Posted on 07/02/2012 3:42:06 PM PDT by Libloather
House to prohibit IRS from implementing healthcare law
By Pete Kasperowicz - 07/02/12 01:25 PM ET
The House as early as next week will pass legislation prohibiting the IRS from receiving any money from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to implement the 2010 healthcare reform law.
Passage of the financial services spending bill is especially timely in light of last week's Supreme Court ruling that penalties the government can impose under the law against people who refuse to buy health insurance can be seen as a tax, because it is enforced like a tax.
That finding allowed the individual mandate to stand, and Republicans have already started reorienting their attacks against the law based on the knowledge that it only remains in place because it is an allowable tax.
The bill would have to get through the Senate and be signed by President Obama to become law.
The House will take up the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act sometime in July, and possibly next week when it returns from the July 4 recess. (The rule governing debate on the bill was already approved last week.) While the Obama administration requested another $1 billion so the IRS can implement the healthcare law, the bill, H.R. 6020, does not give any new money to the IRS.
Additionally, it "prohibits the IRS from receiving transfers from the Department of Health and Human Services to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," according to report language accompanying the bill from the House Appropriations Committee.
The report notes that in 2010, HHS allocated $20 million to the IRS for enforcing the healthcare law "without the Committee's knowledge." It also notes that the IRS received $168 million from HHS to implement the law in 2011, and plans to get another $322 million from HHS in 2012.
"The Committee prohibits further such transfers during fiscal year 2013 in section 106 of this Act," the report states.
The bill would spend a total of $21.5 billion on the IRS, Treasury Department and other related agencies, about 1.7 percent less than the current funding level. The bill increases funding in some areas, such as Small Business Administration business and disaster loans, public safety and education in Washington D.C., and the Treasury Department's anti-terrorism financing programs.
To make up for these increases, the bill makes cuts in several areas, including the executive office of the president.
"The committee is disappointed that the administration's request did not propose additional reductions for the EOP salaries and expenses accounts," the bill report says. "The committee believes that the chief executive of any organization experiencing a fiscal crisis should share in the funding sacrifice along with the rest of the organization.
"Therefore, the committee has reduced the salaries and expenses appropriation for each organization under this heading," it adds.
Specifically, the bill would fund salaries in the executive office of the president at $650 million, down $9 million from the current level. White House salaries and expenses would be cut $2.8 million, and funding for costs related to keeping up the White House would be cut $671,000.
Other executive branch agencies would receive token cuts as well, while the Office of Management and Budget would see funding drop nearly $9 million, to $80.5 million.
The bill would also take a swing at the General Services Administration (GSA), which faced harsh criticism this year for a lavish, 2010 conference in which more than $800,000 was spent. Under the bill, the GSA would face more oversight related to its travel budget, and would be banned from holding conferences that don't comply with relevant laws and regulations.
The GSA would also have to submit quarterly spending reports to Congress, and face restrictions in monetary awards it gives to employees.
I’m cackling like Cankles right now.
Like that will stop them.
That’s what ACTUAL fighting back looks like. Instead of doing that, the mealy mouthed spineless jerks will do things like this which have the APPEARANCE of fighting back but with no actual effect.
ir·re·spec·tive (r-spktv)
adj. Archaic
Characterized by disregard; heedless.
No. I just don't think the bill will make it through the current Senate and that Obama would sign it if did.
No. I just don't think the bill will make it through the current Senate and that Obama would sign it if did.
I know that, and so do most of the people on this site, apparently. Passing it through the Senate is not the point right now. It is letting the people of this nation who are intelligent enough, and some not, to understand where the Republicans stand by putting their names in the public domain on where they stand, and to convey they are trying to find additional ways to cripple this VERY crappy law.
Being that not much more than 35% of the Colonialists approved of declaring independence in 1776, what if 56 signers had just decided not to make the declaration and put their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor at stake by signing it because it was not overly popular to do so?
Do you think for a nanosecond that they cared a rat's petookie if the King approved of it or not? Of the 56 signers only 10 of them came through the revolution without being killed or someone in their families being killed because of their signing. I just read the book "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie". I suggest that everyone reading this get it and read it as soon as possible.
really? the truly rich don’t buy anything to pay sales taxes on?
It’s a word. Anything that has meaning is a word anyway - but irrespective has been around a while :)
I got my hopes up....but then I read this and shake my head.
The bill would have to get through the Senate and be signed by President Obama to become law.
I mean, why bother?
Much better to just roll over and not even try,,right?
You have a wonderful attitude and I admire your spirit and patriotism. I'm personally at a weak point in my life so I tend to see things in a negative light. Thanks for helping me recharge.
Thank you. Please get that book and read it. Your spirit will be energized far beyond what you could imagine and quite possibly viewed as assaulted at the same time. It has changed the way I look at several things in both a historical sense as well as things happening today.
Proportionally, nothing of consequence.
No they would go VAT before those most likely.
I’ve read that piece of regressive crap, and my comment is factual.
The ‘fair’ tax is grossly unfair to those that spend a large part of their income on necessities.
To relieve those whose income is from non-earned sources from an income tax amounts to a massive gift to them, since they spend a minute portion of their income on necessities. By doing shopping in tax free locations, they could skip almost all taxation.
In addition, the unfair tax would extend taxation to areas that presently are untaxed, like professional services (doctors, dentists, lawyers,etc) further harming low and middle income tax payers.
It’s the worst idea to ever come along WRT taxation.
Right, this is just posturing for the fall election. After we’ve won all three branches is it back to business as usual?
Defeating the Totalitarian Lie chronicles the lives of a German family before, during, and after the 12 years of Nazi rule. Linking the details of their lives to historical developments, von Campe’s facts and figures, especially in regard to the war, are largely unknown to the American people. His assessment that America is moving in the direction of Nazi Germany is terrifying.
The reviews are very positive for the most part. I'm going to focus on the defeating the lie part. Knowledge is power. Thanks again.
No. I just don't think the bill will make it through the current Senate and that Obama would sign it if did.
It won't, but the Dims vote will be on record, just 4 months before the election. Voting to sustain the largest tax increase in the history of the world basically gives the GOP a club to use in the fall.
In a nutshell. The GOP wants to show that its going to repeal aca, but you’ll notice that they’ll never quite get around to it. Sort of like they never quite got around to passing a balanced budget amendment or attacking Roe v Wade the last time they were in power.
This will be the law of unintended consequences. I assure you. These liberals will not be happy in the end. A tax can be overturned with only 51 votes in the Senate. God, I wish we had a candidate.
Stopping 0bamaTax will be just as likely as stopping Social Security. The Republicans should’ve FORCED Kagan to recuse herself from the Obamacare decision. Kagan should be hated as much if not more than Roberts for her total lack of dignity. Ooops, she’s a lesbian and cannot be challenged. Hey, Sotomayor’s a Hispanic so she can’t be criticized. Hey, Obama’s black and is immune from criticism LET ALONE IMPEACHMENT. I see a pattern here. Soros really knows how to play us and win the game.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.