private benefit),” according to the timeline.

Toward the end of May, the IRS realized that it had asked for too much information from the targeted groups. The excessive information would either be returned or destroyed, while the IRS prepared to inform the groups that had not responded that they would not need to provide any more information.

The allegations of unfair and partisan targeting have drawn bipartisan condemnation. Numerous Republican and Democratic lawmakers took to the airwaves on Sunday to denounce the IRS’s behavior, while President Barack Obama called the actions “outrageous” in a news conference Monday morning.

“The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has been for several months examining on a bipartisan basis whether the IRS has adequately enforced rules regarding the extent to which tax exempt nonprofit 501(c)4  groups engage in partisan politics. We had tentatively planned a hearing on that issue for June. After Friday’s announcement that the IRS, to the extent it has been enforcing the law, may have done so in ways that singled out some groups for special scrutiny, we have determined that the subcommittee should investigate that additional issue as well. As a result, we have decided to delay our hearing in order to examine this issue carefully.  We will continue to work on a bipartisan basis to ensure the integrity of our political process and of enforcement efforts.”

Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed gave a thumbs-down to the mayor’s economic development efforts, compared to 28 percent who said they were satisfied. […]

Those who most significantly disapprove of Emanuel’s work to enhance economic growth are African-American, lower-income and younger voters. Fully 73 percent of black voters, 70 percent of voters earning under $50,000, and 69 percent of those from age 18 to 35 think Emanuel has not done enough.

According to the poll, disapproval of Emanuel stems from the city’s unemployment numbers. When Emanuel took office in May 2011, the unemployment rate in Chicago was 11.4 percent. As of March 2013, the unemployment rate has only decreased by less than one percentage point.

The poll of 800 Chicago voters was conducted from April 30 to May 6.

But even, among voters who said they approve of Emanuel’s overall job performance as mayor, 52 percent said he has not done enough to improve the city’s economic climate.

Emanuel defended his progress on Thursday:

“I don’t create jobs. I create the environment, the atmosphere and the platform for success in the private sector.”

To try to keep premiums low, some states are allowing insurers to charge patients a hefty share of the cost for expensive medications used to treat cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and other life-altering chronic diseases.

Patients in California could pay up to 30 percent of the cost for “specialty drugs.”

According to AP, Obamacare limits “out-of-pocket costs” for consumers.

In California, the annual out-of-pocket limit for an individual is $6,400, although it can be as low as $2,250 for low-income people. Once that limit is reached, insurance pays 100 percent.

Additionally, Obamacare critics see similarities with the law’s controversial provision that makes health care more expensive for smokers.

Insurers are allowed to charge tobacco users buying an individual policy up to 50 percent higher premiums. For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year, on top of the standard premium. California is trying to override that problem by passing its own law. There’s also pending state legislation to address some issues with prescription costs, but its prospects are unclear.

The degree of secrecy afforded Covered California appears unique among states attempting to establish their own health insurance exchanges under President Barack Obama’s signature health law.

An Associated Press review of the 16 other states that have opted for state-run marketplaces shows the California agency was given powers that are the most restrictive in what information is required to be made public.

The agency has the authority to keep all contracts private for a year and the amount of money a contractor is awarded secret forever. The government says it conceals bids for a contract to make the process fair. However, once a bid is awarded the contracts are made public.

“Except for the portion of a contract that contains the rates of payment, contracts entered into pursuant to this title shall be open to inspection one year after their effective dates,” reads the code specifying what exchange records are exempt from public disclosure.

Additionally, the exchange agency does not have to reveal a contractor’s recommendations, research, strategy of the board or its staff, minutes of board meetings, or provide the instructions, advice, or training it gives to employees.

The poll shows 42 percent think Republicans can do a better job on the economy while 38 percent think Democrats could do better.

President Barack Obama holds a large approval advantage over congressional Republicans, but Republicans are running even on individual issues, including gun control and immigration.

The poll also shows that Republicans are more supportive of their own party on issues such as the economy, gun control, and immigration than Democrats are of their party.

Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have been the subjects of recent economic debate following the discovery a spreadsheet error in their research.

With no changes to entitlement spending, the U.S. debt to GDP ratio will far outstrip Reinhart and Rogoff’s original 90 percent debt to GDP danger zone, rendering the debunking of the exact 90 percent threshold meaningless Taylor said:

RICK SANTELLI: Mr. Taylor, Reinhart/Rogoff has really gotten smashed a lot lately. And to me, I think it’s a bit of a hatchet job. Countries don’t like to implement austerity because it’s actually a medicine that may work. If it’s applied properly, do you believe the central theme of Reinhart and Rogoff which is that an economy saddled with debt over a period of time will underperform it’s own bogey? Do you agree with the original premise of that paper, sir?

JOHN TAYLOR: Well I agree with the premise that too much debt is dangerous and our projections [are] we’re going to go a lot more than the numbers Reinhart and Rogoff talked about. I mean, it’s much more than 90 percent if we don’t make a correction. So the sensible thing would be to reduce try to spending gradually. Try to get the budget in balance gradually. We’re not talking about austerity, we’re talking about to getting back to where we were before the mess began in 2007. I think that message is important, to talk a spreadsheet error trivializes the whole thing, it’s a much more serious problem than that.

Full interview:

]]> http://freebeacon.com/taylor-debate-over-reinhartrogoff-spreadsheet-error-trivializes-debt-problem/feed/ 0 http://freebeacon.com/misplaced-priorities/ http://freebeacon.com/misplaced-priorities/#comments Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:15:38 +0000 Lachlan Markay http://freebeacon.com/?p=98425 President Barack Obama has spent more time on vacations and golf outings during his presidency than he has spent in meetings on the economy, according to a report released Sunday.

The Government Accountability Institute (GAI) combed official records to produce a report on how the president has allocated his time. It found Obama has spent only six hours in meetings on the economy so far this year.

The data “give the impression of a president who doesn’t look like he’s terribly serious about, or very well informed on, economic policies,” wrote Nile Gardner, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.

“The economy is the number one issue for the American people, yet President Obama appears more concerned with perfecting his golf swing than he does with advancing the prosperity of his own country,” Gardner added.

The GAI gathered information from the official White House calendar, Politico’s presidential calendar, and media reports on the president’s activities.

The report finds Obama has spent only 474 hours in meetings on economic issues during his presidency, compared to 976 hours on vacation or the golf course.

Economic issues have remained at the top of Americans’ list of political priorities throughout Obama’s presidency but the time he spends in meetings on the issue has declined dramatically since taking office.

“Throughout 2009, President Obama had 140 days with economic meetings. By 2012, the number of days with a scheduled economic meeting decreased to 29 (a 79 percent decrease),” the GAI report found.

“People understand that presidents have the most stressful job in the world and need a break from time to time,” GAI president Peter Schwiezer told Breitbart.com.

“There will be some who will be encouraged by the numbers and some who will wish the president spent more time in economic meetings. As a government watchdog group, we just tabulate the numbers and let others decide how to interpret them,” Schwiezer added.

He also noted GAI’s methodology gives the president the benefit of the doubt in some areas. It only counts six hours of each vacation day as leisure time, for instance.

“Like most people, presidents still do work while on vacation,” Schweizer said. “So we really went out of our way to fairly and accurately reflect how the president spends his time.”

The GAI report was a follow-up to a similar report released in July 2012, which found the president “has spent less than 4 percent of his total time in economic meetings or briefings of any kind” since assuming office.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.