10 Feb 2014

Q&A -- Federal Sentencing Reforms

By Grassley Press

Q&A:  Federal Sentencing Reforms with U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

 

Q:        Which reforms is the Senate Judiciary Committee considering to the criminal justice system?

A:        A generation or so ago, homicides and other crimes of violence were linked to a rise in illegal drug trafficking.  Policymakers across all levels of government zeroed on efforts to make the nation's streets safer and public squares more secure for the citizenry.  Local efforts focused on policing and enforcement.  At the federal level, Congress passed laws requiring mandatory sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimum sentences, and increased funding for the federal prison system.  Minimum sentencing laws help bring certainty to victims and stability in the criminal justice system.  Keep in mind also that 97 percent of all federal prosecutions lead to plea bargains.  Plea bargains spare court resources, benefit victims and lead to sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crime.  Last year the U.S. Attorney General announced the Department of Justice would dial back federal prosecutions for certain mandatory minimum sentences involving nonviolent drug offenses.  The announcement opens debate about whether the administration is faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress. Notwithstanding the underlying constitutional issues that call into question the Attorney General's execution of the law, the announcement invites a serious discussion about the direction of the U.S. criminal justice system in the 21st century.  The U.S. spends $80 billion a year on our prison system and still confronts issues with overcrowding and recidivism.  It would be prudent to consider home confinement for chronically ill prisoners or those assessed as low risk to commit new crimes.  The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported violent crime rose from 22.6 to 26.1 per 1000 people in 2012.  Property crime jumped ten percent.  As policymakers weigh reforms to address overcrowding, reduce mandatory minimum sentences and lessen the burden on the taxpaying public, policymakers also must consider the risks to public safety and personal property.  Taxpayers who pay for the criminal justice system and the innocent victims of violent crime and their families deserve nothing less.  The scales of justice must reflect the rights and protections of the victim as well as those of the accused in a society governed by the rule of law.

Q:        Do you support changes to mandatory minimum sentences?

A:        As the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have served on the panel which has oversight authority and legislative jurisdiction of the nation's federal judiciary and criminal justice system since I was first elected to the U.S. Senate.  I'm open to adjusting some mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent, lower-level crimes, as long as others are raised where needed, notably for the prosecution and conviction of sexual assault cases.  A balanced mix of sentencing reforms offers an opportunity to root out weaknesses in the system as we work to strengthen law and justice.  Specifically, I advanced amendments in committee this year that would improve justice for victims of sexual violence.  My amendments would establish a five-year mandatory minimum sentencing standard for crimes of aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse and sexual abuse of a minor or ward; set a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for murders caused in the commission of certain sex offenses; and create a ten-year mandatory minimum sentence for a conviction of interstate domestic violence in which death occurs.  As it stands today, accused sexual offenders facing prosecution don't have an incentive to enter a plea agreement.  Perversely, it stands in their interest to roll the dice, go to trial and hope for probation or a light sentence.  There are 32 categories of federal offenses, and sexual abuse cases rank 30th in the percentage of those in which the defendant pleads guilty. When critics of the criminal justice system call for judicial discretion that's subterfuge for leniency. Times have changed since I cast my first vote on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  But the passage of time doesn't change "We the People's" proper expectation that justice be served in a nation founded upon justice for all.

Friday, February 7, 2014
10 Feb 2014

Physician Payments Sunshine Act data collection to begin

By Grassley Press

February 7, 2014

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on the announcement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that it will begin to receive data under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act on Feb. 18.  The agency said it will post the data on its website by the end of September 2014.  Grassley is the co-author of the bipartisan Sunshine Act, enacted in 2010, that will disclose the financial relationships between drug and medical device companies and doctors.  The legislation came after Grassley's investigative and oversight work exposed numerous examples of major discrepancies between the reporting of payments and the receipt of payments.

"The Sunshine Act will help inform the public about the financial relationships between the drug and medical device industry and doctors.  The disclosure of key items will be uniform.  Consumers will get a much fuller picture of the industry's financial presence in medicine than they have now.  The trend toward payment transparency is good for the public and good for accountability."
07 Feb 2014

Senators Condemn IRS Decision on Employee Bonuses, Urge Reconsideration

By Grassley Press
Thursday, February 6, 2014

WASHINGTON -- Five members of the Senate Finance Committee today expressed strong disappointment at the IRS's decision to award $62.5 million of employee bonuses, despite government-wide budget cuts, and asked for reconsideration of the decision and an explanation of current and future bonus plans.

Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa); Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Finance Committee; Pat Roberts (R-Kan.); John Cornyn (R-Texas); and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) wrote to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen to express their concerns.

The senators called the bonuses "an insult to taxpayers," given the IRS's "deterioration in performance" due to budget constraints and government-wide guidance to restrict bonuses as much as possible during the mandatory budget cuts known as "sequestration."

"Sequestration has forced everyone to make difficult decisions when it comes to spending," the senators wrote to Koskinen.  "The American people are looking to the government to make responsible fiscal choices and use their taxpayer dollars in the most effective way.  The IRS's decision to spend $62.5 million on bonuses is a violation of the public's trust.  We strongly urge you to reconsider your decision."

The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over the IRS.  The text of the senators' letter is available here.

-30-

07 Feb 2014

Grassley: military justice reform should remove sexual assault cases from chain of command

By Grassley Press

Thursday, February 6, 2014

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley today joined in calling for an independent military justice system and reiterated his support for the Military Justice Improvement Act, which is up for a Senate vote next week.

Grassley is an original cosponsor of this bipartisan measure introduced by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, which would move the decision whether to prosecute any crime punishable by one year or more in confinement to independent, trained, professional military prosecutors.  Thirty-seven crimes that are uniquely military in nature, such as disobeying orders or going Absent Without Leave, would be excepted and remain within the chain of command.

In a statement issued today, Grassley said:

"Sexual assault is a law enforcement matter, not a military one.  For decades, the Department of Defense has claimed a zero tolerance policy regarding sexual assault.  Well, the status quo isn't working.  We've run out of time to try more cautious reforms.

"The Military Justice Improvement Act is a reform with bipartisan support.  It would give members of the Armed Forces more confidence in the military system of justice and contribute to improved morale and recruitment and retention of troops.  When young people make the commitment to serve their country in uniform and put themselves in harm's way to defend and protect America's freedoms, they deserve to know their rights will be protected, including access to justice.  This legislation does justice to the U.S. military code of honor, which is based on integrity and fidelity to the rule of law.

"Oftentimes incremental changes are the best approach but something as serious and life-altering as sexual assault requires bold action, not in a few years or a little bit at a time, but right now.  I appreciate Senator Gillibrand's commitment and leadership on this issue and the strength of the testimony from victims of sexual assault in the military and those who have served in uniform in leadership positions."

Last September, the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services voted overwhelmingly in support of removing the decision whether to prosecute sexual assaults and other serious crimes from the chain of command.  Ten committee members voted in support of the measure, six abstained to study further, none voted against.  Civilian and retired military women and men who are appointed by the Secretary of Defense serve on this committee to provide advice and recommendations on matters and policies relating to the recruitment and retention, treatment, employment, integration, and well-being of highly qualified professional women in the Armed Forces.  Historically, its recommendations have been instrumental in effecting changes to laws and policies pertaining to military women.

According to a report of the Sexual Abuse Prevention and Response Office of the Department of Defense, an estimated 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact and sexual assaults occurred in fiscal 2012, a 37 percent increase from fiscal 2011.  In addition, the report said 25 percent of women and 27 percent of men who received unwanted sexual contact indicated the offender was someone in their military chain of command.  Fifty percent of female victims stated they did not report the crime because they believed that nothing would be done.  A separate report released by the Defense Department this year showed that more than one in five female service members reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact while serving in the military.

Forty-four Democratic senators and nine Republican senators have expressed public support for the Military Justice Improvement Act.

-30-

06 Feb 2014

SENATORS DEMAND ANSWERS ON BOTCHED OBAMACARE ENROLLMENT APPEALS PROCESS

By Grassley Press
In Letter To CMS Administrator Tavenner, Senators Write,  "This latest impediment has caused individuals to pay more for their insurance or to go without it, and leaves applicants with almost no recourse to fix their problems."

WASHINGTON - Today, U.S. Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) wrote to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Marilyn Tavenner seeking answers on how the agency will process appeals when Americans attempting to enroll in the ObamaCare exchanges through HealthCare.gov are denied coverage due to technical errors.

Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported that roughly 22,000 individuals had appealed HealthCare.gov's mistakes when they were signing up for insurance. However, CMS does not have the appropriate technology in place to manage appeals. Questioning whether the agency will be able to resolve these appeals promptly and efficiently, the Senators asked CMS to provide details on how long it will be before the technical infrastructure is properly functioning and requested information on the appeals process that is currently in place.

"As Americans continue to endure the badly botched rollout of a website that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, we learned recently that thousands of applicants have been unable to correct mistakes on their insurance applications and that CMS does not have a system in place to resolve these mistakes," wrote the Senators. "This latest impediment has caused individuals to pay more for their insurance or to go without it, and leaves applicants with almost no recourse to fix their problems."

Hatch is the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, Alexander is the Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, Grassley is the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Enzi is the Ranking Member of the Senate HELP Subcommittee on Children & Families.

The text of the letter to Administrator Tavenner is below and a signed copy can be found HERE:

February 6, 2014

The Honorable Marilyn Tavenner

Administrator

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

200 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC  20201


Dear Administrator Tavenner:

We are writing to request information about how the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) plans to reconcile the mistakes that have been generated in the healthcare.gov application process. As Americans continue to endure the badly botched rollout of a website that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, we learned recently that thousands of applicants have been unable to correct mistakes on their insurance applications and that CMS does not have a system in place to resolve these mistakes. This latest impediment has caused individuals to pay more for their insurance or to go without it, and leaves applicants with almost no recourse to fix their problems.

The Washington Post reported this week[1] that 22,000 people have appealed to CMS to try to correct mistakes on their insurance applications filed through the federal health exchange. Our understanding is that most of the mistakes were caused by the website and not the individuals. For example, some people who need health insurance are not getting the full subsidy to which they are entitled. Others found that their applications had obvious mistakes, like declaring one of their children eligible for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and the other one ineligible. Others became stuck in a never-ending loop when the exchange found them ineligible for exchange coverage because they were eligible for Medicaid, but their state disagreed. These consumers have legitimate complaints and their concerns should be remedied as expeditiously as possible by your agency.

However, according to the Post, CMS does not have a system in place to resolve these appeals. While this in itself is perplexing, the article further states that CMS has no plans to develop the appeals system in the near future. Like other "back-end" systems?such as the technology that sends enrollees' information to insurance companies through "834" electronic forms?the automated appeals system has not yet been constructed. Instead, people are directed to file appeals by mail, a more time-consuming process that could result in the denial of necessary care, or to delete their online profiles and start over, only to find themselves back in the same predicament. All of this is because the technology that would allow CMS staff to handle appeals has not been built.

CMS' intention to initiate hearings for some of the affected appellees is a step in the right direction, but generally, hearings do not result in timely resolution.  Healthcare.gov's website states that "In general, we must tell you our decision and mail our response within 90 days of when we received your appeal request."[2] Ninety days or more is unacceptable to the thousands of Americans who may have their care interrupted, or be unable to insure themselves or their children, while they are waiting to have the issues with their application resolved. The challenges faced by these individuals should be investigated and promptly resolved by the appropriate officials. A seven-page form, followed by investigative hearings, is a burdensome process to resolve what are reportedly technical "glitches" that the affected individual had no part in creating.

 

We collectively are concerned about whether or not participants in the exchanges will have their problems resolved promptly and efficiently.  To help us better understand how CMS intends to assist those negatively impacted by the healthcare.gov website, please provide us with answers to the following questions:

 

1.       Which division within CMS is responsible for managing exchange-related appeals and which division had the ultimate responsibility for overseeing the development and operational functionality of the exchange appeals process?

2.       How many healthcare.gov appeals has CMS addressed and resolved to date?

3.       What is the schedule for resolving the current backlog of appeals?

4.       How long does CMS anticipate it will take to resolve the average appeal and how is CMS communicating to appellees about the length of time for resolution of their appeals?

5.       What is the timeline for building the infrastructure necessary to route appeals to the proper channels so that CMS officials can address their needs and resolve them expeditiously?

6.       When will consumers be able to file appeals by phone or electronically?

7.       What is CMS' rationale for not including the appeals infrastructure in the initial phase of the Federal exchange functionality?

8.       Why was a contingency plan for handling appeals not developed sooner given the lack of infrastructure to handle appeals that was present from the launch of the exchanges onward?

We remain concerned that CMS has continued to over promise and under deliver. We urge you to carefully consider the above issues and to provide a written response to our questions by February 28, 2014.

Sincerely,

HATCH
GRASSLEY
ALEXANDER
ENZI

###

05 Feb 2014

Common Core resolution announced, concern over Washington control of education policy

By Grassley Press

Senators Introduce Resolution Denouncing Obama Administration's Coercion of States with Common Core

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) will introduce a resolution strongly denouncing the Obama Administration's coercion of states into adopting Common Core State Standards by conferring preferences in federal grants and flexibility waivers.

The resolution is co-sponsored by Senators Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), and Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming).

"The Obama Administration has effectively bribed and coerced states into adopting Common Core," said Graham.  "Blanket education standards should not be a prerequisite for federal funding.  In order to have a competitive application for some federal grants and flexibility waivers, states have to adopt Common Core.  This is simply not the way the Obama Administration should be handling education policy. Our resolution affirms that education belongs in the hands of our parents, local officials and states."

"It is crucial that the money being spent on education in Oklahoma be controlled by Oklahomans who are familiar with the needs of our schools and students," said Inhofe. "This is why I am proud to join Senator Graham in introducing a resolution that enforces vital education practices of leaving the decisions of children's educational needs to the state and the parents.

"Educational decisions are best made by parents and teachers - not bureaucrats in Washington," said Scott.  "While Common Core started out as a state-led initiative, the federal government unfortunately decided to use carrots and sticks to coerce states into adopting national standards and assessments. That is simply the wrong choice for our kids."

"Common Core is another example of Washington trying to control all aspects of Americans' lives, including the education of our children," said Cruz.  "We should not allow the federal government to dictate what our children learn; rather, parents, through their teachers, local schools and state systems, should be able to direct the education of their children."

"Common Core has become polluted with Federal guidelines and mandates that interfere with the ability of parents, teachers and principals to deliver the education our children deserve," said Lee.  "Rather than increasing coercion, we should be demanding that further interference by the U.S. Department of Education with respect to state decisions on academic content standards be eliminated."

"Decisions about what content students should be taught have enormous consequences for children and so should be made as close as possible to the affected parents and students," said Grassley.  "Federal interference in this area disrupts the direct line of accountability between parents and those making decisions about their children's education.  It also takes away needed flexibility from state education leaders to make changes as they learn more about what works and what does not."

"This Administration favors a national school board approach to education and likes to ignore individual states' decisions," said Enzi. "It uses 'free' money as the carrot to dangle in front of the states. In effect it is trying to force states into accepting a one-size-fits-all approach. This coercion with Common Core is another example of the federal government trampling on states' rights and is the wrong approach to fixing our education system in this country."

The major provisions of the resolution affirm:

·         Education belongs in the hands of parents, local education officials, and states.

·         The federal government should not coerce states into adopting common education standards.

·         No future application process for any federal grant funds or waivers should award additional points, or provide any preference, for the adoption of Common Core.

#####

FACT SHEET

Purpose of the Resolution:

  • Strongly denounces President Obama's coercion of states into adopting Common Core by conferring preferences in federal grants and flexibility waivers.
  • Strongly supports the restoration and protection of state authority and flexibility in establishing and defining challenging student academic standards and assessments.

What the Resolution States:

  • Education belongs in the hands of parents, local education officials, and states.
  • The federal government should not coerce states into adopting common education standards.
  • No application process for any federal grant funds or waivers should award additional points, or provide any preference, for the adoption of Common Core.
  • The link between adoption of common education standards and federal funds will result in increased federal control over education.
  • The resolution does not retract any federal funds or waivers already issued to states.
  • The resolution does not evaluate the content of the Common Core standards already developed and adopted by states.

SUPPORTER STATEMENTS:

·         "HSLDA strongly opposes the Common Core, in large measure due to the federal government's use of tax dollars to coerce states into adopting the Common Core. HSLDA applauds Senator Graham for this powerful resolution pushing back against the notion that Washington, DC should use taxpayer dollars to pressure states into adopting specific education policy. Parents, teachers, and local school districts, not education bureaucrats in Washington, DC, should be in charge of the critical decisions of what, when, and how children learn. The success of homeschooling shows that greater freedom and less top-down control helps lead to academic success."

-- J. Michael Smith, Esq., President, Home School Legal Defense Association

·         "We appreciate Senator Graham's leadership in pushing back against Common Core.  For four years, the federal administration has flouted the rule of law and imposed tens of billions of dollars in mandates on states and localities.  These actions have earned opposition from across the political spectrum and across the country.  This Senate resolution marks the first important step taken in Congress to hold the Administration accountable and to preserve innovation in our states and localities."

-          Jim Stergios, Executive Director, Pioneer Institute

·         "Yet again, we see another attempt to weaken the power of the states by a federal power grab.  Look to the experts, those who actually teach and know our nations' kids; three-hundred prominent educators and policy-makers warn about Common Core discouraging innovation."

-- Penny Nance, CEO & President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee

·         "Common Core is doing for education what ObamaCare is doing for health care."

-- Director of Beverly LaHaye Institute (BLI), Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse

ADDITIONAL SUPPORTERS:

American Association of Christian Schools

Family Research Council

Eagle Forum

American Principles Project
05 Feb 2014

GOP Senate, House Lawmaker Inquiry Reveals Weak Administration Oversight of Drug Discount Program for Uninsured, Low-Income Americans

By Grassley Press

Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General releases report today showing major problems in discount drug program serving the poor, uninsured

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 - A group of Republican Senate and House lawmakers released statements today in response to a report the lawmakers requested of the Office of the Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The lawmakers asked the IG to look into the Health Resources and Services Administration's (HRSA) oversight of the 340B Drug Pricing Program, through which prescription drug manufacturers give health safety net providers access to discounted prices on outpatient drugs. The IG report indicates that the program suffers from a lack of clear guidance from HRSA, the result of which is that "some covered entities in our study do not offer the discounted 340B price to uninsured patients at their contract pharmacies." The report also indicates that there are insufficient safeguards in place to prevent illegal or wasteful use of taxpayer funds.

On May 6, 2013, Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), lead Republican on the Senate health committee; Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.); Orrin Hatch (R-Utah); and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa); as well as House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee Chairman Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) and Representative Bill Cassidy (R-La.) sent a letter to the HHS Inspector General requesting examination of HRSA's oversight of contract pharmacy arrangements to ensure that these pharmacies do not violate the terms of the 340B drug discount program. (Click HERE to read the letter and HERE to see the IG report released today.)

Alexander said: "For the sake of the low-income Americans who should be benefitting from prescription drug discounts through this program, I expect that Secretary Sebelius will take immediate action to ensure the Health Resources and Services Administration fixes the problems uncovered by the Inspector General."

Hatch said: "It's unacceptable that inconsistent, lax oversight has allowed the 340B program to be gamed - jeopardizing its core mission of helping low-income Americans. As this report demonstrates, it's imperative the Health Resources and Services Administration step up to the plate and perform more aggressive oversight to better guarantee assistance for those it's meant to serve."

Enzi said: "Without proper oversight there isn't accountability. Without accountability we're giving a pass to a broken program that isn't meeting its goals of helping uninsured and low-income Americans. The Administration can do better and I expect to hear their solutions for addressing the vulnerabilities identified by the Inspector General."

Grassley said: "Congress expects the discounts to go to low-income patients, but according to this report, that isn't always happening because of the complexities that have developed around this program. Maintaining program integrity is fundamental to the work of every federal agency. In this case, HRSA needs to faithfully execute its responsibilities or account for why it can't do so."

Pitts said: "This report from HHS's own watchdog raises serious questions about whether the 340B program is serving its core mission to help the uninsured. This report underscores the need for strong oversight so that the program is best suited to help those most in need."

# # #
05 Feb 2014

Grassley: Foster Youth Should Benefit from More Information on Helpful Programs

By Grassley Press

WASHINGTON - Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is among a bipartisan group of senators seeking help from two key federal agencies to put out information and reach out to foster youth about various federal programs that could help them succeed.

"Foster youth often don't know about the resources available to them," Grassley said.  "As a result, the kids don't take advantage of an educational program or other opportunity that might make a difference in their lives.  My colleagues and I are asking two federal agencies to do everything they can to spread the word about existing resources in a low-cost way to try to improve outcomes for this vulnerable population."

Grassley and his fellow senators wrote to the secretaries of the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to seek a coordinated informative effort.  The senators noted that only three percent of foster youth graduate from college.  Nearly 400,000 children are in the foster system due to abuse or neglect; every year more than 23,000 of those children age out of the system with no place to call home.

Grassley is founder and co-chair of the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth and a senior member and former chairman and former ranking member of the Finance Committee, with jurisdiction over foster care programs.  He has a long record of improving policies to help foster youth and promote adoption, including authoring the 2008 Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. Foster youth often face multiple school placements once in the child welfare system.   Research has demonstrated that instability and multiple placements have a negative effect on academic achievement and are associated with high rates of children and youth dropping out of school.  The 2008 law requires child welfare and educational agencies to work together to ensure educational stability for foster youth.

The senators' letter to the agencies is available here.

-30-
05 Feb 2014

Farm and Nutrition Bill Clears the Senate

By Grassley Press

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Senator Chuck Grassley released the following statement after the Senate passed the Agricultural Act of 2014 by a vote of 68-32.  Grassley voted against the measure.

"I'm extremely disappointed that my provisions to place a hard cap on farm payments and better define who can receive those payments were stripped down to such a great extent that they likely won't have much effect.  Unfortunately, a few members of the House and Senate placed parochial interests above the broader good for the agricultural community.

"Currently 10 percent of the wealthiest farmers receive 70 percent of the benefit from the farm program.  This puts small- and medium-sized farms and young and beginning farmers at a disadvantage.  These are the very people the farm program is supposed to help.  The committee leaders negotiating the final bill struck my simple, common-sense and enforceable provisions from the final bill.

"As a farmer myself, I understand how a five-year farm bill helps with long-term planning, and there are some good things in the bill.  But, I can't turn a blind eye to a select few members dismantling a provision that was passed by wide, bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate."
04 Feb 2014

Obamacare to cause major job loss, key report says

By Grassley Press

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today made the following comment on a new report from the Congressional Budget Office showing that the new health care will damage economic growth.  The report is available here.

"You can read dozens of analyses of the health care law, and some are clearly biased.  The Congressional Budget Office is the independent authority turned to by Congress.  According to CBO, the law will hurt economic growth, cause the loss of 2.5 million jobs, and add $1 trillion to the deficit.  No doubt, too many people lacked health insurance before Obamacare and needed help.  But Obamacare upends a big part of the economy while trying to achieve its goals.  Congress and the President should abandon Obamacare.  We ought to help the uninsured without disrupting jobs and adding debt."

Pages

Subscribe & Listen to Reader Podcasts

On Stands Now

 

Tagged Content

Two Ways to Subscribe

1. Subscribe to free weekly e-mail content updates.

You'll get both the current official narrative challenge and What's Happenin' in the Quad Cities.
(Did you know we publish a new Amy Alkon Advice Goddess, Real Astrology, Red Meat cartoon and RCR Crossword every week?) 

* indicates required

View previous campaigns.

2. Get 12 monthly issues mailed first class for $48

Get 12 issues mailed monthly for $48 per year.

Get the printed Reader edition mailed to you (or anyone you want) first-class for 12 months for $48.
$24 goes to postage and handling, $24 goes to keeping the doors open!

Click this link to Subscribe now.