The Obamacare Non-Exemption: Congressional employees are not receiving a “special handout.”

National Review ^ | 09/28/2013 | Patrick Brennan

[Golden Eagle]

NRO: Apologist for the welfare state.

I saw their "Washington Editor" on C-Span last night in between some votes. He kept mentioning John McCain's actions on this so far, as if that is the proper example of how the House should be behaving. Yes, McCain.

Poor Bill Buckley must be rolling over in his grave.

Apparently closet liberals are well on their way to infiltrating conservative media, just as they already infiltrated the mainstream media, academia, etc. While I used to be an avid reader of NRO, it's one of the last places I'd look for info now. If they're not already "liberal", they're at least fully "establishment" now, and their opinions seem more about subliminal messages, than particularly insightful.

[kenavi]

Employer provided health insurance benefits are NOT generally taxed as income received by employees.

[cripplecreek]

Its also important to note that these staffers are not fresh out of college kids like so many seem to believe.

For instance, One of John McCain’s former chiefs of staff left his office to take a job as VP of Lockheed Martin. She left LM and is currently back in DC as the GOP staff director for the armed services committee.

[Gaffer]

A subsidy is NOT an employer provided health plan. It should be taxable just like a bonus.

[Henry Hnyellar]

Spoken like a tax loving Dem.

[etcb]

Democrats actually accepted it, and put it into the eventually passed bill, but without the provision for employer contributions……..

OPM decided to contribute the same amount to these exchanges that the government now spends on congressional employees’ health benefits ($5,000 for individuals, $11,000 for families). This decision was probably illegal, since Congress didn’t authorize funds for the plan, as Cato’s Michael Cannon explains.

What has happened to respect for the law? The author clearly makes the case that subsidizing health insurance premiums for congress and their employees is not authorized by law but then goes on to applaud the illegal subsidy because it is fair. Decisions are not made by agencies (OPM) but by individuals and the individual who made and signed off on this decision should be located and prosecuted for misapplication of federal funds as should any dispersing official who follows the order to illegally spend government money. There is a four year statute of limitations for this type crime so it could be dealt with by the next administration but in any case, it should not be allowed to stand.

[Gaffer]

Ordinarily, I am against taxes, but when the group asking for special favors is the entire Congress and its employees, I’d say tax the hell out of the booty they’re stealing from us.

How is that ‘spoken like a tax-loving Dem?’

[21twelve]

“All I can say is follow the money.”

It takes some writer this many words to “explain” what should be a very simple thing. This whole Obamacare business reminds me of this short Abbott and Costello skit.

“It didn’t cost that much - you gave me too much money”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7pMYHn-1yA

[jurroppi1]

I am not entirely sure I understand the gist of your response. Sounds to me like you agree with my sentiments, but I figured I might as well ask for clarification.

Do you mean what’s good for the gander is good for the goose?

[Old North State]

What I was trying to say was that those who are supplied with income (government employee) from money taken by force from others(net taxpayers), they should have no expectation of receiving a greater level of benefits than the least of those taxpayers. Government employees should not have their own health care costs paid for by people who do not get the same treatment, yet are forced to pay for theirs. Private sector employers, those subject to market forces, can offer whatever they are able because their income arising from voluntary exchanges. IBM or Exxon can’t force me to supply them with income, but if I do so of my own free will, they can spend the money as they please. So, in a way, I guess you could say what is good for the goose is good for the gander, as long as the gander doesn’t show up with a badge and a gun.

[jurroppi1]

Got it, I figured we basically agreed.

[9YearLurker]

So an associate editor of the NR says we should favor our Congressmen voting for this—even though it is illegal?

I bet if you compared the change in household income since 2008, the Congress critters and their staff have gone up by thousands, while the average American household has gone down. Add in how much more the average American is going to be forced to pay for health insurance, and Congress has inflicted more harm on the public than this law would inflict on them.

The idea that we’re not going to get quality Congressmen (snicker, snicker) over a few grand in healthcare costs is silly. The bulk of the financial benefits of being in Congress come in the pensions and lobbying after they’re out of Congress anyway.

And yes, Congress and their staff absolutely should not be shielded from the healthcare costs they inflict upon us because Uncle Sam is picking up the full tab on their premium plans.