Mediaboss Marketing

The Obama administration misled Americans into thinking signing up for Obamacare would be cheaper than it really was, according to an inspector generals report Thursday that said the IRS dramatically understated the actual cost of enrolling.

IRS officials sent the letters to try to prod Americans to comply with the 2010 health laws individual mandate that penalizes them for not holding coverage.

But as part of the letters, the IRS said most people could find plans for $75 a month or less, once government subsidies were figured in.

That was untrue in fact, the average cost was more than twice that figure, at $168 a month, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration said.

Many of the nearly 7.5 million taxpayers who receive letters and seek insurance may feel misled if the actual cost of their insurance is much higher than the $75 per month detailed in their notification letter, the inspector general concluded.

The IRS said it was only using numbers provided by Health and Human Services, and verified by the Treasury Department. They said the $75 figure was true for some taxpayers.

The inspector general said it asked for that documentation but never received it.

Auditors said their own analysis found the HHS studies were based on a smaller sample and was limited to those who chose lower-coverage plans with fewer benefits.

According to the new audit, federal regulations require agencies to present accurate information.

Investigators uncovered the misleading information as part of a broader audit about how the IRS was handling its role in alerting Americans who arent complying with Obamacares mandate to hold insurance.

Some 19.3 million Americans ducked the Obamacare mandate in 2016, with 12.8 million claiming an exemption and 6.5 million paying the tax penalty.

The IRS was supposed to begin sending letters in June 2015 to encourage those who ducked the mandate to sign up, but the agency declined, saying it wanted to instead study behavior from Obamacares first full year of operations in 2014.

The agency also missed the deadline in 2016, but did send notices beginning at the end of the year.

Officials said they figured theyd get better reception if they sent them close to the time of enrollment for 2017.

Some 7.5 million letters were sent about half in English and half in Spanish.

Continue reading here:
Obama's IRS 'misled' Obamacare customers: Audit - Washington Times

President Trump has outpaced his immediate predecessors when it comes to having his choices for federal judgeships confirmed.

The Senate this week approved a fifth Trump nominee, placing Trump on a faster pace for approvals than either President Barack Obama or President George W. Bush.

Most recently, Alabama lawyer Kevin Christopher Newsom was confirmed to a seat on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on a 66-31 vote, with 16 Democrats joining the GOP on the affirmative side, the Washington Times reported.

Newsom was the third Trump pick for circuit judge to be approved so far. Combined with one district judge and the Supreme Court appointment of Neil Gorsuch, the Trump administration and the Republican-led Senate are well ahead of the normal pace for judicial approvals.

The Trump administration has moved faster on filling judicial vacancies compared to the past administrations, thanks to its commitment to working with and extensively consulting all senators, regardless of political affiliation, to select high-caliber nominees, Kelly Love, a White House spokesperson, told the newspaper.

Obama had no judges confirmed during his first six months at the White House and it took him until November 2009 to get three circuit nominees approved by the Senate. Bush didnt have three picks -- one circuit judge and two district judges -- confirmed until August of his first term.

Trump began his bid to reshape the lower federal courts in early May, when the White House announced 10 judicial nominees that officials described at the time as Trumps third wave of federal judicial appointments.

Two of the nominees originally were on the list of 21 candidates that the Trump transition team considered for the Supreme Court vacancy left by Antonin Scalias death. That seat was ultimately filled by Gorsuch.

The two nomiees were Justice Joan Larsen of the Michigan Supreme Court, nominated to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati; and Justice David Stras of the Minnesota Supreme Court, nominated to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.

The other nominees, in addition to Newsom, were Amy Coney Barrett, a Notre Dame law professor nominated to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago; John Bush, a Louisville lawyer nominated to the 6th Circuit; Judge David C. Nye, nominated to the U.S. District Court for Idaho; Scott L. Palk, a former federal prosecutor nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma; Damien Schiff, nominated to federal claims court; Dabney L. Friedrich, nominated to U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; and Judge Terry Moorer, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

Continued here:
5th Trump judicial nominee confirmed, outpacing Obama, Bush - Fox News

This week I got a plea from Jess OConnell, chief executive officer of the Democratic National Committee, asking me to sign my name wishing Barack Obama a happy birthday.

Obama says his birthday is tomorrow, Aug. 4.

Maybe it is. Maybe it isnt. I just dont know. To me, the jury is still out.

Obama says he was born in Hawaii in 1961. Maybe he was. Maybe he wasnt. I just dont know. To me, the jury is still out.

Why am I so stubborn on this point?

Two reasons:

About the second point, OConnells email this week making the case for wishing Obama a happy birthday started out like this: The first bill that President Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I like to think that first act set the tone for his administration: devoting every single day in office to making life better for the American people.

I wont argue with the merits or demerits of the Fair Pay Act, only the fact that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution will you find even a hint that Washington has any authority to determine how much its citizens, outside of government, should be paid. And, as to the suggestion Obama devoted every single day in office to making life better for the American people, Ill leave that to you to decide.

Rescuing our economy from the brink of disaster, reforming Wall Street, signing the Affordable Care Act, repealing Dont Ask, Dont Tell, taking bold action on climate change and signing the Paris Climate Agreement, putting the protections of DACA and DAPA into place there are more accomplishments than you can list, argued the DNC chief in trying to persuade me to say, Happy Birthday to Obama. Its a legacy that Im incredibly grateful for and proud to be fighting for every day.

Suffice it to say, I dont believe a word of this nonsense.

I dont believe a word that has ever come out of the mouth of Barack Obama.

I dont believe a word he has ever written or was ghostwritten on his behalf.

I dont believe any of the self-aggrandizement. I dont believe a word of the hype.

Even if I believed his birthday is tomorrow, I wouldnt send him a card, I wouldnt wish him well, and I wouldnt acknowledge any of his so-called accomplishments. For me, it will take a miracle to undo eight years of damage he inflicted on a great country.

Birthday shmirth-day.

I dont wish him ill. I just dont have any respect for him or his ideas. What he has decided to do in his post-presidency is even more contemptible than what he did with the reigns of illegitimate power serving, as he does, as a shadow president, intentionally undermining, at every turn, his duly elected successor.

I dont think you can point to another U.S. president who ever did that.

Its like he doesnt know what else to do with himself except for being a national community organizer.

Pathetic.

Am I bitter?

You bet.

I like the United States of America. I like the idea of it. I like the concept a nation under the rule of law, not the rule of men. I never liked the notion of a fundamental transformation of our country. Only someone who hates America could even hatch such a nightmarish thought. And his only notable accomplishment in life was coming very close to carrying it out.

Happy birthday?

Not from me.

Not this year, not next year nor the year after that.

No regrets from here on challenging everything Obama ever uttered, enacted or planned.

Get Joseph Farahs new book, The Restitution of All Things: Israel, Christians, and the End of the Age, and learn about the Hebrew roots of the Christian faith and your future in Gods Kingdom

Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [emailprotected].

Go here to see the original:
Obama! You say it's your birthday - WND.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Fist of Etiquette|8.3.17 @ 9:00AM|#

The Trump administration wants to cut legal immigration to the U.S. by 50 percent.

And raise illegal immigration 50%?

OM Nullum gratuitum prandium|8.3.17 @ 9:10AM|#

100%, Fist. It would be 100%.

Trumpistas think that reducing immigration will make Americans work again. Just like Prohibitionists really believed Prohibition would turn America into a nation of teetotalers.

some guy|8.3.17 @ 9:22AM|#

I don't know about most Republicans, but Jeff Sessions would be happy turning everyone into a criminal.

BestUsedCarSales|8.3.17 @ 9:32AM|#

He already knows we all are.

Tony|8.3.17 @ 11:35AM|#

If this isn't a nation of criminals then why are there so many prison cells in it?

timbo|8.3.17 @ 12:38PM|#

I'm tired of explaining it to you

Bless your heart.

Finrod|8.3.17 @ 1:19PM|#

Too late, everyone on average already commits three felonies a day.

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 1:30PM|#

Some of us commit way more....

Fist of Etiquette|8.3.17 @ 9:34AM|#

Neither 50% nor 100% is correct. We need to take time to do the math on this. The answer is actually 110%, because that's the effort President Trump gives every day.

timbo|8.3.17 @ 10:47AM|#

Trump: a liar, a buffoon, a statist, a war monger, a big government asshole, a protectionist, and does not appear to be very bright when it comes to free market economics.

And yet all of Washington DC and the corrupt propaganda press hates his guts and he has already done some work to roll back business crippling regulations.

There is some value there.

Is the enemy of my enemy my friend or the enemy of my enemy my enemy or is trump just playing foil to the scam and they are all deep down just colluding to protect the FED, the military-ind complex, entitlements, and to keep the debt rolling? Our largest yokes around the neck are untouchable still.

Tony|8.3.17 @ 11:37AM|#

He just bragged about corporate profits and stocks. How are businesses being crippled?

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 1:31PM|#

Government over-regulation 101

Eek Barba Durkle|8.3.17 @ 9:37AM|#

I'm willing to volunteer to help raise the number of anchor babies being born. Because I'm a patriot.

OM Nullum gratuitum prandium|8.3.17 @ 10:20AM|#

There's no such thing as an "anchor baby". Only adults of 21 years of age can sponsor their parents or siblings.

Curt|8.3.17 @ 11:20AM|#

I think the "anchor baby" fear is both more focused on the longer term implications (i.e. eventually that "anchor baby" will turn 21 and bring their family into US) and the soft feelz implications (i.e. Republicans don't seem so bad when their bouncing illegal immigrants, but they seem horribly cruel when they're throwing out an illegal immigrant who has a baby that's an american citizen; and that parent has to make the heart-wrenching decision of whether or not to leave their baby in the US).

So, yeah, there is such thing. No opinion offered on how valid that concern is.

Hi Tony!|8.3.17 @ 1:22PM|#

Jesus Christ, that's not what an anchor baby is you fucking idiot.

Tom Bombadil|8.3.17 @ 11:08AM|#

I do a lot of work with unwed mothers. You know, helping them get their start.

Curt|8.3.17 @ 11:14AM|#

Regardless of how much it raises illegal immigration (and it would), it also proves the ridiculous of the position claimed by him and his many supporters that they're cool with legal immigration... just not illegal. But, I'm sure we can all agree that too many legal immigrants was one of the biggest problems we were facing?

"President Donald Trump's approval rating has dropped to 33 percent in a new poll."

Wasn't it at about 20% when he was elected?

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 11:31AM|#

They are cool with legal immigration, just less of it. They are against any illegal immigrants being here.

Why is ~330M people in America not enough? Why do we HAVE to have hundreds of thousands more immigrants come here rather than thousands each year?

paranoid android|8.3.17 @ 11:38AM|#

1. Making more people into Americans makes the world a better place and is the right thing to do

2. Trump's stated reasons attempting to justify this policy are largely bogus

3. No one in their right mind would trust Trump to find the right setting for a thermostat, much less set immigration levels for an entire nation

Rhywun|8.3.17 @ 11:54AM|#

I don't care about the numbers so much as the "skilled" part.

So the cries of "tearing families apart!" from the usual suspects are largely BS. What a surprise.

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 12:04PM|#

1. Why is allowing more people into America making the World a better place and is right?

2. Politicians are largely liars and flip-flop. Trump said he wanted to control immigration and he has. Definitely there has been better control on immigration policy than most administrations in the last 40+ years.

3. Is there a "right" setting? I support zero illegal immigration and less legal immigration. 50%+ less legal immigration is fine with me.

paranoid android|8.3.17 @ 12:14PM|#

1. LOL

2. LMAO

3. ROFLMAOWTFBBQMAGA

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 12:21PM|#

1. Still refusing to answer.

2. laughing at you.

3. still laughing at you.

paranoid android|8.3.17 @ 12:23PM|#

Jokes aside, it's more than you deserve, but I'll try to answer honestly:

1. I wouldn't be here if my ancestors hadn't risked everything they had to cross the ocean to get here, for which I am eternally grateful. Anyone suffering in their own country who is willing to work hard and make a better life for themselves deserves that same chance.

2. Don't feel the need to respond to meaningless pro-Trump propaganda

3. Why do you want any legal immigration at all? What would you say to a Trump supporter who thinks the proper amount of legal immigration is zero?

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 12:42PM|#

They weren't jokes though. You were trying to be serious.

1. Congratulations on your ancestors probably going thru Ellis Island or San Francisco port authority. They were allowed to come and become Americans because as many new Americans were needed to make develop America. How would letting in immigrants to America make the World a better place? It lets people off the hook to make THEIR country better.

See your assumption is flawed. There are already hundreds of millions of hard working Americans who want a better life. Non-Americans don't deserve shit from America. If we Americans want to let in thousands of immigrants, then so be it.

2. I know propaganda is only things you don't like. You don't like immigration controls, so when Trump ran on immigration controls and is doing it, you call it propaganda.

3. I personally don't care if there is zero immigration. That is not fair to Americans who marry foreigners but for all other non-Americans, I don't really care. I would say that zero immigration should only last a couple years and then re-evaluate the policy.

paranoid android|8.3.17 @ 1:02PM|#

How are the borders being "controlled" more compared to previous administrations? Has illegal immigration fallen to zero? I thought that would have been on the news. Seems to me the amount of control has gone unchanged, but the amount of propaganda about it from the White House has increased several-fold.

If we Americans want to let in thousands of immigrants, then so be it.

As I pointed out below, Americans broadly support maintaining or increasing levels of immigration. It's actually decreasing immigration that is the unpopular minority position. All you have is lies, just like Trump.

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 1:17PM|#

Illegal immigration is down 67% since Trump took office, according to the Washington Times. WT illegal immigration

Its anecdotal but I know two Mexicans who said their goodbyes to go back and apply. This way they don't get caught and be prohibited from applying for visas to the USA.

I would say your assumption, because it not based on fact, is incorrect that Americans want MORE immigration. Trump ran on controlling immigration and he won. At least 62M people were for Trump, so they knew it would probably happen. I voted for Gay Jay but I support stricter immigration controls.

Scarecrow Repair & Chippering|8.3.17 @ 11:52AM|#

Why wasn't 200M enough? Or 100M? or 4M?

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 12:01PM|#

Zeb|8.3.17 @ 11:56AM|#

You are asking the wrong questions.

Why is having more people a problem?

Is there a good, compelling reason to limit immigration more than it is?

We may have different answers to those questions. But the assumed default position should never be the one that is more restrictive if you give a crap about freedom. It's like asking why we need 23 kind of deodorant.

loveconstitution1789|8.3.17 @ 12:26PM|#

No. I AM asking the correct question. Why does AMERICA have to take in hundreds of thousands or millions of people?

There does not need to be a compelling reason. There is no current compelling reason to let immigrants live in the USA.

There used to be a reason which was because not many people lived in North America until the 1900s.

paranoid android|8.3.17 @ 12:29PM|#

Read more:
AM Links: Trump's Approval Rating Drops to 33%, Rand Paul Blasts Civil Asset Forfeiture, John Kelly Reassures Jeff ... - Reason (blog)

Being Libertarian

Is it Time to Retire the Duopoly? Being Libertarian The obvious answer is the Libertarian Party (LP). For starters, (don't worry, we will tackle the rest in a second sweetheart) it is the third largest party in the country and the only one who's numbers have actually grown in the last decade. But who ... and more »

Read more:
Is it Time to Retire the Duopoly? - Being Libertarian