Americans are deeply pessimistic about the state of the economy. A Republican poll is deeply pessimistic about the GOP's outreach toward women. And opinions on foreign interventionism may be shifting. This is HuffPollster for Thursday, August 28, 2014.

*MOST AMERICANS THINK THE ECONOMY IS PERMANENTLY DAMAGED* - Arthur Delaney: "*Seven out of ten Americans say the U.S. economy has been permanently damaged* by the Great Recession that started at the end of 2007, according to a new poll. When the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University asked people about the recession in 2009, only 49 percent said the economy had settled into a crappy new normal. The percentage has increased each year since then, hitting 71 percent this summer….Curiously, while only 12 percent of respondents said workers in general were happy with their jobs, 63 percent said they were satisfied with their own jobs. That result is in line with a recent Gallup survey, which found Americans' satisfaction with their job security had reached historic highs." [HuffPost]

*And believe next generation will have it worse* - Lauren Weber, on the same survey: "Perhaps most strikingly, *16% of respondents agree that job and career opportunities will be better for the next generation* than for their own – a drop from the 56% who were optimistic about this measure in 1999 and down even from the 40% who agreed in November 2009, well into the recession." [WSJ]

*AMERICANS MORE OPEN TO FOREIGN INTERVENTION* - Susan Page: "After years of retrenchment in the wake of two costly wars, a new USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll finds that Americans increasingly are open to a larger U.S. role in trying to solve problems around the world. The public remains conflicted over just how much the United States can and should do to address global challenges. But the initial shifts in public opinion could make it easier for President Obama to order more muscular options in striking Islamic State terrorists in Syria and Iraq…In the survey, 39% say the United States does too much in helping solve world problems; 31% say the U.S. does too little. That reflects a significant change from less than a year ago, when in a previous Pew Research Center poll Americans by an overwhelming 51%-17% said the U.S. did too much. *A 34-percentage-point gap in November 2013 has narrowed to 8 points now.*" [USA Today]

*But don't see an obligation to act against Russia* - Emily Swanson: "Amid increasingly hostile Russian actions, less than one-third of Americans think the United States should defend Ukraine against actual Russian troops, a new HuffPost/YouGov poll shows. According to the survey, *only 29 percent of Americans think the U.S. has a responsibility to defend Ukraine* in the case of a Russian invasion, while 38 percent think it does not. Another 33 percent said they're not sure." [HuffPost]

*REPUBLICAN POLL FINDS WOMEN VIEW GOP AS OUT OF TOUCH* - Marina Fang: "A new internal Republican report confirmed that women are not fans of the GOP, and Republicans have more work to do if they want the female vote. The report, which was obtained by Politico, found that although Republicans have tried to improve outreach to female voters, *women still believe the party is 'stuck in the past' and 'intolerant.'* Forty-nine percent of women polled for the report looked on the GOP unfavorably. Only 39 percent felt that way about the Democratic Party. The study was commissioned by two conservative groups: Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the American Action Network….The report drew its conclusions from focus group discussions and a poll of 800 registered women voters. " [HuffPost]

*Does it matter for midterms?* Margie Omero (D): "[H]ere's a tough question for the left. Can Republicans still be successful even as they continue to alienate a majority of the electorate? In midterms, the answer is undoubtedly yes. Examining official midterm exit polls since 1982 shows women alone have never determined a Democratic wave or prevented a Republican one. Women voted Democratic in the 1994 Gingrich-fueled wave. Both men and women voted Democratic in 2006 and then Republican in 2010. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find a midterm election in which women and men voted for different parties (just two in the last 30 years: 1994 and 1998). Now, this pattern may not matter much this cycle, since these are national House race exit polls, and the biggest battles in 2014 are a handful of Senate contests. But these results suggest *women are not controlling our national political dialogue*, despite their majority status." [HuffPost]

*WHY SCOTT WALKER MIGHT NOT BE TRAILING IN WISCONSIN* - Harry Enten: "Republican candidates typically poll better among likely voters, particularly in midterm elections when Democratic-leaning constituencies are less likely to turn out. This fact of Americans politics is why a poll released in Wisconsin on Wednesday was so weird. According to the latest Marquette University Law School poll, Wisconsin’s Republican governor, Scott Walker, is losing his re-election bid against Democrat Mary Burke by 2 percentage points among likely voters but winning by 3 points among registered voters. Which is right? *Chances are, the results from the registered voter sample are closer to the truth — Walker is probably slightly ahead*...It’s important to remember there is nothing magical about a likely voter screen. Marquette chooses a simple screen: Those who say they are absolutely certain to vote in November. Marquette could just as easily choose to include participants who say they are very likely to vote." [538]

*HUFFPOLLSTER VIA EMAIL!* - You can receive this daily update every weekday via email! Just click here, enter your email address, and and click "sign up." That's all there is to it (and you can unsubscribe anytime).

*THURSDAY'S 'OUTLIERS'* - Links to the best of news at the intersection of polling, politics and political data:

-Sean Trende says it's too early to know if 2014 will be a Republican wave year. [RCP]

-Amy Walter asks why we're waiting for a wave. [Cook Political]

-Sam Wang argues Senate Democrats are outperforming expectations. [Princeton Election Consortium]

-Franklin & Marshall finds Tom Wolf (D) with a wide lead over Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett (R). [Franklin & Marshall]

-Americans think health insurance subsidies should be available on federal exchanges. [YouGov]

-Americans narrowly support unions, but overwhelmingly approve of right-to-work laws. [Gallup]

-Americans are twice as likely to say they "strongly disapprove" of Obama as they are to say they "strongly approve." [Gallup]

-Derek Willis finds the two senators most willing to vote against their party. [538]

-Alan Abramowitz argues nominating libertarians won't help Republicans win more of the youth vote. [Sabato's Crystal Ball]

-Amelia Thomson-Deveaux looks into why it's so hard to measure the effect of legislation on abortion rates in Texas. [538]

-Brian Arbour outlines his research into why candidates spend so much time talking about what they've already done instead of what they plan to do. [WashPost]

-Jason Linkins is unimpressed by the 2016 polling featuring Mitt Romney. [HuffPost]

-Daniel W. Drezner kicks off the American Political Science Association's annual meeting with 10 ways to troll political scientists. [WashPost] Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.

The board overseeing the Washington's health insurance marketplace Thursday certified more than 100 health and dental plans to be sold this fall. Reported by Seattle Times 4 hours ago.

Pennsylvania will become the 27th state to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, using federal funds to buy private health insurance for some 500,000 low-income residents starting next year. Reported by NYTimes.com 2 hours ago.

A half-million more low-income Pennsylvanians are in line to get federally funded health insurance after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday approved the states plan to accept Medicaid expansion money under the landmark 2010 federal health care law. Reported by MyNorthwest.com 2 hours ago.

Liability insurance rates are now included for review using the Quotes Pros website at http://quotespros.com/auto-insurance.html.

Midland, TX (PRWEB) August 28, 2014

21st century ways to compare automobile insurance using the Internet are now in place for motorists at the Quotes Pros website this year. Sources providing liability insurance rates are now being tapped for entry into the public system at http://quotespros.com/auto-insurance.html.

The portal that is now configured for use by men and women in the U.S. allows a direct review of annual price data. The adjustments that have been processed this year to the state-by-state lookup system have increased the liability plan providers now sortable using a zip code as a search identifier.

"Our tools do not require a car owner to input a license number, VIN number or information regarding past accidents just to review policies," said one Quotes Pros source.

The finder tool was introduced in 2013 to simplify connections with local insurers to help car owners who do not like to call companies directly to review prices. The state minimum plans that are available for price research also include add-on options for full coverage, collision or SR22 coverage in any U.S. state.

"Looking up companies by zip code is a new way that is providing privacy and still allowing a person to find good information to use when comparing agencies," said the source.

The Quotes Pros company is now making plans to increase the listing of companies that now estimate policy pricing for consumers inside of the database system. Instead of only distributing automotive coverage, the system will feature updated life insurance and health insurance rates directly online.

About QuotesPros.com

The QuotesPros.com company is continuing to support all research by the public using its website this year for insurance price information. The company has one of the easiest to use database tools that discovers discounts on a national level. The QuotesPros.com company has improved the access available inside of its search system to produce faster price research for men and women who rely on its public system for price data annually. Reported by PRWeb 14 minutes ago.

The federal agency that had trouble launching a health insurance website last fall has a massive new project. Any glitches on this one could delay tax refunds for many Americans. Reported by FOXNews.com 2 hours ago.

HONG KONG--(BUSINESS WIRE)--A.M. Best has affirmed the financial strength rating of A- (Excellent) and the issuer credit rating of “a-” of Blue Cross (Asia-Pacific) Insurance Limited (Blue Cross) (Hong Kong). The outlook for both ratings remains positive. The ratings reflect Blue Cross’ strong risk-adjusted capitalization, favorable operating performance and strong business profile as one of the leading non-life insurers in the accident and health insurance market in Hong Kong, in particular gr Reported by Business Wire 3 days ago.

*Are health insurance premiums skyrocketing in 2015?*

“O-care premiums to skyrocket,” said a headline in The Hill, a widely-read website on politics. That dire forecast was a dream come true for legions of the Affordable Care Act's detractors, who spread the troubling assertion far and wide on conservative media outlets.

The thinly-sourced article was based on assertions by anonymous “insurance officials” and one research organization member who said his “gut” told him that premiums for policies sold on state Health Insurance Marketplaces would go up a lot. But a funny thing happed on the way to 2015: The forecast "skyrocketing" is nowhere in evidence.

Here’s what’s going on with 2015 health insurance premiums and what you need to know.

-*Increases are in the single digits, a not-terrible showing*-

With preliminary or final individual premiums available for 31 states and the District of Columbia, the average rate increase is 8 percent, according to the most recent (Aug. 15) update of PricewaterhouseCooper’s interactive map. But 29 states have released only the rates that the insurers have requested, not final rates. And the average masks huge variations: In Arizona, for instance, changes in proposed premiums range from a 23 percent decrease to a 27 percent increase. And in any event, 8 percent is not a terrible rate increase by historical standards. In the three years before the Affordable Care Act was passed into law, the average rate increase in the individual market was 10 percent or more—and that was in an era when insurance companies didn’t have to sell to sick people or offer comprehensive health benefits the way they do now.

-*Some states are using regulatory mojo to roll back outrageous requests*-

“Some states have the authority to review rates, and do,” Betsy Imholz, a health insurance expert for Consumer Reports, said. “In other states there have been negotiated reductions.”

In Oregon, for instance, average 2015 premiums came in lower than 2014 rates after regulators got done with them. In Maryland, CareFirst, the state’s dominant insurer, asked for outrageous increases ranging from 23 to 30 percent, but was granted still high, but more modest, increases of 10 to 16 percent. And rates are actually decreasing for other insurers.

*Read more about health insurance and health care reform. *-*Premium subsidies protect most from big rate hikes—but with a catch*
-

Nearly nine of every 10 people buying insurance through a state marketplace in 2014 qualified for a tax credit to offset the cost of their premium. The formula used to calculate those credits guarantees that if your income is under 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, you’ll be asked to pay no more than a specified percentage of your household income on health insurance premiums.  So even if you live in a state with big premium increases, there’s a ceiling on how much you’ll have to pay.

But there’s a catch. The formula for determining your subsidy is based on the premium you’ll pay for a “benchmark” plan, which is the second cheapest Silver plan available to you.  Say your benchmark plan has a monthly premium of $400, and based on the formula you are required to pay only $300. You’ll get a subsidy of $100, which you can then use to buy any plan you want, not just the benchmark plan. But if you choose a more costly plan, the extra expense is on you. (Likewise, you can save on premiums by choosing a cheaper plan.)

With rates going in every which direction, it’s likely that your 2015 benchmark plan may be different than in 2014, Karen Pollitz, an insurance expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation, said. If you automatically renew your existing plan and subsidy—which will happen if you do nothing—you may end up paying more than you need to if your plan has gone up while other plans have held steady or gone down. “It’s no fun, but you really do need to go back in to see what’s happening to your rate and your plan, and to your subsidy,” Pollitz said.

Take action: Consumers Union advocates are actively monitoring health insurance rate activity in many states. If you're interested in what they're doing or want to help, here's where to find more information.

Got a question for our health insurance expert? Ask it here; be sure to include the state you live in. And if you can't get enough health insurance news here, follow me on Twitter @NancyMetcalf.

—Nancy Metcalf

*Consumer Reports has no relationship with any advertisers or sponsors on this website. Copyright © 2006-2014 Consumers Union of U.S.*

*Subscribe now!*
Subscribe to *ConsumerReports.org* for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.
--------------------
Update your feed preferences Reported by Consumer Reports 2 days ago.

Remember all those allegations that Obamacare would be an unmitigated disaster for businesses, especially smaller companies? Well, now we have some facts. A week ago we noted that the *Philly Fed found that Obamacare was a disaster for business*, and now no lessor entity than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is out with its latest forecasts, concluding "*certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act will tend to reduce labor force participation*." 

 

 

Via Kevin Hall of TownHall.com,



...*the CBO does write, though, is that one of the downward pressures on the labor force is Obamacare*. As the report finds:

 

"Over the next few years, CBO expects that the rate of labor force participation will decline about 1/2 percentage point further... the most important of those factors is the ongoing movement of the baby-boom generation into retirement, but federal tax and spending policies will also tend to lower the participation rate. *In particular, certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act will tend to reduce labor force participation, with the largest effect stemming from the subsidies that reduce the cost of purchasing health insurance through the exchanges. Because the subsidies decline with rising income (and increase with falling income) and make some people financially better off, they reduce the incentive for some people to work as much as they would without the subsidies."*

 

We won't rehash the debate here over whether or not it's a good thing for the welfare state to provide so much that people will choose not to work - but *it's pretty undeniable at this point that ACA is disincentivizing work for Americans in an era where we're wondering if the decline in labor force participation is the new normal.*



*  *  *

*While we already noted that 'work is punished' in America, it appears now that with Obamacare, non-work is actually incentivized.* Reported by Zero Hedge 3 days ago.

Thursday's announcement that Pennsylvania will expand its Medicaid program brings the country one state closer to the original expansion outlined under Obamacare. But because of the Supreme Court's 2012 decision making the expansion a voluntary program, there are still 23 states that haven't expanded public health insurance to all of their low-income residents. Reported by Washington Post 3 days ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal agency that had trouble launching a health insurance website last fall has a massive new project. Any glitches on this one could delay tax refunds for many Americans.

Because of complicated connections between the new health care law and income taxes, the Department of Health and Human Services must send out millions of new tax forms next year. They're like W-2s for people getting health insurance tax credits under President Barack Obama's law. The forms are called 1095-As, and list who in each household has health coverage, and how much the government paid each month to subsidize those insurance premiums. Nearly 5 million people have gotten subsidies through HealthCare.gov.

If the forms are delayed past their Jan. 31 deadline, some people may have to wait to file tax returns — and collect their refunds.

A delay of a week or two may not sound like much, but many people depend on their tax refunds to plug holes in family finances.

The uncertainty is unnerving to some tax preparation companies, which try to run their filing season operations like a military drill. The Obama administration says it's on task, but won't provide much detail.

States operating their own health insurance marketplaces will also have to send out the new forms, even if they had website problems. But the biggest job belongs to the federal exchange serving 36 states. HHS will have to manage that while in the midst of running the 2015 health insurance sign-up season, when millions more are expected to try to get coverage.

"It's very unrealistic to expect that they would be able to implement a process that distributed these forms in the middle of open enrollment, and on time," said George Brandes, vice president for health care programs at Jackson Hewitt Tax Service.

The average tax refund is about $2,690, and people who count on getting money back often file early.

Liberty Tax Service vice president Chuck Lovelace said his company is giving the feds the benefit of the doubt but the possibility of delays "is not something we can turn a blind eye to."

"It could have a dramatic impact on our customers," Lovelace said. "The tax refund is the largest check many consumers get."

Administration spokesman Aaron Albright said officials are "working to develop the technical processes to ensure the forms are generated accurately and timely." Part of the plan will include "robust outreach" to educate consumers about the importance of the forms, so 1095-As don't accidentally wind up in the recycling bin.

Some states running their own exchanges are providing more details about their plans.

California says it will include a cover letter with each form to help consumers understand what they need to do. The state is looking at using email blasts, public events and other educational efforts.

"We do not foresee any problems in meeting our responsibility," said James Scullary, a spokesman for the state marketplace.

The new health care law offers tax credits to help people without workplace coverage buy private health insurance. Next year is when the connections between the law's coverage expansion and the tax system will start to surface for consumers.

The nearly 7 million people who got insurance tax credits through federal and state exchanges will have to tally up accounts with the Internal Revenue Service to ensure that they got the amount they were legally entitled to.

Funneling subsidies through the income-tax system was once seen as a political plus for Obama and the law's supporters. It allowed the White House to claim that the Affordable Care Act is "the largest tax cut for health care in American history." But it also promises to make an already complicated tax system more difficult for many consumers.

Supporters of the law are also concerned about a related issue: People who got too big a subsidy for health care in 2014 will have to pay it back next year. And docking refunds will be the first way the IRS seeks repayment.

That can happen if someone's income for 2014 ends up being higher than they estimated when they first applied for health insurance. Unless they promptly reported the change to their health insurance marketplace, they will owe money.

"If someone wound up having more overtime than they projected, or they received a bonus for good work, these are the kind of changes that have an impact on subsidies," said Ron Pollack, executive director of the advocacy group Families USA. "My impression is that the overwhelming majority of people are unaware these kinds of changes require them to notify the exchange."

Since the whole system is brand new, experts are predicting that millions will end up having to repay money. Reported by Huffington Post 3 days ago.

Consumers Will Owe Uncle Sam If They Got Health Insurance Subsidies Mistakenly Reported by ajc.com 2 days ago.

Three hundred thousand people who enrolled in Obamacare have been asked to submit proof of citizenship or risk losing their insurance. Many who have tried to comply are finding the healthcare.gov website to be more of an obstacle than a convenience.

The problems with citizenship verification were reported by USA Today Thursday. The paper reports that 310,000 notices were sent out earlier this month requesting proof of citizenship. In order to respond by the deadline next week, individuals need to be able to upload the requested documents on to healthcare.gov.

So far the glitchy website has created a problem at every step in the process. As USA Today notes, all Obamacare passwords were changed in April. As a result some people are having trouble just logging on to the site. For those who do manage to get in some are unable to upload requested documents. Finally, even those who successfully upload documents are being told by CMS, the division of HHS which manages the site, that the documents are not being received.

Insurance agent Ronnell Nolan tells USA Today, ""It's scary because they've sent it in numerous times and different ways, and CMS is saying it doesn't have it." The deadline for submission is next Friday. Obamacare's heavily subsidies health plans are only available to U.S. Citizens.

Verification of citizenship is just one type of application inconsistency that has plagued the program. Back in May the Washington Post reported that the government had identified at least 3 million Obamacare enrollees with inconsistencies in their applications. Most of those discrepancies had to do with income, i.e. someone's claimed income on an application varied from IRS tax data.

At the time, CMS was offering 90 days for people to correct these apparent inconsistencies; however, the deadline was extended because there was no automated system of verification. Hundreds of thousands of documents sent to CMS--only a fraction of the total number of apparent problems--needed to be checked by hand.

The issue of income verification is critical to Obamacare because it can substantially affect the amount of subsidies an individual receives. Those who claim too much income could wind up receiving a smaller subsidy than they are eligible for while those claiming too little income could get too much.

The latter group is especially worrisome since the IRS will eventually reconcile the amount of subsidies paid and, in case of overpayment, hold the individual responsible on their annual taxes. This could add up to $1250 surprise tax liability for a single person (and double that for families).

Jessica Waltman, who works for a health insurance industry lobbying group, told the Post in May, "I have this sick feeling that there are these people out there who have made unintentional errors, and in a few years will be subject to massive tax bills." Reported by Breitbart 2 days ago.

Officials say Indiana residents will have more than triple the number of health insurance plans to choose from when the federal insurance exchange enrollment period starts in November. Reported by WTHR 2 days ago.

Insurance Web Pros, a Thousand Oaks, CA software and Marketing Corporation, formerly offered products only for MetLife Independent Agents. Through a revised contract with that agency, Insurance Web Pros is now able to provide these products directly to any agent or agency in the United States.

Thousand Oaks, CA (PRWEB) August 29, 2014

Insurance Web Pros, a Thousand Oaks, CA software and Marketing Corporation, formerly offered products only for MetLife Independent Agents. Through a revised contract with that agency, Insurance Web Pros is now able to provide these products directly to any agent or agency in the United States.

These products include responsive websites, design, marketing, Google leads, and advertising. Responsive websites automatically adjust their layout and design to meet the requirements of the device they are being presented on, be they desktop, laptop, tablet, or smartphone.

“We have enjoyed and continue to enjoy a great relationship with MetLife Inc,” said Insurance Web Pros CEO, Richard Uzelac. “But now we are able to offer the same great discounted insurance agent products to any insurance agency both large and small in the USA. With over 70% of searches for insurance being started by consumers on mobile devices, these products have never been as beneficial to the insurance industry as they are now."

Insurance Web Pros has added additional personnel to expand their business to all providers and meet the demands of their increased customer base.

Marketing expertise will be provided by Google Partner GoMarketing Inc, parent company.

About Insurance Web Pros

Insurance Web Pros is a Thousand Oaks, CA-based Company that gives insurance agents the tools necessary to stand out and succeed in today’s online marketplace combined with solution minded live California-based customer service. We specialize in Online Insurance Marketing and strive to offer the best Agent and Office websites and Internet marketing for insurance professionals.

For more information, please call (805) 413-7895 or visit http://www.InsuranceWebPros.com/ Reported by PRWeb 2 days ago.

Just in the last few years, there's been Hurricane Sandy thundering up the East Coast and causing more than $8 billion in damage to businesses just in New Jersey alone. On the other coast in California, the drought this year has racked up more than $2 billion in losses and cost thousands of job. Factor in record floods and tornadoes, and the threats aren't just to your life and safety, but to your company's survival as well. With each disaster, countless businesses suffer damage, only to discover too late that their existing insurance fails to provide necessary coverage.

A variety of other threats can pose risks to your company. You may face anything from injuries to your workers and customers, to fire that destroys your facilities, to lawsuits accusing you and your colleagues of failing to uphold duties to shareholders, clients and employees.

So when you buy insurance, you shouldn't be simply checking a box. You are investing in a life raft. When you hit an iceberg, you don't want to find out the boat leaks or isn't big enough for all the passengers.

*The Basics*

*Start with the basics*: There are many types of insurance to address the risks that could threaten your business, but they often fall into three categories:

*Injuries and death*: First, there is insurance for injuries or death for those affected by the operation of your business. This category of insurance includes commercial general liability insurance, workers' compensation insurance and product liability insurance.

*Damage to property*: Second, there is insurance for damage to property. This insurance also comes in many forms. For years, the most common form of this insurance was referred to as "all risk" or casualty insurance. More recently, this been referred to as "special causes of loss" insurance.

*Executive protection*: Third, there is insurance that protects company officers, executives and directors for their roles and duties with your company. For example, directors' and officers' liability insurance ("D&O" insurance) provides protection if a company's shareholders allege wrongdoing by your business' senior managers. As our society has grown more litigious, insurance companies have created new types of insurance. You might procure fiduciary liability insurance to protect against employee claims of mismanagement of your business' 401(k) plan. Or you might buy employer's liability insurance for protection against employee allegations of sexual harassment or discrimination.

Of course, any individual business may face the need for special types of insurance. But, most importantly, you need to make sure you understand how your insurance will work and whether it provides the protection you need when you need it the most.

*The Pitfalls*

There are countless pitfalls you face when purchasing insurance:

*Not enough insurance*: Some businesses find out all too late that they don't have enough insurance to cover their losses. For example, you might think that you have enough insurance to replace your building that recently burned down. Then you discover that newly enacted laws require that you reconstruct your building with more advanced fire or flood protection systems or expensive energy-saving materials, but your insurance does not cover the cost of these required enhancements.

*The wrong insurance*: In other instances, you haven't bought the insurance you need. Some companies are the victims of embezzlement. Unfortunately, they discover that their insurance could have, but does not, cover employee theft. The culprit may go to jail, but your stolen money is long gone.

*Bad insurance*: In rare, but not unheard of cases, businesses fall prey to outright insurance scams. In one case, we talked a client out of participating in a health insurance "pool" that promised low rates by grouping businesses together to create a fund that would pay employee insurance claims. The premiums were suspiciously low, the explanations didn't make sense and the paperwork was virtually nonexistent. Only later did our client discover that it had dodged a bullet because the arrangement was similar to a Ponzi scheme and the managers had walked off with most of the money they had collected.

*Additional Considerations*

Even if you do buy all the right insurance, you can still encounter significant problems. For example, a construction contractor might procure the appropriate property and liability insurance. Still, all of this protection does not provide for the replacement of defective work by subcontractors. Instead, the contractor must require its subcontractors to provide performance and payment bonds. These bonds require a deep-pocketed third party, a surety, to guarantee that faulty or incomplete work will be fixed or finished and paid for by the surety.

Similarly, you can have all the insurance in the world but still not have taken the precautions to prove your claim. Consider the business that insures its inventory but keeps all the records of that inventory at the same site. A fire that destroys the inventory might also burn up the records necessary to maximize recovery of insurance proceeds. You need to determine not only what insurance you need, but also plan on how you will prove your claim.

You may need an experienced advocate to collect on your insurance claim. In the lifespan of your business, you will rarely sustain a major insured loss. However, insurance companies fend off claims on a daily basis. When you are up against an experienced insurance company, it is sometimes necessary to have a veteran advocate on your side, too. Consider hiring an experienced advisor to argue your case. They often work for a percentage of what they recover, and quite often, the best ones pay for their efforts many times over by significantly increasing your recovery.

Whatever you do, don't buy your insurance because the insurance company has a cute mascot or the process is quick or the insurance is cheap. In fact, all of these attributes can be dangerous distractions. They don't get to the heart of why you are buying insurance: ensuring you have protection when you need it. When that next tremor or storm hits, you should have the comfort of knowing you have the right protection.

Life presents risks. With the right insurance plan, they can be hassles instead of business killers. Reported by Huffington Post 2 days ago.

Dozens of Michigan State University graduate teaching assistants and their supporters staged a demonstration this morning to protest changes to the health insurance plan offered to graduate employees. Reported by Freep 2 days ago.

You know D.C. reporters shop at Jos. A Bank when one day of talking about the president's suit turns into two -- free! A judge dismissed Chris McDaniel's election lawsuit, because yes, black people, it turns out, are now allowed to vote in Mississippi. And Chelsea Clinton stepped away from her job at NBC News, where network executives plan to burn a $50,000 pile of cash each month to replace her. This is HUFFPOST HILL for Friday, August 29th, 2014:

*WHITE HOUSE PUTS BRAKES ON EXECUTIVE ACTION SPECULATION* - Faced with opposition from vulnerable Democrats, the Obama administration is considering waiting until after the November elections to take actions that could keep many undocumented immigrants from being deported, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday. President Barack Obama promised a review of his deportation policies earlier this year, and the changes are expected to be announced in coming weeks. ... Officials cautioned, however, that no final decisions have been made. "*Those who are speculating about how those recommendations might be implemented are a little ahead of themselves at this point*," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Friday. [HuffPost]

*TEXAS ABORTION CLINICS IN LIMBO* - Laura Bassett: "In May of 2013, Texas had 41 licensed abortion clinics to serve its more than 5 million women of reproductive age. *On Monday, if a major provision of a new anti-abortion law goes into effect, the state will be left with only seven clinics -- all concentrated in urban areas of the sprawling state*. A federal judge is expected to rule in the next several days on HB2, a law signed by Gov. Rick Perry (R) in 2013 that requires all abortions to take place in ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), or mini-hospitals. Most of the 19 abortion clinics that remain in the state cannot afford to undergo the extensive renovations and pay the monthly operating costs to become an ASC, so they will have to close." HuffPost

*NO NEW TERROR THREAT FOR U.S.* - You still have to remove your belt and shoes at the airport, though. "The White House does not expect the U.S. to raise its terrorism threat warning level. *That's after British authorities raised their terror threat level. Now it is at severe, the country's second highest level. The decision is related to developments in Iraq and Syria*, though there is no information to suggest an attack is imminent. But White House spokesman Josh Earnest says authorities don't expect to raise the level in the U.S." [AP]

*AMERICANS HATE ISIS* - We would like to see some mission accomplished and to keep our shoes on at the airport someday, please. Emily Swanson: "A majority of Americans think the United States should expand its military campaign against insurgents in Iraq into Syria as well, a new HuffPost/YouGov poll shows. *According to the poll, 60 percent of Americans now support airstrikes against insurgents in Syria, while 20 percent are opposed*. That level of support approached the 64 percent of Americans in the survey who said they support the current airstrike campaign against Iraq." [HuffPost]

*BUT DO SUNNIS?* - Alan Grayson penned a letter to ten Sunni nations -- we would love to be there as they open it -- asking if any of them would be willing to send troops to battle the insurgency formerly known as ISIL. "If yes, then the problem is solved, and if no, then that certainly tells you something, doesn’t it?" Grayson tells HuffPost Hill. Yes, it certainly does.

Programming note: no HuffPost Hill on Monday, but you can get Delaney's newsletter instead by subscribing HERE.
l
*Haircuts:* Andrew Kaczynski (h/t Evan McMorris-Santoro)

*DAILY DELANEY DOWNER* - Congress created Labor Day at the same time the federal government was sorta killing people in response to labor unrest.

Does somebody keep forwarding you this newsletter? Get your own copy. It's free! Sign up here. Send tips/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to huffposthill@huffingtonpost.com. Follow us on Twitter - @HuffPostHill

*COCHRAN WINS AGAIN* - The latest development in the Sore Loserman saga of 2014. Associated Press: "A Mississippi judge has dismissed a lawsuit that seeks to overturn Sen. Thad Cochran's victory in a Republican primary runoff. Judge Hollis McGehee said Friday that state Sen. Chris McDaniel, who lost to Cochran, failed to start the election challenge on time. *McDaniel may appeal McGehee's ruling to the Mississippi Supreme Court*." [CBS]

*VACATION: ALL WE EVER WANTED* - Dave Jamieson and Emily Swanson: "Americans overwhelmingly support the idea of requiring large U.S. employers to provide their workers with at least some paid vacation time, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. In a poll conducted ahead of Labor Day, *75 percent of respondents said they believe in placing such a mandate upon the business community. A mere 17 percent said they oppose it*. The support crossed party lines to include 87 percent of self-identified Democrats and 65 percent of Republicans. *The United States is an outlier among the world's advanced economies in having no law to guarantee workers paid time off from work*. [HuffPost]

*DENNIS KUCINICH SHOWS UP IN [DEL: HALLUCINATIONS :DEL] BURNING MAN* - Kevin Roose: "Former U.S. Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich joined the parade of celebrities and quasi-celebrities who made it to the Nevada desert for Burning Man this year. But someone apparently forgot to tell him that on the playa, you're allowed to let your freak flag fly. Kucinich spoke yesterday at Ideate, a camp geared toward start-up founders. His business-casual look set him apart from his audience, which included a man wearing a HUG LIFE hat, several dreadlocked Caucasians, and a naked man with a pierced penis. Despite looking like he was about to reprimand the Burners for missing curfew, Kucinich's speech went over well. (Although it was interrupted several times by EDM-blasting art cars driving by.) His condemnation of government surveillance drew applause, as did, somewhat predictably, his calls for marijuana legalization. 'I've never understood people's obsession with 'reefer madness' or whatever,' Kucinich said. *It's Kucinich's first time at Burning Man, and as is customary for first-time Burners, he also got a 'playa name' given to him: Charge.*" [Daily Intel]

*SUITGATE ENTERS SECOND DAY* - A scandal tailor-made for idiots. Andrew Kaczynksi: "Republican Rep. Peter King of New York is no fan of tan. The conservative member of Congress from Long Island blasted President Obama for wearing “a light suit, light tan suit” to talk about the threat of ISIS on Thursday. '*There’s no way any of us can excuse what the president did yesterday*,' King said of President Obama on NewsMaxTV. 'When you have the world watching. When you a week, two weeks of anticipation of what the United States is gonna do. For him to walk out, *I’m not trying to be trivial here. In a light suit, light tan suit* saying that first he wants to talk about what most Americans care about the revision of second quarter numbers on the economy." King ultimately said he was mad about Obama's "We don't have a strategy comment." [BuzzFeed]

*Men's Wearhouse begs to differ:* "Joseph Abboud, fashion designer and chief creative director of Men's Wearhouse, praised Obama's decision to wear a tan suit in an interview with The Huffington Post on Friday. Wearing a tan suit in August is hardly a fashion faux-pas, he said, and it has been a seasonal part of men's business dress code for around 75 years. Businessmen on New York City's Madison Avenue have long worn the tan or khaki suit as a summer uniform, he noted. *'I applaud him for wearing a tan suits,' said Abboud, who previously made clothes for Obama as head of suit-maker Hart Schaffner Marx. 'You don't want to look the same every day of your life. It's boring as hell.'*" [HuffPost's Kim Bhasin]

*BUSINESS AS USUAL ALERT* - Shahien Nasiripour: "The Obama administration plans to reward Navient Corp, the student loan specialist formerly owned by Sallie Mae, with *new business some three months after federal prosecutors accused the company of intentionally cheating troops on their federal student loans*, according to three sources familiar with the administration's plans. The move is likely to stoke comparisons to recent multi-billion-dollar settlements reached between big banks and federal authorities over financial crisis-era misdeeds. Banks agreed to pay sizable sums, but public interest groups have criticized the settlements because the banks suffered few business consequences and their executives escaped criminal and civil charges. 'It's very disappointing,' said Jason Collette, national organizer for Alliance For A Just Society, a network of state-based advocacy groups. '*Until a company loses its federal contracts or a senior executive is punished, these fines are just the cost of doing business*.' In May, Navient and its former parent, Sallie Mae, agreed to pay a combined $139 million to resolve Department of Justice allegations that the two companies had swindled up to 60,000 service members out of tens of millions of dollars and forced other borrowers to pay unfair fees on their student loans." [HuffPost]

*WHAT WENT WRONG WITH IMMIGRATION REFORM?* Sam Stein: "In the latest episode of* Drinking & Talking*, The Huffington Post posed that question to the reporters and operatives on the front lines. The insights offered by Frank Sharry, founder and executive director of the pro-reform America's Voice, Doug Heye, communications director to former Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Esther Lee, immigration reporter for ThinkProgress, and HuffPost's Elise Foley provide one of the most detailed accounts of the failure to date: from the missteps made by activists to the precise moment when it went haywire in the House." [HuffPost]

*SCOTT BROWN IS, LIKE, LOSING* - The latest PPP poll has him down in the New Hampshire Senate race 44-50 to incumbent Democrat Jeanne Shaheen. [PPP pdf]

*SENATORS HAVE BEEN CREEPY FOREVER* - Karen Tumulty: "The buzz over a new book by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) this week has been all about her revelation that some of her male colleagues seem to have a fixation about her weight. ... [T]o anyone who has spent more than a few minutes on Capitol Hill, none of this should seem surprising. Change comes far more slowly there than in just about any other workplace. ... [In 1993] Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who had been elected as part of that 1992 wave, took the floor and warned that for the Senate to close ranks around one of its own 'sends a clear message also to every woman in this country: If you are harassed, keep quiet, say nothing; the cards are stacked against you ever winning.' The next day, 94 senators took the vote that doomed Packwood’s Senate career. A disturbing incident happened after that — one that C-SPAN cameras did not capture. As recounted in journalist Clara Bingham’s 1997 book 'Women on the Hill,' *Murray found herself alone in an elevator one evening with 91-year-old Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), who did not recognize her as a colleague. He inquired whether the 'little lady' was married -- and then proceeded to grope her breast*, Bingham wrote." [Washington Post]

*MARCO RUBIO'S FAKE HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE IS A HUGE FAILURE* - Tia Mitchell: "Last year, legislators allocated $900,000 to help Floridians find affordable health care through a new state-backed website. At the same time, they refused to expand Medicaid or work with the federal government to offer subsidized insurance plans. *Six months after the launch of the state's effort, called Florida Health Choices (floridahealthchoices.net), just 30 people have signed up*. Another seven plans were canceled either because consumers changed their minds or didn't pay for services.... *Florida Health Choices was the vision of U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio back in 2008* when he was speaker of the state House. He believed the state should operate a website that allowed residents to purchase affordable insurance….*Asked whether Florida Health Choices was fulfilling Rubio's vision, his office would only say he did not approve of the federal Affordable Care Act*." [TampaBay.com]

*CHELSEA CLINTON LAID OFF, WILL BE POOR NOW* - Ha ha. Joke's on you. Sharon Cotliar: "Chelsea Clinton says she's stepping out of her correspondent job as she looks forward to taking on mom duties. After not quite three years as a special correspondent for NBC News – and with just a little while until she and husband Marc Mezvinsky are expected to become parents – the former first daughter is now leaving that position, she tells PEOPLE in a statement, 'to continue focusing on my work at the Clinton Foundation and as Marc and I look forward to welcoming our first child.'" [People]

*Clinton earned about $27,000 per minute of airtime*, Erik Wemple reported.

*"Celebrity. Banality. Boring conflicts of interest."* -- Matt Stoller's take on our Democratic politics as it's reflected in this Dylan Byers story: "*President Barack Obama is slated to attend the wedding of his personal chef Sam Kass and MSNBC host Alex Wagner on Saturday*. Kass and Wagner, dubbed by Vogue the political "'It-couple' of the year," are getting married at Blue Hill at Stone Barns in Pocantico Hills, N.Y. Kass is the Obama family's personal chef and the president's senior policy adviser for nutrition policy. He is also the executive director of 'Let's Move.' Wagner hosts the MSNBC weekday program 'Now with Alex Wagner.'" [Politico]

@nickconfessore: Ben Carson: "When we get through with ISIS it should be IS-was."

*TEXAS NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS CAN'T AFFORD FOOD* - National Guard troops deployed to the border in Texas are visiting a food bank because they can't afford food and gas ahead of their Sept. 5 payday, according to a report Friday by local station Action 4 News and a state senator. Action 4 News reported that a Rio Grande Valley food bank had been contacted about 50 Texas National Guard troops who needed assistance. The troops are reimbursed for their meals, but pay for them upfront, stretching the finances of some troops who were called to southern Texas earlier this month to address an increase in unaccompanied minors crossing the border illegally. ... Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced in July that he was deploying up to 1,000 National Guard troops to the southern border, which has borne the brunt of a recent influx of unaccompanied minors. Texas officials said at the time that the project, dubbed Operation Strong Safety, would cost about $12 million per month, which they plan to bill to the federal government. The Texas National Guard said in a statement that it offers financial support services to its service members and will continue to do so in light of the recent reports. "The well-being of our service members remains a top priority…" [HuffPost]

*BECAUSE YOU'VE READ THIS FAR* - Lisa Desjardins' goodbye CNN video is really something.

*COMFORT FOOD*

- Overly thoughtful reasons to hate brunch. http://huff.to/1lzY7bs

- Rob Ford dancing to reggae. http://bzfd.it/1qOcEME

- Winter the Lamb hops happily. http://bit.ly/1tKSyYH

- Large dog has "subwoofers." http://on.fb.me/1vV2FcT

- An acceptable offering of autocorrect fails. http://huff.to/1rEUvaz

- Dog pets man. http://huff.to/1pda8y6

- Pixar's making a short movie about lava. http://bit.ly/1n5e0Sr

*TWITTERAMA*

@robdelaney: I cannot - I WILL NOT - get over the tan suit. This is worse than 1000 9/11s.

@darth: seriously got confused between rick perry and mitt romney this week which one is coming back or is it both of them

@dpcrawf:
(•_•)
/ \

( •_•)
( (> Beer
/ \

(•_•)
/ \

http://t.co/iTioZT6lBj

#NailedIt @becrindler
*Got something to add? Send tips/quotes/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to Eliot Nelson (eliot@huffingtonpost.com) or Arthur Delaney (arthur@huffingtonpost.com). Follow us on Twitter @HuffPostHill (twitter.com/HuffPostHill). Sign up here: http://huff.to/an2k2e* Reported by Huffington Post 2 days ago.

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — Malaysia Airlines will cut 6,000 workers as part of a $1.9 billion overhaul announced Friday to revive its damaged brand after being hit by double passenger jet disasters. Khazanah Nasional, the state investment company that owns 69 percent of the airline, said the overhaul includes the establishment of a new company that will take over the existing Malaysia Airlines business and its reduced staff. Like traditional banks, customers open a checking account, get a debit card and are able to make check deposits and pay their bills. Every time a debit card is swiped at a store, a notification is sent to the phone letting the user know how much was spent and how much money is left in the account. WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Barack Obama warns of stepped-up economic punishments against Russia for its military incursions inside Ukraine, U.S. sanctions have so far avoided one prominent financial institution: the $10 billion Russian Direct Investment Fund, which has partnered with brand-name American companies and whose advisers include top U.S. and European private equity executives. Despite its ties to Russian state businesses and officials, the Russian Direct Investment Fund has managed to operate unaffected by the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and EU in response to Russian President Vladimir Putin's military actions in Ukraine. Consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of economic activity, so it needs to recover for the economy to keep its momentum in the second half of the year. The combination of two of the nation's oldest and biggest tobacco companies would create a formidable No. 2 to rival Altria Group Inc., owner of Marlboro maker Philip Morris USA. BEIJING (AP) — China's biggest property developer, Wanda Group, and Internet giants Baidu and Tencent unveiled a new e-commerce venture Friday in a challenge to industry leader Alibaba Group ahead of its U.S. stock offering. The three companies said they will integrate online and offline selling, with e-commerce services in Wanda's 107 shopping malls, as well as its hotels and resorts. WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal agency that had trouble launching a health insurance website last fall has a massive new project. The Department of Health and Human Services must send out millions of new tax forms next year that are like W-2s for people getting health insurance tax credits under President Barack Obama's law. Reported by SeattlePI.com 2 days ago.

President Obama gave a press conference recently, and -- since it is still the political Silly Season -- got a lot of media attention. For what he was wearing. No, seriously. Washington was all a-twitter (or even a-Twitter) because Obama wore a suit that was not dark blue or black. While some may smack their heads over the idiocy of what passes as the Washington press corps, the right thing to do is to celebrate how males have finally reached sartorial equality with women, when viewed by political "journalists." This is not a backhanded compliment, I hasten to point out, it is meant as a backhanded insult. Because it is always insulting to a politician to focus on what she (or, now, he) is wearing, instead of reporting on the substance of her words and actions. This has been going on for women in politics for exactly as long as women have been in American politics, right up to Hillary Clinton's pantsuits and Sarah Palin's shopping spree. All women know this -- they will be judged on what they wear, sometimes more than what they say or do. Especially female politicians. President Obama is just getting a tiny taste of what women have had to put up with in the political arena since Day One. So I choose to celebrate this new equality (of the idiocy of the political press), and the closing of this particular part of the gender gap.

Men, of course, have it easier than women when choosing what to don each morning, for two big reasons. One is the fact that they're men, meaning reporters report on what they say and do a lot more than how they look. The second is that there simply aren't that many "acceptable, serious" choices for what men are supposed to wear in the business or political world. Should I wear the dark blue suit, or the black suit with barely-visible pinstripes? That's about the range of choices, really. There are only two acceptable areas for expressing any sort of originality or personality: the tie, and the flag pin. And the flag pin's a fairly recent addition. Women, on the other hand, have no hard-and-fast rules limiting their choices, which serves to make the choice itself much harder (given the wider range of choice offered) -- to say nothing of the standard they'll be held to once they actually do get dressed.

As Silly Season winds to a close, there were a smattering of "Obama's on vacation -- how dare he!?!" stories, as usual. Obama has taken less than a third of the days off that President Bush did (the reigning champion of presidential vacation time), but that certainly doesn't stop pundits from complaining every time Obama picks up a golf club. Bob Cesca did an exemplary job of researching another president's vacationing (while important events were simultaneously happening), complete with some photos of Ronald Reagan not wearing a dark blue suit.

In other "quick looks into the past" news, President Obama announced he would -- only 151 years late -- award the Medal of Honor to a soldier from the Civil War who showed leadership on the battlefields of Gettysburg. Oh, and we hope everyone marked the bicentennial which happened this week, 200 years after Washington D.C. was burned in a key British victory in the War of 1812. This didn't get a lot of attention in the American press (understandably), but will likely be mentioned in passing when we all hear about the bicentennial of the battle for Baltimore two weeks from now -- which gave us our national anthem.

But enough of these detours into history. After all, we've got an election right around the corner! Labor Day is the traditional kickoff to the serious meat of campaign season, and for the wonkier among us there is an interesting article (with interactive map) at the Washington Post site which reports that over a billion dollars will be cumulatively spent this year on ballot propositions alone. This article highlights a few of these races, which could become important as goads for each party to increase turnout among their base. It's wonky, but it's also a fascinating thing to keep your eyes on as we head into campaign season.

Republicans are already campaigning their little hearts out, which always provides some amusing moments. In Pennsylvania, the Republican governor is fighting for his political life, and so he thought he'd do a little outreach to women -- with predictable results. Two years ago, Tom Corbett responded to the forced-ultrasound debate in his state by suggesting women should just "close your eyes." Stay classy, Tom!

Elsewhere, a few Republican groups (including the one Karl Rove set up), realized that they have a serious problem reaching out to women voters, so they commissioned a study on the matter. The results were pretty dismal, as can be expected -- the gender gap is fast becoming a gender chasm. Women are only "barely receptive" to Republican policies, because they view the party as "intolerant,""lacking in compassion," and "stuck in the past." The report's recommendations were pretty timid, too, since it is quite obvious where the problem lies: the extremists in the Republican Party who are not just tone-deaf to women's concerns, but are actively working against women's interests. The only solid policy shift the report suggested was to maybe stop being against equal pay laws and maybe perhaps pay more attention to gender equality in the workplace. Well, that'd be a dandy start, but we're not exactly holding our breath waiting for it to happen, if you know what we mean. Especially after Reince Priebus (a man perfect for his job, since if you remove the vowels in his name you are left with his job description: RNC PR BS) responded to the report's conclusions by channeling his inner Sergeant Schultz in fine "Nothing to see here!" style.

Up in Alaska, the Republican candidate for Senate is now running an ad where he shoots a television, twice. This tactic, we must in all honesty report, was first successfully used by a Democrat, in West Virginia. And the ad is kind of funny (I bet there are lot of voters in Alaska feeling sympathetic to killing their televisions, after boatloads of political ads), so who knows if it'll work for Dan Sullivan or not?

In even-farther-into-the-future news, Hillary Clinton finally got around to addressing the situation in Ferguson, right after everyone stopped paying any attention to it. Maybe winning last week's *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* award had something to do with it? Well, probably not (we're simply not that egotistical in estimating the relative impact of these columns). This week also saw some speculation as to which way Hillary will jump on another contentious issue: marijuana legalization. This speculation was fueled by two news stories about close friends of Clinton, and how they're staking out their positions: Debbie Wasserman Schultz is trying to have it both ways while not supporting medical marijuana in Florida, while Virginia's Governor Terry McAuliffe has spoken out in favor of medical marijuana in his state (even though it's not on the ballot and no bill is on the horizon in Virginia's legislature). File both of these stories under "it's WAY too early for 2016 talk," we suppose.

The biggest bout of rampant speculation in Washington this week centered on what could become known as the "September Surprise" (I wrote about this subject in greater detail earlier this week, for those interested). President Obama set a soft deadline ("the end of the summer") for announcing a new immigration policy. This could shake up the midterm election significantly, even to the point of sweeping every other contentious issue aside. Some Republicans are already threatening to shut down the government again if Obama goes through with his announcement. Current rumors are that maybe Obama is rethinking the timing of such an announcement, and he might just wait until after the midterms. So stay tuned on this one, as it might be a game-changer (if it happens, that is).

OK, that's it for the news roundup this week, but we have to close with a short program note. This column will be on vacation next week. "Friday Talking Points" will return on September 12, hopefully with plenty of juicy things to snark about. We'll see you back here in two weeks!

 

We're not entirely sure this is even partisan, but we felt that someone deserves some recognition for taking such a bold stand, in any event. In California, unidentified "officials from the state's Department of Managed Health Care" sent out letters to insurance companies stating that abortion is "a basic health care service" and must be covered in all health care plans in the state. From the letter: "[T]he California Constitution prohibits health plans from discriminating against women who choose to terminate a pregnancy. Thus, all health plans must treat maternity services and legal abortion neutrally." This could mean a big legal battle in the federal courts (especially after the Hobby Lobby case), but it is refreshing to see a state government making such an unequivocal stand against the new tactic of separating abortion coverage out from health insurance policies. The nameless bureaucrats who made this stand deserve recognition, for taking such a bold position.

Last week we devoted much of this column to supporting the idea of body cameras for all police, and this week we're glad to report that Representative Adam Schiff of California is now gathering signatures on a letter he intends to send to Eric Holder, which states:



The evidence from early adopters is highly promising, and body-worn cameras have garnered support from police chiefs, rank and file officers, community organizations, and civil rights advocates. We believe that a dedicated federal grant program would be a worthy addition to the support the Department of Justice has historically provided to state and local law enforcement agencies.



For showing public support -- and for getting other House members on board -- Adam Schiff deserves at least an *Honorable Mention*. This is an idea whose time has come. The technology exists. All that is required to implement it universally is political will.

But the *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* this week is Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia. Kane is pushing for a Senate vote to approve military strikes in Iraq and Syria. He is doing so even though he's getting a lot of pushback from fellow Democrats, who are horrified at the prospect of senators doing their jobs right before an election.

No matter what you feel about war, about Islamic terrorists, about bombing strikes, or about Syria or Iraq, the fact of the matter is that it's a lot easier to carp about what Obama is (or is not) doing from the sidelines. Republicans revel in the ability to do so, in fact. For people like John McCain (just to pick the most obvious), it's easy to say "what Obama's doing is wrong" without ever having to vote on any alternatives. Remember, Obama didn't start bombing Syria a while back because Congress couldn't agree on doing so. This is actually the way the Constitution is supposed to work. Wars without widespread public support should not be fought. That's the basic idea.

Kaine wants to force the Senate to go on record on what to do in Iraq and Syria. We think this is a good idea. Will this lead to tough votes for some Democrats? Possibly. Will it lead to Republicans having to put up or shut up? Perhaps. But more importantly, it will put everyone on the record, right before they face the voters. If senators are confident that they are truly representing the will of their constituents, then they should have no problem voting.

The naked fear shown by anonymous Democratic Senate aides was revealed in a few quotes: "Asking anybody to take that vote within two months of an election is just stupid. Why would you put people in that position?" Kaine's response to such criticism was impressive:



I don't think anybody should just be in this job for the politics. They should be in the job to do the right thing. The notion of, "Well, we don't want to cast a hard vote before a midterm because it might be unpopular" -- that's the job we volunteered for.



Bravo, Senator Kaine. Even though Harry Reid will likely not allow such a vote, Kaine still wins this week's *Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week* for taking such a principled stand. War is serious business. Politicians should have to show where they stand on such a momentous decision.

[Congratulate Senator Tim Kaine on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

It doesn't really qualify for an award either way, yet, but with all the talk circulating (from Republicans, naturally) of shutting down the government, some Democrats got the very smart idea to launch a pre-emptive strike by putting up a website highlighting previous Republican quotes from last year, just before they shut down the government. This is a good idea, at heart, but the execution so far has been pretty poor. The site is called "Shutdown Broken Promises" but so far is definitely not ready for prime time. We would venture to suggest that a talented high-school student could throw together a better website in a single weekend. Perhaps it's just in "beta" phase, or something? As we said, this could be a really good "opposition research" idea, but the execution so far is pretty disappointing indeed.

But this week's winner of the *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* is none other than Barack Obama. During his press conference, Obama made what could be called a "Washington gaffe" (usually defined as: "accidentally speaking the truth in politics"), which might in some circumstances have been excusable. However, context in this case doesn't really help Obama, since the truth he uttered was about himself and his administration.

Asked about Syria, Obama gave a thoughtful answer where he spoke of long-term plans and goals for America. But when he was asked a follow-up question about getting congressional approval for bombing Syria, Obama responded:



I have consulted with Congress throughout this process. I am confident that as Commander-in-Chief I have the authorities to engage in the acts that we are conducting currently. As our strategy develops, we will continue to consult with Congress. And I do think that it will be important for Congress to weigh in, or that our consultations with Congress continue to develop so that the American people are part of the debate.

But I don't want to put the cart before the horse. We don't have a strategy yet. I think what I've seen in some of the news reports suggests that folks are getting a little further ahead of where we're at than we currently are. And I think that's not just my assessment, but the assessment of our military as well. We need to make sure that we've got clear plans, that we're developing them. At that point, I will consult with Congress and make sure that their voices are heard. But there's no point in me asking for action on the part of Congress before I know exactly what it is that is going to be required for us to get the job done.



Of course, this was shortened in the media to a single soundbite: "We don't have a strategy yet."

This really falls into a sort of "rookie mistake" category -- one that Obama should now be far beyond. Instead of that one sentence, Obama could have used the previous phrasing and given the same full answer with one sentence's change: "Our strategy is not fully developed as of yet." This would have said exactly the same thing, but avoided the "gotcha" quote in the media.

It's not as if Obama is alone on this. Nobody has a strategy for fighting the Islamic State and what to do in Syria right now (except John McCain's "rain bombs down upon them everywhere, right now" strategy -- which is indeed his strategy for lots of different countries in the world and is why he did not get elected president). Congress -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- are terrified of even voting on any such strategy. So, as we said, Obama is not alone in taking some time to develop a solid plan of action.

But none of that will make it beyond the Washington bubble, because of one sentence the president said in a news conference. For making such a verbal stumble, President Obama is regretfully our *Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week* this week.

[Contact President Obama via the White House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

*Volume 318* (8/29/14)

Another mixed bag, here at the end of Silly Season. Next time around (which will be in two weeks, remember), we expect to have a little more focus in these talking points, as the congresscritters all scurry back to the banks of the Potomac. Until then, this is what we've got for this week.

 *   We have met the enemy...*This is "shutdown talk," part one.

"I see that some Republicans have reverted to what they do best -- threaten to shut down the federal government in a gigantic tantrum over not getting their own way 100 percent of the time. Republicans will -- just like they did the last couple of times they shut the government down -- attempt to blame this on President Obama somehow, but I find it refreshing that Mitch McConnell knows better. In a recent statement, where he swears he has ruled out another government shutdown -- just like Republican leaders falsely promised last time around -- McConnell made an interesting slip of the tongue. Here is his quote: 'I'm the guy that's gotten us out of the shutdowns that some of our members have pushed us into in the past.' That's right -- some of Mitch McConnell's own Republican members are indeed the ones who are going to threaten disaster for the federal budget once again. I'd like everyone to please remember this when Republicans pathetically trot out their same old 'look what he made me do' excuses, next month."

 *   Are you for it or against it?*This one would be handy for just about any Democratic candidate running for Congress, especially as we head into the debate phase of the campaign. To be asked of a Republican opponent, of course.

"The only thing the Republican House has been good for the past two years is driving us over fiscal cliffs and shutting the federal government down in a tantrum any parent of a two-year-old would recognize. That's the only thing they have accomplished -- threatening the entire American economy every so often, for purely political gambits that never work out. In fact, that's what we're hearing from Republicans on Capitol Hill right now: more threats of government shutdowns. So I ask my Republican opponent, in as simple language as I can manage: Are you in favor of shutting the federal government down again for any reason? If you are elected, will you join in these tantrums, or will you govern? A 'yes' or 'no' answer to that would be fine."

 *   Time for some moral outrage*This is just downright disgusting. So say so!

"Republican Senate candidate Allen Weh is using images from the video shot of American journalist James Foley being beheaded by Islamic terrorists. Foley's family is begging all of the American public not even to view this video, but Weh feels it is entirely appropriate to force it upon the people of New Mexico. This is so far beyond the pale, I'm almost at a loss for words to express my disgust. I call upon Weh to take down this despicable ad, and if he won't, I call upon the Republican Party to disavow both his campaign and this ad. This is a matter of common decency, folks. The ad should never have been approved in the first place."

 *   Throw out the money-launderers!*Here's a nice Biblical reference for Democrats to use.

"House Republicans are trying to pass a bill which makes it easier for money-lenders to operate as money-launderers. Yes, you heard that right: Republicans want to weaken the rule of law so that payday lenders can continue to exploit both the people who borrow from them as well as federal laws against money-laundering. I say we need to throw the money-launderers out! How hard a concept is this for Republicans to understand -- money-laundering is wrong, and we need to make it harder for those attempting to do so, not easier."

 *   Docs versus Glocks*This one is fairly easy to state (and more power to the ACLU for supporting the "Docs versus Glocks" legal case).

"Republicans have been pushing laws -- such as the one in Florida -- which silence doctors on the subject of guns in the home. This is simply an outrageous attempt at censoring American citizens who happen to be doctors. Whatever happened to Republicans being against the concept of government getting in between a doctor and a patient, after all? In their overreaching attempt to protect the Second Amendment, these laws absolutely trample upon the First Amendment. Doctors should be free to speak to their patients about anything under the sun, because the Constitution guarantees them this right. This sets a dangerous precedent of one special interest group passing a law banning a conversation they don't think should happen. What would people say if the big tobacco companies passed a law banning doctors from discussing smoking with their patients, after all? If the patients don't want these conversations with doctors, then the doctors will go out of business because their patients will all leave -- that is the free marketplace, folks. Free speech should not be dictated by politicians in this country -- not in the streets, not in political conversations, and definitely not in doctors' offices."

 *   Another one bites the dust*More news from the Pennsylvania governor's race.

"I see that Pennsylvania is the latest state to decide that the Medicaid expansion offered by Obamacare is a good thing, after all. The Republican governor probably realized that Republican governors in states which have accepted the Medicaid expansion are doing a lot better in the polls than Republican governors in states which have refused the expansion. This is a polite way of saying this is a desperation move in his effort to get re-elected. But whatever -- it means that hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians will now get health insurance, so it's a good thing even if it was a move born out of political self-preservation. As time goes on, more and more Republican-led states are realizing that not accepting Obamacare's Medicaid extension is both mean-spirited and politically damaging. During this entire time, not a single state has decided to belatedly opt out, while state after state sheepishly decides it is now time to opt in. Hopefully, sooner or later, all Republican governors will come to this simple conclusion as well."

 *   How to appeal to women, for dummies*We end with a few stats taken from that "how do we talk to women, guys?" report, just because.

"Karl Rove and a few of his buddies just spent some money on a report to detail why Republicans have such a big 'gender gap' with the voters. The numbers are pretty staggering, folks. When women voters were asked who 'wants to make health care more affordable,' Democrats won by a 39 percent margin. When asked which political party 'looks out for the interests of women,' Democrats won by 40 points. On who 'is tolerant of other people's lifestyles, Democrats had a 39 point lead. When asked such basic questions about which party cared about jobs, and which party is willing to compromise, Democrats again held whopping big advantages of, respectively, 35 points and 26 points. In other words, this ain't rocket science, guys. Women just aren't that into the GOP. Did they really need yet another report to tell them this? The gender gap is fast becoming a gender chasm. But the only way Republicans are ever going to change this is if they follow a simple, two-step plan. Step one: stop supporting moralistic, patronizing, and -- at times -- downright misogynistic policies which make women's lives harder. Step two: start supporting policies which make women's lives easier -- such as equal pay, not inserting politicians between a woman and her doctor, and making it easier for everyone to cast their vote, just for starters. Women will vote for you if you don't attack them and if you support policies they like. It's really not that tough to figure out."

 

Chris Weigant blogs at:Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on Huffington Post
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

  Reported by Huffington Post 2 days ago.