BOSTON (AP) - Keeping his secrets, Mitt Romney tends to lift the veil on his finances and campaign only if the law says he must.
The Republican presidential candidate refuses to identify his biggest donors who "bundle" money for his campaign. He often declines to say who's meeting with him or what he's doing for hours at a time. He puts limits on media access to his fundraisers. And he resists releasing all of his tax returns, making just a single year public after facing pressure to do so.
"We've released all the information required by law and then some," Romney said last month about his tax returns.
He's indicated that part of the reason for his secrecy is to avoid political problems in his race against President Barack Obama.
He has said of his election foe: "He's going to try and make this campaign about the fact that I've been successful, that I've made a lot of money. So he wants to be able to get all the details on each year and how much money I made this year and that year. I'm not going to get into that."
Not that Obama has been totally open, either.
For example, the Democrat also limits media access to some parts of his fundraisers, though he allows cameras into larger events and will bring a small contingent of reporters into private residences. Reporters are promptly ushered out ahead of question-and-answer sessions with donors. Some fundraisers are closed entirely because the campaign says Obama is not making any formal remarks.
But Romney, whose views have been shaped both by his years in politics and his nearly three decades in private business, has made a keep-it-under-wraps approach a hallmark of his campaign. He's often broken precedent set by presidential candidates of both parties.
"He is reluctant to disclose information that is standard for disclosure and has become the norm," said Angela Canterbury, policy director for the Project on Government Oversight. And she and others say there's no reason to think that style would change if Romney becomes president.
There's a short-term political benefit, to be sure, in keeping a lid on everything from campaign appearances to the names of big donors. It means Romney can more easily control his campaign message, rather than getting knocked off course by Democratic hecklers at events or by unflattering media stories. And it can prevent providing fodder for political rivals to use against him.
But there also are risks, not the least of which is that Romney could appear to be hiding something, further irking voters already suspicious of politicians.
Romney has had the Republican nomination locked up for months, but he has yet to start traveling daily with the journalists who are assigned to cover him. He hasn't agreed to what's called a "protective pool" of reporters, who go wherever a candidate goes. Romney aides fear the arrangement would push the candidate off the message of the day, so they are loath to agree to it until they absolutely must.
Obama's traveling press corps was with him virtually at all times starting in June 2008, just three weeks after he triumphed over Hillary Rodham Clinton to become the presumptive Democratic nominee. Republican nominee John McCain didn't officially have a "protective pool" until August but he had a familiar relationship with his traveling press corps, and journalists almost always traveled on his campaign plane in the months after he clinched the nomination in March 2008. News organizations pay the cost of reporters who travel with presidential campaigns.
On the campaign trail this year, Romney's aides have at times tried to limit reporters from approaching him when he shakes hands with voters at events. And his aides often don't allow a camera and microphone on stage to record those interactions – though that's been customary in past campaigns.
Also, Romney's schedule is closely held – and his campaign typically won't say what he's doing when he's not at one of the few public events he holds each week. Even public appearances often are announced less than a day in advance – or not at all. Recently he rode to the site of the failed energy company Solyndra on the unmarked press bus, leaving the logo-plastered Romney for President bus behind at his hotel. Aides said the campaign was concerned the Obama administration would work with local officials to prevent Romney from holding an event there.
Romney's campaign also usually won't disclose with whom the candidate meets – regardless of whether they are high- ranking officials or simply voters. He kept reporters away from a private meeting with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell last month, and says he regularly holds "off the record" meetings with middle class families, though he won't say who they are.
Obama's public schedule tends to list more Oval Office meetings than President George W. Bush did, but many of his sessions are not divulged. The White House does release Obama's visitor logs, and they are open on the White House website.
On his possible policies as president, Romney has been more upfront with audiences behind closed doors than he has been when the media are present.
At fundraising events not witnessed by reporters, donors are sometimes given access to policy roundtables with top staff, and Romney himself gave donors in West Palm Beach, Fla., a more detailed outline of which federal departments he plans to cut than is part of his normal campaign speech. That address was overheard by reporters who stood outside on a sidewalk.
Romney has suggested he's purposefully vague when he talks to the media – and, therefore, the general public – about his policy plans. Asked recently why he hasn't released more specifics, he compared his approach to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
"The media kept saying to Chris, `Come on, give us the details, give us the details,'" Romney said. "`We want to hang you with them.'"
In the aftermath of the Florida event, Romney agreed to allow a handful of reporters to attend just a few of the many finance events he holds each week. Still, his campaign refuses to say how much money each event raises, and doesn't regularly release a full schedule of the events from which reporters are barred. Romney's campaign expanded the number of people allowed into the fundraisers beginning this week, allowing three news service reporters instead of one and also allowing a TV network representative in, though without a camera. Reporters are still barred from covering fundraisers at private homes.
Romney's secrecy goes beyond the details of his campaign schedule or his policy proposals.
He has been selective at best in providing public records from his 2003-2007 term as Massachusetts governor.
Late last year, he acknowledged that just before he left office he authorized a sweeping purge of electronic data from his executive office, allowing top aides to purchase and remove their computer hard drives. He also benefited from a law that widely exempted the governor's office from state public records disclosure requirements. His campaign aides point to more than 600 boxes of materials that were sent from his office to the Massachusetts archives, but a week-long examination of the Romney records now in those archives by The Associated Press did not turn up a single email or internal document either authored by or sent to Romney. Some such emails have since surfaced in connection with public records requests.
Obama, Romney's rival, entered office pledging to create the most transparent administration in American history. But while some open- government groups give him credit for trying, aspects of his administration remain closed or inaccessible to the public eye. A review this year by the AP found that federal agencies had improved their response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act but still had had sizable backlogs.
In his campaign, Romney has limited the release of documents and information that in the past often have become part of the public record.
He is the first winning candidate of either party in more than a decade to refuse to give the public a list of the people who tap their business and social networks to raise tens of thousands of dollars for him. In 2008, Obama and McCain both released lists of bundlers. Bush released his in 2000 and 2004.
The names Romney has released so far are those required by law. Campaigns have to disclose anyone who bundles money if they have also registered as a federal lobbyist.
Federal laws also require Romney to release a broad portrait of his personal finances – disclosures that showed he was worth up to $250 million in 2011.
Candidates aren't required by law to release their personal tax returns, despite longstanding precedent for doing so – set by Romney's father, George Romney, who ran for the Republican nomination in 1968. In 2008, Obama released seven years' worth of returns. McCain released two years' worth.
In January, Romney released his 2010 return under pressure from Republicans. That forced him to amend the personal financial disclosures he had filed earlier in the year because those documents didn't mention a Swiss bank account or a series of funds that were set up in foreign countries. Romney has yet to release his 2011 tax returns; he filed for an extension. His advisers say he'll release them before the Nov. 6 election.
___
Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn and Stephen Braun in Washington contributed to this report.
__
Follow Kasie Hunt on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com /kasie.
(Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
Source: www.ksl.com
USA Muslim Matrimonial - Owen Sound Sun Times
We must have heard several love stories which happened irrespective of borders and must have wondered how they’d materialized it, how they met, how they started it off and finally how in the world they struck the chord and decided to get settled. If you think that such stories are limited to only privileged few, think again. Zarooratrishta.com brings you the secret of the overseas marriage from the country where love is in the air. We bring you the best possible matrimonial solution for your bride or groom from the genuine and verified single Muslims in US so that your overseas pursuit for a Muslim partner can become a lot easier. We keep a verified database of single Muslims in US and are currently on the brink of becoming the pioneers of Muslim Matrimonial USA.
Usually Muslim Marriage Sites offer you matrimony from only area of your native or residence or even if they happen to offer you matrimonies from across the planet, you don’t have the option to verify it as profile photos may be misleading. We keep a thoroughly verified database of handpicked Muslim matrimonies USA because we know that nikah is usually the affair of grand celebrations, not keeping up with apprehensions that come supplementary with its planning for which zarooratrishta.com offers you a complete peace of mind so that your celebrations remain celebrations not only for your friends or relatives but for you as well.
Source: www.owensoundsuntimes.com
Kent Police backs drive to protect vulnerable adults - Kent News
Police
Monday, June 11, 2012
11:59 AM
Public awareness events being held in Medway as part of Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults week
The county’s force is backing an awareness campaign aiming to protect vulnerable adults.
The drive forms part of Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults week, which runs from today until June 15, with a number of drop-in events being held.
Kent Police said the campaign shines a spotlight on the abuse that elderly or those with a disability can be subjected to.
Police officers will be taking part in local events with other Kent-based agencies such as NHS, Trading Standards, Kent Fire and Rescue Service and Medway and Kent County Councils.
In Medway, there will be a public awareness stand offering advice and information on:
June 11 at Gillingham Market, 9am to 4.30pm
June 12 at Strood Market, 9am to 3pm
June 13 at Pentagon Shopping Centre, Chatham, 9am to 5pm
June 14 at Rochester Hub, 9am to 3pm
June 15 at Rainham Shopping Centre, 9am to 4pm
Detective Superintendent Tim Smith of Kent Police said: “Abuse can take many forms and it can be difficult to identify abuse is taking place unless there are obvious outward physical signs.
“For example, the elderly and those who have mental disabilities can often be subject to financial abuse if others gain access to their bank details or exploit a loss of memory.
“Abuse may also take the form of neglect and not providing for a vulnerable person’s basic living needs.
“Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults Week intends to combat and prevent such abuse by giving carers and those who are themselves at risk the tools to spot signs of abuse and how to act on them once identified.
“This is an invaluable opportunity to work with local partners to highlight an important section of the community who depend on our joint services to protect them. Together, we hope to reduce the threat of abuse towards all vulnerable adults in Kent.”
Source: www.kentnews.co.uk
Murphy's Law: Johnson gives timely reminder - Yahoo! Eurosport
Dustin Johnson's victory at the St. Jude Classic added one more favourite to the U.S. Open field.
Naked admission: I'd completely forgotten about Dustin Johnson.
In this crowded landscape of golf parity, where the Major-championship baton has been handed to 14 consecutive different winners, where one week Jason Dufner is the new Tiger, and the next week Matt Kuchar is the new Tiger, and the next week Tiger is the New Tiger, Johnson popped up over the weekend to say:
"Yo! Remember me? I've been gone the last three months. I'm the big, athletic guy with the most powerful golf swing on Earth, pillow-soft hands around the green and a history – albeit checkered – at Majors. Yeah, that guy. The bunker-at-Whistling-Straits guy. I'm back. I just shot 66 on Sunday to win the FedEx St. Jude Classic in Memphis. And I'll see you at Olympic for the U.S. Open. Boom."
Well, this complicates matters.
Just when we'd all sorted out our Open favourites – Tiger because he's back; Luke because he's due; Phil because he's Phil – Johnson has mucked up the works.
Dustin Johnson has always had the most mouth-watering game on tour. He's routinely among the tour leaders in driving distance, birdies, eagles and money. He was in position to win the 2010 U.S. Open at Pebble Beach, but shot 82 on Sunday. He was in position to win the 2010 PGA Championship, but grounded his club in a bunker he didn't know was a bunker, because he forgot to read the local rules. He was in position to win the 2011 British Open, only two back of Darren Clarke at Sandwich on the 14th fairway, but pumped his 2-iron out of bounds.
Some might look at that history and conclude Johnson has a million-dollar game with a 10-cent head. That conclusion has some merit to it. Another way to look at it is, Johnson, who turns 28 this month, has been knock-knock-knockin' on Major championship doors, still believing one will open soon.
His 66 at Memphis zoomed him past an intriguing leaderboard that included Rory McIlroy, who seems intent on bringing the double-bogey back into fashion; Chad Campbell, a once-prominent player who hasn't won in five years; and Davis Love III, the Ryder Cup captain who is feeling his oats a little after qualifying for the U.S. Open last week.
With two birdies in his last three holes to seal the win, Johnson reminded us how pure the game looks when he's pounding fairways and lasering irons. We had forgotten because the guy disappeared for three months after Doral, announcing via Twitter that he injured his back lifting a jet ski.
Most of the civilized golf world responded in kind: Say what?
Who lifts a jet ski, much less a world-class golfer who needs to protect his body? The rumor mill speculated whether Johnson was legitimately injured or not. Whispers abounded that Johnson was suspended for failing a drug test. This has never been confirmed and it's been denied – by Johnson, who said he "laughed" at the idea, and by his disgusted agent, David Winkle. Winkle said US PGA Tour gossip circles are the worst he's ever seen, even worse than his daughters' cheerleading and sorority circles.
Johnson's game and body showed an alarming lack of rust or effect from the injury. He finished T-19th at the Memorial last week, then dropped a 66 on Sunday in Memphis. This didn't look like a guy nursing a tender back.
Instead, he looked like every bit the threat for another Major championship windmill-tilt. It's time to start reeling off all those stats that tantalize: He's the first player since Tiger to post a win in each of his first five seasons since college, and he has the most wins (six) of any American player in his 20s.
In short, the New World Order of golf, in which it's anybody's ballgame, needs to scoot over and make room for Johnson. He's one of those guys you forgot RSVP'd to the party, but when he shows up at your door, you try not to raise eyebrows, simply take his coat and point him to the punch bowl.
Dustin Johnson is here to join the fiesta.
Scorecard of the week
68-64-68-69 – 19-under 269, Lee Westwood, winner, European PGA Tour Nordea Masters, Bro Hoff Slot GC, Stockholm, Sweden.
The silliest thing a golf writer can do before a Major championship is "announce" his or her pick to win. There are, after all, 150-plus players, many of them world-class, Major-winner possibilities. Golf is fluky, weird and prone to ignoring momentum. Forecasting the future is a skill yet to be mastered and yet, all your friends, colleagues and readers want to know: Who do you think will win the U.S. Open at Olympic? Well, heck, I don't know! But forced to participate in the fun, I made a pick, and it's Lee Westwood. I told anyone who asked that Westwood is due to come through after so many close calls (top three finishes in six of his last 10 Majors), that his precise iron game suits Olympic, and that putting – ostensibly Westwood's weakness – won't be as important as tee-to-green at Olympic.
And then Westwood goes and does this:
He wins by five at the Nordea Masters, boasts of his new golf clubs and putter, solidifies his status as the world's No. 3-ranked player – and brings on the Don't-Win-The-Week-Before-A-Major whammy.
Since the start of Majors in 1934, only six times has a player won the week prior to winning a Major, and four times it was at the Masters. No player has ever won the week before winning a U.S. Open.
What in the name of black cats is Westwood doing? Not only is he going to battle the Stockholm-to-San Francisco jet lag all week, he's essentially assured my pick will be wrong. Seventy-eight years of history says as much.
And don't ask me to explain how Dustin Johnson winning at Memphis enhances his chances in the face of this history. I'm more concerned with Westwood's fate, because of the pick.
I'll stick with my pick, just to be consistent. But if Westwood flops, don't blame me. Blame Westwood for winning in Sweden – the new Stockholm syndrome.
Mulligan of the week
There he was, young Rory McIlroy, his golf world a mess, arriving in Memphis the week before he's to defend his U.S. Open title. In one year's time, McIlroy went from the Next Chosen One, to a guy who couldn't make a cut. Approaching the one year anniversary of his record U.S. Open triumph at Congressional, McIlroy suddenly carried negative energy as the 15th club in his bag.
He'd missed three consecutive cuts. He became No. 1 in the world, then lost it to Luke Donald. He hadn't contended in a Major since Congressional. And even Jack Nicklaus, to his face in a CNN interview, doubted his decision to play in Memphis, instead of focusing on Olympic.
First things first: The good news for McIlroy was he made the cut in Memphis.
It wasn't all good after that. His 36-hole lead turned into a two-shot deficit after 54 holes because he made six bogeys on Saturday en route to a 2-over 72.
But on Sunday, McIlroy seemed primed to win for the second time on the US PGA Tour this year. He had a two-shot lead on the 11th hole, but made bogey on Nos. 12 and 14 to lose it. Ick.
A clutch birdie on No. 17 saw McIlroy arrive at the 72nd tee tied for the lead. Or, at least he thought he was. Turns out Dustin Johnson made birdie on No. 17 behind him for a one-shot lead, but when McIlroy broke out his 3-wood off the tee at TPC Southwind, he didn't know that. All he knew was that he faced a pressure tee shot with a significant water hazard left. In his attempt to reclaim some lost mojo, this scenario presented ample opportunity.
Until he yanked his tee shot hard left.
Ker-splash.
And then, clank. (That was the sound of McIlroy disgustedly dropping his club on the tee box.)
It got worse. McIlroy's third was lovely, just short of the green, and his fourth was a game chip he tried to hole for par, but ran 5 feet past.
And then missed the bogey putt.
So, McIlroy, plagued by double-bogeys last week at the Memorial (two, plus a quad) – an effort so bad he entered Memphis on a whim – heads to Olympic with a double bogey as his last score on a competitive golf hole.
The opposite of momentum in sports is a slump, but you'd hate to throw the "S" word at McIlroy.
Now, I can hear some clamouring that McIlroy is best off not winning in Memphis, because of the historically difficult back-to-back before a Major. But I'm not asking that McIlroy had won at Memphis. I'm merely asking that he had made a standard par-4 on the 72nd hole, lost to Dustin Johnson by a stroke and been proud of his finish.
In the interest of rooting for a charismatic kid with a Louvre-worthy golf swing, let's go back out to the 72nd hole, let McIlroy crack his neck a few times, maybe bring in a Swedish masseuse to work out some kinks, remind him that he usually roasts that 3-wood better than anyone on the planet and … give that shaggy-haired Ulsterman a mulligan!
Where do we go from here?
I know the Masters has the tinkling piano music, the TV ratings, Jim Nantz in reverential whisper, green jackets, azaleas and the lush scenery every year, but how do you beat our national open?
Besides, I thought we fought a Revolutionary War for the freedom to host our own national championship. Not only that, but also we'll allow anybody who plays his or her way in to tee it up. When Neil Diamond penned "America" and got to the part about "On the boats/and on the planes/They're coming to America!" I'm pretty sure he meant the U.S. Open golf tournament.
So, the world golf scene heads to San Francisco. We're all aware of Olympic's history, in which a lesser name fells a legend. Jack Fleck did it to Ben Hogan in 1955; Billy Casper did it to Arnold Palmer in 1966; Scott Simpson did it to Tom Watson in 1987 and Lee Janzen did it to Payne Stewart in 1998.
By that logic, you should take Bo Van Pelt to nick Phil Mickelson on the 72nd hole.
You can go that way if you'd like. I'm thinking this is one of the best plots we can ever conjure. We have Tiger 2.0, winning again, but not nearly as intimidating. We have Mickelson searching for the elusive, sentimental U.S. Open victory. We have McIlroy, nearly 20 years younger than Lefty, carrying the trophy for its defence. We have Rickie Fowler leading the Justin Bieber generation of hopefuls. We have Matt Kuchar returning to the site of his breakthrough amateur star turn. We have Dustin Johnson trying to make history. We have Lee Westwood carrying the Colin Montgomerie "Nearly Man" mantle, only without Monty's look of permanent intestinal gas.
We'll have San Francisco Giants hats in the gallery, Golden Gate Bridge beauty shots heading to commercial and the indisputably breathtaking sight of Monterey Pines, a Spanish-styled, red-tiled clubhouse roof, and America's Pacific urban jewel as host.
I'm in.
Source: uk.eurosport.yahoo.com
Toughen up on human rights or we'll change the law, May tells judges who refuse to deport foreign criminals - Daily Mail
|
Theresa May yesterday declared war on judges who refuse to deport foreign criminals because of their human rights.
The Home Secretary said the courts should stop allowing overseas prisoners, law-breakers and illegal immigrants to stay in Britain on the grounds that they have a right to a family life.
She promised a vote in Parliament to ram home to judges ‘what the public believe’ and persuade them ‘to take into account what Parliament has said’.
Talking tough: Mrs May on the Andrew Marr show yesterday
Failure by the judiciary to listen will result in new laws to curb the exploitation of the human rights legislation by foreign criminals, Mrs May said.
Her move to take on the courts – to be launched in a Commons statement tomorrow – met with criticism from sceptical Tory backbenchers who believe statements in Parliament will not be enough to rein in the judges.
A leading immigration pressure group added that Britain would need to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights before Parliament could regain the right to set immigration law.
Mrs May’s attack follows a decade of frustration for successive Home Secretaries at the refusal of courts to uphold immigration rules.
Most recently there has been outrage over cases in which criminals have avoided deportation by pleading that their removal would breach the family life clause of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Among them was Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, a failed asylum seeker and repeat offender who ran down and killed 12-year-old Amy Houston – and fled the scene – while disqualified from driving.
A judge subsequently allowed him to remain here because he had two children with a British woman.
Figures show that more than 100 criminals a month whom ministers hope to deport are released from jail to go free on the streets. They routinely plead they have a right to a family life here.
Tory backbencher Dominic Raab is calling for an Act of Parliament to 'stop the rot'
Last autumn Mrs May opened her battle with the judiciary at the Tory conference when she spoke of a case in which a judge took into account a pet cat as a reason to allow an illegal immigrant to stay.
The clause repeatedly used by foreign offenders is Article Eight of the Convention, which says that everyone has a ‘right to private and family life’.
The clause, enshrined in British law by the Human Rights Act, has become a catch-all used to prevent the deportation of criminals, block the prosecution of those who help sick relatives commit suicide, and even suppress the public exposure of footballers who cheat on their wives.
Mrs May told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show: ‘What I’m going to do is actually set out the rules that say this is what Parliament, this is what the public believe is how you balance the public interest against the individual’s interest.’
She said lawyers had complained that the courts had not been given clear Parliamentary guidance on what the right to a family life should be. ‘Parliament is going to set that out,’ she said.
‘We are not just making it as a Government statement. We are going to ask Parliament to vote on this, to say very clearly what we think constitutes the right to a family life.
‘I would expect that judges will look at what Parliament will say and that they will follow and take into account what Parliament has said. If they don’t then we will have to look at other measures and that could include Parliamentary legislation.’
But some senior Tory back- benchers doubted that a vote by MPs would make an impact.
Dominic Raab said: ‘Ministers are right to tackle the abuse of Article Eight by foreign criminals. But tinkering with guidance and resolutions of the House of Commons won’t stem the judicial legislation. As the Lord Chief Justice has pointed out, it will take an Act of Parliament to stop the rot.’
Sir Andrew Green, of the Migrationwatch think-tank, said: ‘If the judges won’t listen to Parliament we must look again at our membership of the European Court of Human Rights.’
n Immigrants will no longer be able to live on benefits by marrying a British citizen, Mrs May said yesterday. She promised rules to stop husbands or wives bringing a spouse or family into the country from outside Europe unless they have an income of 18,600.
The family migration income threshold will rise to 27,200 if there are three children.
Mrs May said 18,600 was ‘the point at which people would not normally be reliant on income related benefits’, adding: ‘We think it is right that somebody who is wanting to bring somebody into the UK to join them as a spouse or a partner should be able to support them financially.’
Source: www.dailymail.co.uk
Undoing health law could have messy ripple effects - The Guardian
RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press= WASHINGTON (AP) — It sounds like a silver lining. Even if the Supreme Court overturns President Barack Obama's health care law, employers can keep offering popular coverage for the young adult children of their workers.
But here's the catch: The parents' taxes would go up.
That's only one of the messy potential ripple effects when the Supreme Court delivers its verdict on the Affordable Care Act this month. The law affects most major components of the U.S. health care system in its effort to extend coverage to millions of uninsured people.
Because the legislation is so complicated, an orderly unwinding would prove difficult if it were overturned entirely or in part.
Better Medicare prescription benefits, currently saving hundreds of dollars for older people with high drug costs, would be suspended. Ditto for preventive care with no co-payments, now available to retirees and working families alike.
Partially overturning the law could leave hospitals, insurers and other service providers on the hook for tax increases and spending cuts without the law's promise of more paying customers to offset losses.
If the law is upheld, other kinds of complications could result.
The nation is so divided that states led by Republicans are largely unprepared to carry out critical requirements such as creating insurance markets. Things may not settle down.
"At the end of the day, I don't think any of the major players in the health insurance industry or the provider community really wants to see the whole thing overturned," said Christine Ferguson, a health policy expert who was commissioner of public health in Massachusetts when Mitt Romney was governor.
"Even though this is not the most ideal solution, at least it is moving us forward, and it does infuse some money into the system for coverage," said Ferguson, now at George Washington University. As the GOP presidential candidate, Romney has pledged to wipe Obama's law off the books. But he defends his Massachusetts law that served as a prototype for Obama's.
While it's unclear how the justices will rule, oral arguments did not go well for the Obama administration. The central issue is whether the government can require individuals to have health insurance and fine them if they don't.
That mandate takes effect in 2014, at the same time that the law would prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage to people with existing health problems. Most experts say the coverage guarantee would balloon costs unless virtually all people joined the insurance pool.
Opponents say Congress overstepped its constitutional authority by issuing the insurance mandate. The administration says the requirement is permissible because it serves to regulate interstate commerce. Most people already are insured. The law provides subsidies to help uninsured middle-class households pay premiums and expands Medicaid to pick up more low-income people.
The coverage for young adults up to age 26 on a parent's health insurance is a popular provision that no one's arguing about. A report last week from the Commonwealth Fund estimated that 6.6 million young adults have taken advantage of the benefit, while a new Gallup survey showed the uninsured rate for people age 18-25 continues to decline, down to 23 percent from 28 percent when the law took effect.
Families will be watching to see if their 20-somethings transitioning to the work world will get to keep that newfound security.
Because the benefit is a winner with consumers, experts say many employers and insurers would look for ways to keep offering it even if there's no legal requirement to do so. On Monday, UnitedHealth Group Inc., the nation's largest insurer, is announcing that it will continue to offer coverage to young adults even if the health care law is struck down.
But economist Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefit Research Institute says many parents would pay higher taxes as a result because they would have to pay for the young adult's coverage with after-tax dollars. Under the health care law, that coverage now comes out of pre-tax dollars.
Fronstin says there's no way to tell exactly how much that tax increase might be, but a couple of hundred dollars a year or more is a reasonable ballpark estimate. Upper-income taxpayers would have a greater liability.
"Adult children aren't necessarily dependents for tax purposes, but an employer can allow anyone to be on a plan, just like they now allow domestic partners," said Fronstin. "If your employer said, 'I'm going to let you keep this,' it would become a taxable benefit for certain people."
Advocates for the elderly are also worried about untoward ripple effects.
If the entire law is overturned, seniors with high prescription costs in Medicare's "donut hole" coverage gap could lose annual discounts averaging about $600. AARP policy director David Certner says he would hope the discounts could remain in place at least through the end of this year.
Yet that might not be possible. Lacking legal authority, Medicare would have to take away the discounts. Drugmakers, now bearing the cost, could decide they want to keep offering discounts voluntarily. But then they'd risk running afoul of other federal rules that bar medical providers from offering financial inducements to Medicare recipients.
"I don't think anyone has any idea," said Certner.
A mixed verdict from the high court would be the most confusing outcome. Some parts of the law would be struck down while others lurch ahead.
That kind of result would seem to call for Congress to step in and smooth any necessary adjustments. Yet partisan divisions on Capitol Hill are so intense that hardly anyone sees a chance that would happen this year.
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Kent County Cricket Club move Freinds Life t20 game from Nevill Ground to St Lawrence - Kent Online
Comments |
Read all comments on this story.
Heavy rain has disrupted much of the Tunbridge Wells Festival Picture: Barry Goodwin
Kent have moved Tuesday evening's Friends Life t20 match against Sussex Sharks to the St Lawrence Ground after flash flooding in Tunbridge Wells.
The match, which was due to take place at The Nevill Ground, will now be played under floodlights in Canterbury with a start time of 7pm.
Kent's chief executive, Jamie Clifford, said heavy rain on Sunday night had forced the club into action, leaving a return to Canterbury the only decision possible for the start of the T20 competition.
He said: "There is no way we could have got anything on at Tunbridge Wells at all. I would have been surprised if you could get any play on that wicket for 10 days.
"What a sorry way to celebrate your 100th festival but in the end you have to just accept it, there is nothing you can do. It's been horrific and pretty costly too and I feel sorry for the supporters who have had their plans disrupted.
"It's the opening game of the competition and it's against Sussex so hopefully there will still be a good crowd."
With the majority of the Tunbridge Wells Festival wiped out by rain, the county are looking at losses of about £50,000 for what is usually a profitable week. It could have been worse had a wicket not been prepared for today's scheduled Varsity matches between University of Kent and Canterbury Christ Church - now postponed due to the weather.
Mr Clifford explained: "Given that we had no games at Canterbury until the end of June, we could have been high and dry with no wicket prepared here and struggling, so we were very lucky there was a Varsity game originally planned."
- Anyone with tickets for the match and are unable to travel to Canterbury tomorrow, can send their tickets with name and address to Kent County Cricket Club, St Lawrence Ground, Canterbury, Kent CT1 3NZ. Kent are also offering full refunds for those that can't attend, while advance ticket prices of £20 for adults and £5 juniors will be available on the gate.
Monday, June 11 2012
Print Article
Buy a KM PictureThe KM Group does not moderate comments.
Please click here for our house rules.
Source: www.kentonline.co.uk
Sign in to leave your comment
0 comments