Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Government Funding for Planned Parenthood (10 years)

Cost: ($4,264,800,000)*

Planned Parenthood and its affiliates have received $4.3 billion in government funding over the last ten years, according to the group’s annual reports. Their government funding comes from both federal and state governments. We do not know exactly how much of Planned Parenthood’s funding comes from the federal government. Much of the funding comes from joint federal-state programs like Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Also, federal agencies can award funding to a state, which in turn passes that funding on to a Planned Parenthood organization. This analysis is an estimate of an individual’s share of Planned Parenthood’s government funding based solely on that individual’s federal income tax burden category.
*Planned Parenthood’s Annual Reports

Enter Your Gross Annual Income

$

Your Relative Tax Burden

Relative Tax Burden: The pie chart highlights the share of total federal income tax paid by each income bracket. For example, taxpayers earning $55,000 pay 18% of the all taxes collected.

Government Funding for Planned Parenthood (10 years): Your Share

Cost of the program
$4.3 Billion
Your taxpayer share
$0
*This is not a scientific poll

About our calculations

Your Taxpayer Share: FOXNews.com is projecting the share of a program's cost for one individual in each specified adjusted gross income category. The projections are based on many assumptions with respect to future income groups, future tax burdens, future federal revenues by source, and other details. The assumptions underlying these projections may be modified from time to time to reflect changed circumstances.
Note for Annual Income $250,000 and Above: The top income category, $250,000 or more, has no upper limit and includes extremely high-income individuals who raise the average share of program costs for most people in this category.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

[COMMENTARY] We need an all-of-the-above strategy for protecting Americans' privacy

Technology, for its many benefits, creates tremendous opportunities for criminals of all kinds -- from everyday thieves who seek to steal consumer goods to illegal enterprises that exploit others' intellectual property. Americans should take note and make sure precautions are taken at every level possible.
The personnel information of every federal employee and millions of former employees was recently stolen by hackers. This is a breath-taking breach of privacy with national security implications.
China may now have the ability to use this information to undermine our activities as well as blackmail individual employees for additional information and access.
This breach may standout in scope, but hackers are constantly attacking our government.
According to the General Accounting Office (GAO), federal agencies reported more than 46,000 cybersecurity incidents in 2012 -- eight times more than there were in 2006. In 2012, the GAO concluded that such attacks "have placed sensitive information at risk, with potentially serious impacts on federal and military operation; critical infrastructure; and confidentiality, integrity, and availability of sensitive government, private sector, and personal information," and noted that federal agencies across the board weren't doing enough to deter, detect and address cyber threats.
This latest attack shows that vulnerabilities clearly remain and developing a better strategy must be a priority.
It isn't just government that's vulnerable.
Credit card fraud also remains an enormous problem, costing an estimated $11 billion annually. Consumers aren't just inconvenienced when their cards are illegally hijacked, but the losses that must be absorbed by stores and credit companies ultimately hit consumers in the form of higher prices and fees. Somewhat surprisingly, a reported 65 percent of credit card breaches in the U.S. occur at retail stores, rather than online.
Yet in-store breaches could be reduced immediately by taking advantage of available -- and much more secure -- point-of-sale Chip and PIN credit card technology. Some big banks and credit card companies are instead issuing chip only cards, which unfortunately don't provide as much protection as when cards are paired with a four digit PIN number.
Countries that have adopted Chip and PIN credit cards as the standard have witnessed a consistent decline in rates of credit card fraud -- as much as 70 percent in the UK. The United States lags far behind in the move to Chip and PIN, but if the banks and credit card issuers embrace this change, consumer fraud could be reduced significantly.
More progress is needed, and our business community as well as our government should focus more attention on such security measures. Policymakers ought to recall that this -- not providing transfer payments to millions of different groups of Americans, not regulating and micromanaging every aspect of life -- is supposed to among be government's core functions. Government was created in large measure to protect property rights and prevent theft.
At the federal level, legislation has been drafted to require the director of national intelligence to report to Congress annually on the countries engaged in and supporting illegal activities, the companies and technologies that have been compromised, and the products and services being sold using stolen information.
The president would be charged with holding offending countries accountable, by blocking the importation of products utilizing stolen information created by state-owned enterprises of priority countries.
Such power could be an important step toward discouraging costly cybercrimes, without giving up the goal of encouraging legitimate international commerce.
Americans need an all-of-the-above strategy to reducing the damage caused by technology-based crime, which means that businesses, governments and all of us need to get involved.
Carrie L. Lukas is the managing director of the Independent Women's Forum.

California’s Uber Hunt

The way things are going, Uber may soon face a court challenge in California over its failure to use an umlaut. The popular ridesharing startup has already been hit by an administrative law judge’s recommendation that the company pay $7.3 million in damages and suspend operation in the state. At issue: Uber’s alleged failure to provide the California Public Utilities Commission with internal data about how many customers with service animals or wheelchairs Uber drivers serve, along with time, location and fare data.
This decision came just a month after the California Labor Commission redefined the app-based ride-hailing service’s business model. In that case, San Francisco Uber driver Barbara Ann Berwick demanded that the company reimburse $4,000 worth of expenses. The commission ruled that Berwick, a transsexual who previously operated a phone sex business — Linda’s Lip Service — was a full-time-equivalent employee during four months of sporadic driving for Uber. (Berwick, now a financial consultant, expressed disappointment with the money an Uber driver makes.) The decision directly threatens Uber’s business model, in which drivers sign up as independent contractors with a minimum of the fuss and paperwork associated with modern hiring, choose their own hours, and are clearly remunerated on a piecework basis.
Last week, a U.S. district judge in San Francisco allowed a group of cab companies to proceed with a false-advertising lawsuit against Uber. The same judge also greenlit a suit against Uber claiming that it spammed potential drivers with recruitment text messages. That suit was dismissed when electronic records showed that one of the plaintiffs had begun pursuing the company herself.
Notably, complaints about Uber typically aren’t coming from customers, and even among the firm’s drivers, crusades like Berwick’s are rare. In fact, what’s striking about the various campaigns against ride-sharing is their reliance on paperwork and credentialing instead of outcomes. The CPUC, for example, doesn’t assert that Uber is harming actual handicapped people, only that the company has failed to produce paperwork that proves the absence of harm. Similarly, the cab companies’ speech-related lawsuit — which focuses on safety claims made in Uber ads — does not claim that traditional taxis are safer than Uber rides. The plaintiffs assert instead that cab drivers are subjected to more paperwork than Uber drivers.
The anti-Uber campaign’s reluctance to assess outcomes is understandable, given the public’s strong revealed preference for the company. Interest groups can complain, but drivers and customers continue to vote for Uber with their time and money. In a free country or a sane state, a clear market decision in favor of a business would be the end of the discussion. But Uber is increasingly under pressure to furnish evidence that its model works in theory as well as in practice.
The company recently commissioned Los Angeles-based BOTEC Analysis to measure service in low-income neighborhoods — a market in which anecdotal evidence already suggests that Uber’s influence has been positive. BOTEC compared UberX with taxi services in Van Nuys as well as Central and East Los Angeles. The median wait time for an UberX ride in L.A. neighborhoods was five minutes and 52 seconds; for a taxi ride, it was 14 minutes and 33 seconds. The maximum recorded wait time for UberX was 20 minutes; for a cab, 57 minutes. Despite Uber’s widely maligned practice of “surge pricing” — a concession to the law of supply and demand that is for some reason considered outrageous — UberX also soundly beat traditional cabs on price, with a median cost per ride of $6.28, versus $15 for taxis. Surge pricing didn’t even produce a higher maximum price. UberX’s max cost per ride was $11.68, against $22 for cabs.
BOTEC is led by UCLA public policy professor Mark Kleiman, a thoroughly un-libertarian, good-government figure. Nevertheless, Uber opponents have dinged the study as free-market propaganda from the Uber central command. SHOULD YOU TRUST UBER’S BIG NEW UBER VS. CABS STUDY? New York asks. (Answer: a definite maybe.) Meantime, L.A. Weekly wonders, “Is Uber really being straight-up about its commitment to serve folks other than young, white professionals and party people?” But defenders of the taxi status quo face an even bigger hurdle: Uber’s very existence is an advertisement for the free market. It’s an obviously less-regulated initiative that has produced measurable, positive outcomes across a wide spectrum. No wonder people hate it so much.

[VIDEO] Chaffetz: IRS Commissioner John Koskinen Should Be Fired And Impeached

Katie Pavlich | Jul 28, 2015
After years of investigation into the IRS targeting of conservative groups House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz, who took over as chairman after Rep. Darrell Issa earlier this year, has had enough of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. 
Yesterday Chaffetz called on the President to fire Koskinen over allegations of obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence and stonewalling a congressional investigation. He accused Koskinen of lying to Congress when he said last year that backup tapes belonging to former IRS commissioner Lois Lerner, the woman at the center of the targeting scandal, didn't exist. We of course learned shortly after that backup tapes do exist, but that IRS officials didn't bother looking for them in order to turn them over to Congress for scrutiny. It was later revealed that at least some of the available back-up tapes were destroyed, even after a congressional subpoena for the tapes was issued. 
"Congress needs to get more aggressive and stand up for itself. We may hold him in contempt and there are other constitutional remedies that perhaps, one of the things we're exploring is perhaps impeaching the commissioner," Chaffetz said last night On The Record. "He [President Obama] should fire Mr. Koskinen because he's not working with us." 
"We're going to get to the truth no matter where it is no matter how long this takes. We're going to get after it," Chaffetz continued.
Considering President Obama doesn't believe the IRS targeting of conservatives is a scandal at all, I doubt he'll be heeding Chaffetz' calls. However, Congress does have the power of impeachment. Whether that authority will be exercised under current GOP leadership is a different story.
Last week, former Oversight Chairman Issa revealed the IRS is still engaged in targeting of conservative groups.

Rising Cost Of Health Care: Obamacare Insurance Premiums To Increase As State Exchanges Face Losses, Even Closure

RTR4YXVZAs the cost of health insurance continues to rise, the fallout from such increases is becoming ever more evident in state-run exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act. Some states have announced insurance rate hikes for the coming year, while others have said they will shut down all or part of their exchanges as insurers contend with higher costs and lower enrollment than originally anticipated.
The Louisiana Department of Insurance said Friday that it would shutter its state health plan by the end of the year. Only 17,000 people out of Louisiana’s population of 4.6 million had enrolled in that plan, which was operating at a medical-loss ratio of 113 percent. That means for every dollar it earned in premiums, it paid $1.13 in expenses, Modern Healthcare reported. Louisiana’s federally run exchange has five other insurance companies offering plans.
In June, Hawaii, which ran its own marketplace, Hawaii Health Connector, announced it would switch to the federally run marketplace, Healthcare.gov. Enrollment had been too low, at close to 40,000 consumers, and it was unable to generate sufficient revenue to sustain itself. "The viability of state health insurance exchanges has been a challenge across the country," Hawaii Gov. David Ige said at the time, when Hawaii became the third state after Nevada and Oregon to transfer its state-run health exchange to the federal one.
Of the twelve states plus Washington, D.C. that run their own health care exchanges, about half of them have financial difficulties, and several states, including Minnesota, Colorado and Vermont, are considering shuttering their marketplaces and using the federal one instead, the Associated Press hasreported.
Other states have acknowledged that in order to compensate for these costs, premiums will have to increase.
State officials announced Monday that premiums for plans sold on California’s exchange would rise by an average of four percent, slightly less than the average rate increase expected by exchanges in other states. Covered California’s executive director, Peter Lee, hailed it as a victory and as proof that the Affordable Care Act, often nicknamed Obamacare, is working, the Los Angeles Daily News reported.
"The health plans know that if they price their products too high and consumers know it's too high, because it's an apples-to-apples comparison, they will not get enrollment," Lee told The Associated Press. About 1.3 million people buy health insurance through Covered California.
But not all states are experiencing the same relative success as California. Although an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation in June found that in 11 major cities, the cost of a “silver” plan—one tier of coverage that consumers can pick—would increase by 4.4 percent from 2015 to 2016, costs are still subject to change, and when broken down by city, the increase in premiums varies widely. Some health insurance companies have requested to increase their premiums by as much as 40 percent in 2016, although state or federal officials must approve those increases before they can go into effect.
In Portland, Oregon, for instance, premiums were slated to rise by 16.2 percent in 2016 over the previous year. In Burlington, Vermont, the increase was 9.2 percent. In New York City, it was just .5 percent. Kaiser’s analysis noted that consumers would have to carefully research their options and possibly switch plans or even health insurance carriers in order to avoid paying significantly more in monthly health insurance premiums.

MASSACHUSETTS: Charlie Baker Denies USOC Gave Him Boston 2024 Ultimatum

Listen    Listening...                                                    0:24
Baker, who has a news conference scheduled later Friday, has yet to declare his support.

Leaders of Boston’s bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics released details Thursday about insurance proposals they say will provide unprecedented coverage for Massachusetts taxpayers.

Baker said the U.S. Olympic Committee (USOC) is having a meeting on Monday and they asked him to call in.
The report from that group, The Brattle Group, isn’t expected until next month.

“It would be inappropriate for me, or for the Senate president, or for the speaker, to commit the Commonwealth one way or the other until we get that report”, Baker said Friday from the Massachusetts statehouse.

It is possible this alleged ultimatum was an attempt to gain a firmer endorsement from the authorities before USOC officials departed to Kuala Lumpur for next week’s worldwide Olympic Committee (IOC) Session.

If the USOC were to bail on the Boston bid and try to replace it with another city – presumably Los Angeles – time is running short to make that move.

“We have learned much from the Boston bid and in many ways it will set the stage for a more transparent bid process for future Games, consistent with the principles of Olympic Agenda 2020″. The USOC considers the governor’s support key to the effort, as well.

“Since I became chairman we have created from the bottom up the new Bid 2.0, which has been made public on our website in its entirety,” Boston 2024 chairman Stephen Pagliuca said in a statement. Boston 2024 had previously kept parts of the “1.0” bid redacted, and cited confidentiality “commitments” to the U.S. Olympic Committee. It also included details about public and political support for the proposals, according to an AP report.

The documents reveal that organizers initially projected the games to cost about $4.7 billion but run at a almost $500 million deficit.

“We’re encouraged by recent discussions with Mayor [Marty] Walsh and Governor Baker and look forward to continued, constructive dialogue”.

A televised debate between bid officials and opponents on Thursday was followed on Friday by the release of an un-redacted version of the original Boston bid, submitted when Boston beat out three other cities to gain the USOC nod. Boston 2024 also suggested they were prepared to challenge any referendum effort on a variety of fronts, including the courts and legislature. In June, a revised proposal was released showing a $4.6 billion budget and a surplus of $200 million.


[VIDEO] Hillary Dodges Keystone Question at NH Town Hall: I’ll Let You Know Later

At a New Hampshire town hall Tuesday morning, prohibitive Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton was asked, “yes or no,” whether she would approve the Keystone Pipeline project as president. She took the question out to dinner and drinks and told it she’d call it in a couple days.
“This is President Obama’s decision, and I am not going to second guess him,” Clinton responded. “I want to wait and see what he and Secretary [John] Kerry decide. If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question.”

CALIFORNIA: The Cigarette Tax Dilemma

Is a tax on cigarettes a revenue raiser or a “sin tax”—used to discourage individuals from using products considered harmful? The effort to raise taxes on cigarettes – there is a measure in the legislature as well a ballot initiative moving through the process—often directs new revenues toward specific purposes. Yet, the increased taxes often lower the use of a product thus reducing the revenue for organizations and agencies.
Last, week the Los Angeles Times reported that the First 5 committee, which received funding from a previous cigarette tax increase, was concerned that fewer smokers meant less revenue. The First 5 group, which focuses on improving early years of children’s lives, is attempting to rally the legislature to add revenue from any new cigarette tax to include First 5 in those groups that receive new revenue.
But the cycle will certainly continue for First 5 and any agency that receives cigarette money. A tax increase will likely once again reduce the number of smokers and cigarette purchases and at some point reduce the revenue agencies expect to receive.
The cigarette tax revenue for First 5 has dropped about 17% to $460 million over a five-year span.
Yet, shouldn’t the sponsors of the cigarette tax measures that purport to advance the tax to educate the populous about the negative effects of smoking cheer the reduction in the number of cigarettes purchased?
According to the article, First 5 is looking at an alternative for additional revenue by examining the promotion of a marijuana initiative and the tax revenue such an action would bring in to help replenish the First 5 coffers.
Others groups undoubtedly will also have their eyes on marijuana tax money despite the recent report from Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s committee studying marijuana legalization that declared tax revenue should be low priority in considering legalizing marijuana.
Is concern for revenue paramount to the reduction of “sin” with many groups and agencies who receive these tax dollars?
Joel Fox is editor of Fox & Hounds and President of the Small Business Action Committee

Whose fault is it if blacks can't get cabs?

A former Obama pollster named Cornell Belcher comically wrote a WaPo piece about how blacks have trouble getting cabs.  Shortly after, a revelation forced the WaPo to amend the article after its initial publication.  It seems that Belcher, who wrote this piece critical of cab companies, was actually paid by cab-competitor Uber to do so, and Belcher never disclosed that fact to the Washington Post! But since he is an Obama supporter, it was not seen as a major ethical problem.

Anyway, Belcher wrote about how, as a black man, he has trouble getting cabs.
Hailing cabs isn’t a matter of life and death, but it can negatively impact our overall quality of life, both economically and emotionally.
Funny how he should use the words "life and death."  Because it can be life and death if a cabbie picks up a passenger who robs and kills him.

I now must apologize in advance for writing what everyone knows: most blacks are not criminals.  Most whites are not criminals.  However, a much greater proportion of blacks are criminals than whites (for reasons that would require a whole separate article to explain!).  So if you invite a random stranger into the back of your cab, and he's black, statistically speaking, you have a much higher chance of being robbed or killed.

This isn't racism.  This is fear – fear for one's own life, based on very real statistical probabilities.  I suspect that if liberals like Belcher drove a cab, they would feel the same.
Sixty-six percent, or just about two-thirds of African Americans in Chicago agree that the city’s taxi drivers deliberately discriminate against them. By contrast, only 23 percent of whites say it’s likely that they would be ignored by a cab.
Whites get ignored by cabs?  That's news to me.  Could it be racism?  Maybe we need a study!
Anyway, for once, I have no doubt that this study is true.  I believe that blacks have more trouble getting cabs.  But whose fault is this?  The cabbies'?  They just want to protect their lives.

The real culprit in this are federal, state, and local governments.  They have been relaxing criminal laws for years.  Decriminalizing, reducing jail sentences, and plea bargaining.  The cumulative effect of all these has been to release and/or leave dangerous (usually) men on the streets.  And since, as we've established, black men are more statistically likely to be criminals than whites, it's only rational that cabbies would fear taking black passengers.


Popular Posts