Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
VOTE NOW: Should there be national education standards?
View poll and comments »
A brief, but worthwhile article on Christianity and government.
1 - Increases spending in the short term
The deal increases spending in the next two years by $63 billion above current law. Current law allows for discretionary spending to be $967 billion in FY14 and $995 billion in FY15. This bill raises that by $45 billion in FY14 (to $1.012 trillion) and $18 billion in FY15 ($1.014 trillion).
2 - Increases deficits in the short term
While the agreement increases spending $45 billion in the first year and $18 billion in the second year, it only contains $6.5 billion worth of deficit-reducing offsets during those two years ($3.1 billion in FY14 and $3.4 billion in FY15). Because the policies on the front end are the most predictable and least likely to be overturned, these are the years that really matter. Unfortunately, only 10% of the new spending in these early years is offset in real time.
3 - The savings are severely back loaded
While the agreement purports to produce $23 billion in deficit reduction in the first ten years, it does so by relying heavily on savings in 2022 and 2023, a full 9 and 10 years into the budget window. In fact, the bill’s savings do not fully catch up with its front loaded spending increases until 2023. During this time, we will have had one, possibly two more presidents, and we will have had four different elected congresses with little-to-no ownership of this current deal. The cuts in this bill are so back loaded that a full 55 percent of the cuts ($47 billion out of $85 billion) occur in just the last two years.
4 - The back loaded savings are highly dubious
The largest single deficit reducing provision in the bill is one that is highly unreliable. The bill extends for two additional years (2022 and 2023) the mandatory sequester that is supposed to expire in 2021. This mandatory sequester consists largely of cuts to Medicare providers. Medicare provider cuts are classically hard to maintain over time. In fact every year (and again this year, on the same day the House will vote on the budget agreement) Congress votes to eliminate scheduled provider cuts as part of the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR, otherwise known as the “doc fix”).
5 - Violates the spirit and timeframe of the BCA
The Budget Control Act of 2011 was intended to offset a $2.4 trillion debt limit increase with matching spending cuts over a 10-year period, ending in 2021. However, this bill violates the BCA during the original 10-year period, and, as explained above, kicks a majority of its deficit reduction into 2022 and beyond.
6 - Full of budget gimmicks and fake savings
As has already been mentioned, the provision generating the biggest savings in the bill is highly uncertain to even happen, and isn’t even scheduled to start until 2022. The fourth biggest budget saving is $7 billion by extending the authority of Customs and Border Patrol to collect user fees for two additional years (2022 and 2023). The authority is scheduled to expire in 2021, but there is no question that authority will be extended at that time with or without this bill. This is a scoring change (simply extending the budget window), not a policy change.
7 - Full of commonsense savings that should be done as standalone bills
The bill has commonsense anti-fraud provisions (like not paying benefits to prisoners who are ineligible for benefits) that could and should be passed on their own with easy bipartisan majorities – but that should be done to reduce the deficit, not so politicians can award themselves for doing commonsense work by increasing spending elsewhere.
Heritage Action for America
Out of touch Boehner has declared war on Conservatives!
"It's a very, very unfortunate state of affairs."
So you decided to be a good citizen and go on HealthCare.gov to get that ObamaCare. You make upwards of $50,000 a year, which is decent but not so much that you can't get a subsidy in the age of Obama. So you figure you'll find out what your subsidy is and sign up.
But imagine your surprise when HealthCare.gov informs you that you are eligible for Medicaid! This, of course, renders you ineligible for any ObamaCare subsidy - although you're welcome to pay full price if you like. But there's another small problem. You are not eligible for Medicaid. But because HealthCare.gov thinks you are, there's no way you can get your ObamaCare subsidy unless you, er, "file an appeal" with the system.
Federal exchange sends unqualified people to Medicaid
Jayne O'Donnell, USA TODAY 3:58 p.m. EST December 9, 2013
Brokers are reporting that some of their clients are in insurance limbo as they wait for the error to be corrected by HHS or their states.
The federal health care exchange is incorrectly determining that some people are eligible for Medicaid when they clearly are not, leaving them with little chance to get the subsidized insurance they are entitled to as the Dec. 23 deadline for enrollment approaches.
State and industry officials haven't quantified the problem yet, but the National Association of State Medicaid Directors may release information next week after following up on reports from around the country, says Executive Director Matt Salo.
Here's what happens: When consumers applying for insurance put their income information into subsidy calculators on HealthCare.gov — the exchange handling insurance sales for 36 states — it tells them how much financial assistance they qualify for or that they are eligible for Medicaid. If it's the latter, consumers aren't able to obtain subsidies toward the insurance, although they could buy full-priced plans.
If the Medicaid determination is wrong, consumers should file an appeal with the federal marketplace, says Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters, but she says she does not have an estimate on how long that would take.
Brokers are reporting that some of their clients are in insurance limbo as they wait for the error to be corrected by HHS or their states so they can reapply.
Jessica Waltman, top lobbyist for the National Association of Health Underwriters, says she's heard a number of reports from around the country of people making as much as $80,000 a year being told they qualify for Medicaid on HealthCare.gov.
Poll - 63% of Americans stricter gun control laws will not prevent criminals from getting guns... wow, not according to the propaganda running rampant in the media
Your support keeps freedom alive!