The Affordable Care Act and its implementing regulations require group health insurance plans and health insurance issuers to cover women's preventive care, including the provision of contraceptive services. If an employer's health plan does not include the required coverage, the employer will be subject to economic penalties. Certain religious employers, such as houses of worship, are exempt from this requirement. Other religious employers, for example hospitals or certain closely held for-profit corporations, are entitled to an opt-out "accommodation" if they notify the government of a religiously based objection to the services in question and provide the government with their insurer's or third-party administrator's contact information. If a religious employer invokes the accommodation, the cost of any contraceptive services will be passed on to the employer's insurer, third-party administrator, or the government. The employer will not be liable for any of these costs.

This week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in seven consolidated cases (Zubik v. Burwell) brought by religious employers who challenge the above-described accommodation as a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"). That stature prohibits the federal government from imposing a substantial burden on any person's free exercise of religion unless doing so represents the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling governmental interest. The plaintiffs in each of these cases are religious non-profit or for-profit employers. They object to the provision of contraceptive services on religious grounds. None of them is eligible for the statutory exemption, but each is eligible for the accommodation. Nonetheless, they claim that the terms of the accommodation violate RFRA by imposing a substantial burden on their religious practices. They argue that their religious rights are substantially burdened by requiring them to provide the government with the contact information of their respective insurers or third-party administrators. This, they argue, forces them to participate in the delivery of the objectionable coverage to their beneficiaries. In essence, they argue that the government's offer to accommodate their religious practices, in fact, violates those practices.

Under Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 134 S.Ct. 2757 (2014), a federal law "substantially burdens" a religious practice if that law dictates that religious adherents must take (or forgo) any action contrary to their sincere religious beliefs. The substantial-burden standard is met, therefore, if the government demands that a religious adherent engage in conduct that "seriously" violates her religious beliefs by imposing substantial economic consequences on her choice to adhere to those beliefs. According to the plaintiffs, this test is met here as the government is forcing them to pay heavy economic penalties if they insist on providing insurance coverage only in accordance with their religious beliefs.

The government disagrees, and argues that the plaintiffs do not face the stark and burdensome choice between providing the religiously objectionable services or paying a significant penalty for refusing to do so. Rather, the choice facing the plaintiffs is between seeking an accommodation from the government by providing it with insurance-related contact information or paying the designated penalty. Any burden imposed by this choice is slight and indirect.

Of the five federal courts of appeals that have addressed this issue, four have sided with the government (the seven consolidated cases come from these courts). In so ruling, these courts have explained that the government's arrangements with third parties do not impose a substantial burden on plaintiffs cognizable under the RFRA. Borrowing from Hobby Lobby, one could say that the reporting requirement does not "seriously" invade a religious practice. This seems correct, almost obviously so. There is no doubt that the government could require all employers to provide the government with information relevant to health care coverage, including contact information regarding the insurance or third-party coverage of its employees. The government could also ask a religious employer to let it know if it would like an accommodation in the context of contraceptive services. How else would the accommodation be made available? Why the government can't ask those questions at the same time without substantially burdening a religious practice is, at the very least, puzzling.

The plaintiffs insist that they alone can determine whether any particular action violates their religious beliefs. They argue that the very act of providing the government the required insurance-related information makes them participants in the provision of the objectionable services. They cite Hobby Lobby for the proposition that whether a particular action makes a plaintiff complicit in sin is "a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy" that should be left to the religious objector to decide. The Eighth Circuit, the only appellate court to find that the accommodation violated RFRA, agreed. It therefore concluded that reporting requirement imposed a substantial burden on the plaintiff's sincere religious beliefs. The other four appellate courts to have addressed this issue, concluded otherwise. They explained that this approach improperly collapses the distinction between a sincerely held belief, which is not subject to judicial examination, and the substantiality of the burden on that belief, which is. Were it otherwise, the word "substantial" would be rendered meaningless since its satisfaction would depend entirely on the assessment of the religious objector. All interferences with a religious practice, direct or indirect, would automatically satisfy the statutory standard.

Oral arguments are scheduled to take place this Wednesday at 10 AM EST. Without Justice Scalia, the eight-person Court might well split 4-to-4. If one takes the 5-4 vote in Hobby Lobby as an indicator of the relative positions of the Justices, that would not be a surprising result. On the other hand, the Hobby Lobby addressed a very different issue pertaining to whether RFRA protected the religious liberty of a closely held, for-profit corporation. The issue here focuses on the "substantial burdens" prohibition and it would not be surprising if the dissenters in Hobby Lobby would be joined by one or more members of the Hobby Lobby majority in upholding the accommodation reporting requirement.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 1 day ago.

That could pose a political risk for Republicans running against "Obamacare" in the GOP primaries as they shift to the general election later this year. Reported by nola.com 23 hours ago.

by Jeff Hoyt, MoneyTips Editor-in-Chief-Taking advantage of deductions may increase tax refunds for retirees-
Retirees may find that managing their taxes becomes more complicated once they leave employment and few take full advantage of the many tax breaks for which they are eligible. Understanding how these tax deductions work and knowing which can be applied to a return is important to maximizing a retiree's refund.
One area where retirees often miss deductions is expenses related to medical or dental treatments. Few deduct their monthly insurance premiums, prescription drugs, or other long-term healthcare services. This is because it requires itemizing their deductions, which takes more work. Financial experts do remind retirees that their medical expenses must exceed a specific minimum before they become tax-deductible. Currently, that amount is 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income, but that may change in 2017.

A related deduction that few retirees take, according to CPA Ryan Himmel, is for expenses related to nutritional supplements and vitamins. If doctors prescribe a vitamin or supplement, the cost may qualify as a deductible. Many other health-related items can also be deducted, including prescription glasses, dentures, wheelchairs, and hearing aids. However, items paid for by health insurance are not eligible.

The IRS also allows deductions for medical-related travel. Retirees often visit doctors and specialists more than younger people, and some may not be able to drive themselves. The cost of taxi services, mileage and lodging expenses incurred on trips made specifically for medical purposes can be counted as a deduction if the retiree files an itemized return.
This article was provided by our partners at moneytips.com

To Read more:
Premium Tax Credit 101
Top 10 Ways To Cut Your Taxes This Year

How To Maximize Your Tax Refund

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 22 hours ago.

As Barack Obama enters the final months of his presidency, historians, journalists and self-appointed pundits will participate in the ritual of ranking him on the scale presidential greatness.

Although these surveys garner plenty of attention, they are of little real value. The criteria for judging presidential greatness is fuzzy, failing to account for complicated presidents like Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson who were both influential and profoundly flawed. Most of all, they are inherently biased. Surveys of the public opinion, for example, often rank John F. Kennedy as one of the nation's greatest presidents, alongside Abraham Lincoln; historians, most of whom are liberal, are reluctant to acknowledge the accomplishments of conservatives like Ronald Reagan.

With these disclaimers in mind, I offer my own flawed and biased assessment of the Obama presidency. Assuming there are no dramatic developments in the remaining months of his presidency, where should Obama rank on the list of presidential greatness? I would say high, very high.

There should be little debate over the "greatest" presidents in American history. There are three who stand head and shoulders above the others: George Washington, who forged a new nation; Abraham Lincoln who preserved it; and Franklin Roosevelt who saved it. They are in a category all their own. No one else is close. (This list also has the advantage of being politically balanced. There is one Republican, one Democrat and one who governed before political parties existed, so we can call him an independent.)

The next category, which I term "near great," would include those presidents who inspired the nation, and, who, through the sheer force of their personality and skill, shifted the political debate in America, leaving a legacy that endured far beyond their administration. On this list, I would include Thomas Jefferson, whose brilliant articulation of American ideals has shaped political discourse for the past two centuries; Andrew Jackson, whose populist appeals helped forge a coalition that would endure for decades; Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who used the power of the presidency to combat the evils of industrialism; Harry Truman who established the foundation of America's Cold War policies; and Ronald Reagan, whose conservative ideals transformed the Republican party and offered a politically viable alternative to post-World War II liberalism.

Many of these "great" and "near great" presidents also made colossal mistakes: Jefferson owned slaves and did little to address the issue of slavery as president; Jackson implemented punitive policies that imposed enormous hardship on Native Americans; and Lincoln and Roosevelt violated civil liberties in pursuit of wartime victory. But the positive impact of their presidencies far outweighs the negative.

The next category of "above average" presidents would include James Polk who added large swaths of land to the United States and expanded presidential power; the often overlooked Dwight Eisenhower, who exercised admirable restraint in waging the Cold War; JFK, who inspired the nation but did not live long enough to leave a lasting imprint on the office; and Lyndon Johnson, whose impressive domestic legacy is offset by his disastrous Vietnam policy.

And then there is everybody else. The "average" presidents would include the likes of James Madison, John Adams, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. The "below" average group would consist of such forgettable presidents as Ulysses Grant and Gerald Ford. Then there are the indisputable failures, which, unfortunately, is the longest list. Among the more notables in this group are: Andrew Johnson, William Henry Harrison, Herbert Hoover, and, most recently, George W. Bush.

In what category does Obama belong? I would make a case that he be considered among the "near greats." Here's why:

Not since 1933, when FDR took office at the depth of the Great Depression, has a president confronted such a profound economic crisis on the first day in office. The banking system was collapsing, the two big automotive companies were near bankruptcy, unemployment was rising and the housing market was in a free fall. It was Obama's policies, enacted into law despite unprecedented Republican obstruction, that helped turn the economy around. In fact, Obama's policies have been far more successful than Roosevelt's New Deal program. It was increased wartime production after 1939, not New Deal programs, that ended the depression. Obama ended the "great recession" while slowly disengaging the nation from active involvement in two foreign wars.

Just about every economic indicator reveals an American economy on the rebound, and the growth has far outpaced that in other developed nations. You would not know that by listening to the cartoonish complaints of the Republican candidates running for president. What they fail to mention is that the economic results would be even better had it not been for the Republican-imposed sequester in 2011.

Like all "great" and "near great" presidents, Obama not only solved the problems he inherited, he has managed to leave his own mark on the institution. With the Affordable Care Act, Obama accomplished what every Democrat since Harry Truman has tried but failed to pass -- national health insurance for all Americans. He has championed other reasonable policies -- fighting global warming, ending gun violence through sensible gun control legislation, and immigration reform -- only to have his initiatives stymied by conservative opposition. Most of all, Obama has been masterful in exercising the intangible aspects of the presidency -- inspiring people with his words, and articulating a clear alternative vision for the nation that makes his opponents appear small-minded and petty. And lets not forget the symbolic power of being the nation's first African American president.

Obama's accomplishments in foreign policy have also been notable. In addition to the economic crisis at home, Obama inherited unpopular wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only has Obama been winding down America's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has reoriented the nation's priorities abroad and articulated a more modest vision for America's role in the world. He signed a controversial nuclear deal with Iran, opened relations with Cuba, and has refused to be drawn into another ground war in the Middle East. His Eisenhower-like restraint in the use of military power has sent Bush-era neoconservatives into hysterics, but it has dramatically improved America's image in the world.

What remains unclear is whether Obama's vision and his policies will reshape the Democratic party and endure long after he leaves office. Lets hope so.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 21 hours ago.

Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

*It’s actually pretty easy.* At an apt moment very soon, Trump should offer Governor Kasich the VP slot and Senator Cruz the vacant Supreme Court seat.

Such a grand bargain would *not only clear the primary field and quash any backroom hijacking of the nomination by the Washington GOP establishment*; it would also permit each man to play his highest and best role at this great inflection point in the nation’s history.

That is, *Donald Trump’s job is to destroy the Republican/Neocon establishment and bring working class America back into a modern version of a McKinley-style Republican Party.* Ted Cruz’ task is to spend a lifetime bringing strict constructionism back to the high court, thereby helping to restore constitutional restraints on a leviathan state that fundamentally threatens personal liberty and economic freedom and prosperity in America.

*And, yes, there really isn’t much for a washed-out, me-too Republican pol like Kasich to do at all. *Except to get out of the way and exercise his apparent talent for preacherly uplift as America’s eulogist-in-chief at foreign state funerals.

Beyond the rightness of it, there’s some pretty potent logic for the politics of the deal, too, There would be lots of of winners all around—–most especially the long-suffering American people.

Mitch McConnell and his rudderless Senate wheels, for example, would not need even a ten minute caucus to hand down to young Ted Cruz a life sentence to the Supreme Court.

At the same time and more importantly, however, the American public would score a twofer——a more faithful high court and one less warmonger on Capitol Hill.

As to the former, Ted Cruz is about as close to the next Antonin Scalia as exists in America today. It goes without saying that he could do far more for the cause of liberty as a Justice than as a gadfly Senator.

But there is an angle even more important. Cruz was a top student and debater at Princeton, a distinguished editor of the Harvard Law Review and a clerk on both the DC Court of Appeals and for the great Justice William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court. During the primary debates, he erudition on constitutional matters towered far above the pack.

He was also described as “off the charts brilliant” by no less an admirer of his own brilliance than Alan Dershowitz. With a prospective long lifetime of service on the high court, Ted Cruz could bring a level of scholarly narrative and intellectual passion and acumen that is sorely needed by the constitutionalist cause.

*At the same time, the American people would be spared of another bellicose politician hell-bent on extending Washington’s imperial depredations. *Cruz seems to have the Ronald Reagan disease. That is, his belief in small government does not extend to the Pentagon side of the Potomac; and his high regard for liberty does not appear to encompass innocent foreigners dwelling in the vicinity of desert sands he would cause to glow in the dark.

As for Kasich, it is hard to think of a more inapt messenger with a more wrong-headed message.* America does not need another compromiser, reconciler and wizened Washington ranch hand who can split the difference.*

It needs, instead, a force of nature who can rain shock and awe on the Imperial City. And, so doing, overturn its vast network of prosperous racketeers who feed off the military industrial complex, the health care cartel, the education monopolies, the Wall Street and banking mafias and the legions of other crony capitalist rackets.

Governor Kasich’s specious claim to be a fiscally prudent budget balancer is especially telling. One of the most outrageous Washington wastes is right under his nose. Namely, the Lima Ohio M-1 tank line that he and the Ohio politicians keep open despite 10,000 such lethal machines already in inventory——-and notwithstanding that no other nation has tanks of this advanced capability or, more dispositively, the means to land them on these shores.

Actually, M-1 tanks were originally designed to fight the Red Army on the central front——said army and said front having disappeared from the pages of history 25 years ago.

Since then they have been used for neocon wars of invasion and occupation that did nothing for the safety and security of citizens in Dayton OH or Danbury CT except foster vengeful blowback in the cities and towns they turned into rubble. Even then, the Imperial City’s racketeers offered this folly as proof of the need for more iron and electronic monsters from Lima, while Kasich and his pols lip-synched the sales pitch.

In truth, Kasich is exactly the kind of political lifer that needs to occupy the Joe Biden chair of policy irrelevance during the monumental reckoning ahead. He has indulged in double talk for so many decades that he no longer even knows when his lips are synching or even moving.

His victory speech after the Ohio primary, for example, was laced with pious rhetoric about devolving government back to the states and localities.

C’mon. He took a 90% bribe from Obama to drastically expand Medicaid in Ohio at the expense of taxpayers in Idaho and Texas, whose faithful governors didn’t. Yet he has the nerve to call himself a champion of decentralization?

Kasich’s brand of phony Federalism goes back to Nelson Rockefeller, who wore thin the patience of New York taxpayers with his out-sized building, spending and other notorious appetites. So looking enviously at the untapped citizens of Nebraska and Oregon, Rocky then cooked-up the idea of revenue sharing and sold it to Nixon. It was actually just a form of interstate larceny.

As a young Capitol Hill staffer at the time, I saw how the old-fashioned conservative and legendary ruler of the House Ways and Means Committee, Wilbur Mills, had it killed dead as a doornail. His was virtually the last voice of authority and power in Washington during the past half century who insisted that such tax monies should never leave home in the first place; and that the round-trip through Washington was just an opportunity for sticky fingers to skim the pot and for disingenuous politicians to bring home the pork while pretending it was free money.

If they want to spend it, said Mills, let them tax it first. But sound Federalism was not to be. LBJ’s Great Society had broken the dam and soon Wilbur Mills stumbled into submission on the eve of the 1972 Nixon landslide——perhaps in a foreshadowing of his final stumble two years later into the Tidal Basin with Fanne Foxe.

The rest, as they say, is history. With Mills’ iconic defense of the old order out of the way, the Nixon-Ford White House massively expanded the Federal grant-in-aid system. At length, a whole generation of GOP politicians became house-trained in Kasich style fiscal doublespeak and hypocrisy.That is, in the art of decrying Washington’s fiscal profligacy on the rubber chicken circuit by night while devoting their day jobs to scrapping for hometown pork from Medicaid and thousands of like and similar Federal gravy trains.

I have no idea whether Donald Trump will see through this Kasich style fiscal hypocrisy or not. But I do believe him when he decries our $19 trillion national debt and when he says that he is going after Washington’s fiscal profligacy with hammer and tongs.

In this instance, and much else, Trump’s principal virtue is that his only acquaintanceship with the Imperial City is attendance at an occasional Kennedy Center gala. Accordingly, Trump is unschooled in the self-serving rationalizations that keep the rackets going, even as he is endowed with such ample self-confidence that he is sure to go charging into the nation’s fiscal mess like a bull in a china shop.

And that’s much to be welcomed after years of a bipartisan conspiracy of silence and Washington’s perfidiously orchestrated regime of fiscal can-kicking. Broken furniture and bombastic challenges are exactly what the fiscal doctor ordered. Indeed, what a President Trump could actually do is prove that the way to shutdown Washington’s budgetary rackets is by means of an insurrectionist-in-chief inside the White House, not furtive threats to close the Washington Monument lobbed down Pennsylvania Avenue from Capitol Hill.

Say what you will about Trump’s controversial business history, the four bankruptcies and the rest. Yet it is absolutely certain that he knows at least this much: You don’t stop a flood of budgetary red ink with a 25-year plan to get to a balanced budget by 2038!

That’s Speaker Paul Ryan’s particular contribution to the GOP establishments’ noxious form of fiscal duplicity and doublespeak. Like in the movie “Dave”, The Donald is likely to dive into the budget himself and then there will be fear and trembling all around the Imperial City.

Big Pharma and the health insurance cartel are already in Trump’s gun sights, but once he gets to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue he will quickly discover the target rich environment on the Pentagon side of the Potomac, too. The hideously expensive, technically plagued and completely unneeded trillion dollar F-35 fighter would be the ideal place for him to start.

And that goes to the larger point. All the swells in the mainstream media are furiously cackling about The Donald’s answer on morning TV about the identity of his top foreign policy advisors. Yet the apparent fact that he has none and is doing his own thinking is why the think tanks and neocon lobbies are in full frontal panic:



*I’m speaking with myself No. 1 because I have a very good brain a*nd I’ve said a lot of things,” he said in an interview on MSNBC. “I talk to a lot of people and at the appropriate time I’ll tell you who the people are.”



Actually, there is more, and it has to do with one of the many character flaws that self-evidently afflict the man. We speak of his monumental capacity to carry a grudge and seek revenge upon those who personally offend him.

Here’s the thing. Mitt Romney’s viscous public attack on Trump is only the beard. It is merely the censored for-family-TV-version of what the entire neocon establishment and War Party is saying every day in the corridors of Imperial Washington.

Needless to say, the Donald is taking names and will not be reluctant to do far more than kick offending posteriors. He will make it his business to hound, denounce, denigrate and dispatch the entire passel of neocon power brokers who have declared war on his candidacy.

And, yes, an Imperial City purged of Bill Kristol and his gang of bloodthirsty provocateurs would already be on the road to redemption.

*Indeed, if America’s foreign policy could be seized from the grasp of the Washington War Party and its AIPAC subsidiary, the fiscal equation would be instantly transformed.* Over and again, Trump seems to grasp that the real security of the homeland has nothing to do with being the world’s policeman and defense sugar-daddy.

*In fact, that’s pretty obvious to any one who hasn’t been mis-educated by globe-trotting harpies of war like Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain.* Trump has had no trouble figuring out that Ukraine, for example, was always part of the greater Russian sphere of influence and geographic propinquity.

If he had time for an honest briefing, he surely would have no problem at all seeing that it was the meddling, incompetent apparatchiks of the State Department, CIA and National Endowment for Democracy which fostered, funded and facilitated the coup against the constitutionally elected government of Ukraine in the first place.

Or that Crimea was the equivalent of a Gadsden Purchase which had been unwound by Kruschev in the midst of post-Stalin politburo maneuvers and intrigues; and that its re-annexation by Moscow after the illegal putsch in Kiev was accomplished far more peacefully and consensually than had been the territorial rearrangement of Kosovo by the US Air Force 15 year earlier.

But whether he has had all the true facts or not, Trump has had no trouble seeing that the solution to the conflict between Ukraine’s Russian speaking minority in the east and the rest of the country was a negotiated deal with Putin, not the demonization of this leader of a country that has no beef with America and a GDP the size of the NYC metropolitan area.

You can go from that insight straight to a $200 billion cut in the nation’s bloated $600 billion defense budget. When the US economy slides into recession, as it surely will, before the next White House inaugural ceremony has commenced, the Federal deficit will soar back above the $1 trillion mark; it has only been in temporary hibernation, not permanent remission.

So The Donald will need massive spending cuts in Washington at the very same time that desperate socialist governments in Europe will face  a global recession induced outbreak of red ink in their own fiscal accounts. That will be the Donald’s moment——the opening to disband NATO, slash defense spending across both continents and negotiate the kind of global disarmament deals that Eisenhower unsuccessfully sought and Warren G. Harding actually achieved.

And that brings us to the supreme irony of this fraught political season. The Washington and New York chattering class has been nearly busting a spleen over the prospect of Trump’s (alleged) stubby fingers on the nuclear button.* I haven’t heard such full-throated hysteria since they worked up a similar campaign against Ronald Reagan in the fall of 1980.*

The man did go on to help end the cold war and remove the nuclear sword of Damocles that hung over the planet, even if it was the inherent contradictions and impossibilities of totalitarian socialism that finally brought down the Soviet regime.

Likewise, in a world heading into the fiscal dumpster, Donald Trump is more likely to negotiate an end to today’s monumental waste on arms and thereby win the Nobel Peace Prize than he is to start a war.

Stated differently, Trump can lead the world back to the 1991 status quo ante for one salient reason. He never got the War Party memo that proclaimed an American Imperium that has now failed horribly; and he will relish doing unstinting battle against it Imperial City architects——the Clintons and the neocons.

Still, redemption for the US economy and the nation’s wage and salary earning households will require more than the recovery of fiscal rectitude, as crucial as that is to avoiding a calamitous national bankruptcy during the next decade.

What is actually needed is a modern rendition of President William McKinley’s “full dinner pail” economics of circa 1900. McKinley was a hard money Republican who impaled William Jennings Bryan twice on his own cross of anti-gold populism by selling the gospel of free enterprise and mild protectionism to the laboring classes of America’s flourishing interior.

*Donald Trump is on to that. *But what he needs to better understand is that it was the gold standard and free enterprise elements of the McKinley formula that carried the day, not the moderately protectionist tariffs. The latter had actually been designed a decade earlier by McKinley himself as an Ohio industrial belt Congressman to insure wage equivalence with the principal industrial centers of England and Europe.

In fact, it was the honest money discipline of the gold standard that kept transatlantic industrial wages in equilibrium, consumer goods inflation non-existent and real living standards steadily rising. Stumping for the protectionist tariff was just the McKinley GOP’s way of emphasizing its solidarity with the wage earning producers of the day.

To be sure, free trade is always better for real living standards and societal wealth than the deadweight cost of tariffs, but in truth the McKinley tariff was as much a revenue tariff as it was an modern style instrument of statist protectionism.  After all, it was not until 1913 that the nation even had an income tax on individuals and corporations.

And that gets us to a segue to The Donald’s well-intended but incomplete stance on global trade, the massive loss of full-pay productive jobs in America during recent decades and his claim that we are “losing” $500 billion a year to China, $59 billion to Mexico and so forth.

He is right. But it’s not just, or even mainly, due to *bad trade deals* negotiated by stupid bureaucrats in the state department and the USTR office.

It’s mainly owing to *bad money* created by stupid Keynesians at the Federal Reserve. They have enabled the rise of a virulent form of export mercantilism and currency manipulation throughout the entirety of East Asia and much of the EM world which drafts in its economic wake.

Stated differently, the two decade long regime of central bank driven free money has destroyed the possibility of free trade. What passes for “free trade” today has nothing to do with the real thing.

So-called free trade arrangements like NAFTA and the pending TPP are essentially statist deals negotiated among corporate, labor, environmentalist and other interest groups. If they actually result in increased global trade, the impact is marginal and largely incidental.

The whole trade calamity that Trump is declaiming goes back four and one-half decades; and can be laid at the doorstep of Milton Friedman and his acolytes in the White House who convinced Nixon to default on America’s obligation to redeem unwanted dollars for gold, and to instead float the dollar at Camp David in August 1971.

What the well-intended but hopelessly naïve free market professor failed to reckon with is that once the Fed was freed of the shackles of even the flawed Bretton Woods gold exchange standard, it would only be a matter of time before statist professors and Washington policy apparatchiks would open the monetary floodgates in the name of taming the business cycle or achieving the mythical Keynesian nirvana of full-employment.

Worse still, Friedman was clueless about the probability that this monetary profligacy would prove to be virulently contagious, especially among the developing economies of East Asia where free market capitalism had never really existed. What happened is a relentless, long-lasting and destructive “dirty float” that continues to this day.

The recipients of the Fed’s flood of dollar liabilities after Greenspan took the helm in 1987 engaged in massive currency intervention and manipulation in order to promote their export industries, and avoid what would have otherwise happened under Friedman’s theoretical fiat money regime. To wit, the dollar would have collapsed and Asian exporter exchange rates would have soared, halting America’s 25 year borrowing spree before it really got started.

The truth is, had Alan Greenspan and his successors maintained even a modicum of monetary restraint and permitted money and capital markets to clear under the laws of supply and demand, nominal US interest rates would have remained unusually high in the face of deep negative US trade balances stemming from the post-1994 mobilization of cheap labor in China and East Asia.

American households would not have lived high on the hog by borrowing from foreigners in order to consume more than they produced. Under honest money in the 1990s and thereafter, wages and productivity in the US would have sweated themselves back to competitive levels as they did during the McKinley era of full dinner pail economics.

Needless to say, that is all water over the dam now in 2016. *American labor is hopelessly over-priced and the American standard of living teeters precariously on a debt-swollen economy that has no capacity to grow or create what used to be called middle class jobs.*

*I call them breadwinner jobs and there have been no net new ones formed in America since the turn of the century. *The new jobs heralded on bubblevision every month are mainly born-again from the last cyclical downturn or low pay, part-time jobs in bars, restaurants, theme parks, nursing homes, home health outfits, temp agencies and student loan dependent for-profit tuition mills.

*Yet Trump’s relentless harping on trade might provide an avenue to reset a hopelessly impaired domestic labor market*. In brief, the prospective GOP nominee should embrace Ted Cruz’s business flat tax as he sends its author on his way to the Supreme Court.

But rather than replacing the income tax, which over half of US households do not pay anyway, the Cruz flat tax should be calibrated at a rate which will permit elimination of the payroll tax entirely. Lifting the roughly 16% employer/employee wedge off the cost of labor in America—–a burden of some $1.4 trillion annually—- would do more to restore full dinner pail economics to main street than any other conceivable measure.

*In truth, the Cruz business flat tax is just a  gussied up value added tax (VAT). And that’s exactly what America needs—notwithstanding decades of caterwauling against it by the Washington business lobbies and their GOP bag carriers—–because it taxes consumption, not labor and enterprise.*

Better still, it would fully tax the $2.4 trillion of goods imports which come into the country every year while being rebated on the $1.7 trillion of US exports which fight for foreign markets with their arm tied behind their back—-owing to systematic foreign protectionism and the blatant currency pegging and manipulation that Donald Trump has rightly called out.

*Indeed, a Trump administration would not need to start any trade war at all.* *It only needs to fire Janet Yellen and her merry band of money printers and replace them with sound money proponents who will stop pegging interest rates and allow the money and capital markets to clear at free market levels.*

In no time the dollar would strengthen and China’s $30 trillion house of cards would come crashing back to earth. The comrades in Beijing would have no choice except to shutdown the Peoples Printing Press of China in order to prevent an outward stampede of flight capital like the world has never seen.

Even then, a Trump VAT could be calibrated to bring the one sided trade flows of the world back into more favorable balance. It would simply involve a surtax on the basic VAT rate for the goods of any country that continued to abuse its access to US markets via state export subsidies and exchange rate manipulations designed to artificially lower the price of its exports.

To be sure, in an ideal world the US should welcome the foolishness of any foreign government which subsidizes its exports. That is actually a form of foreign aid to American consumers.

But like the mild McKinley tariff, the harm from taxing foreign goods would be far outweighed by the good that would come from relieving the existing payroll tax burden on domestic labor and enterprise. Likewise, the urgent necessity to close the nation’s disastrous fiscal gap would be far better accomplished by raising whatever revenues are required—– after a thorough fiscal housecleaning on both sides of the Potomac—–by taxing consumption, not production.

*Call it a revenue tariff, if need be. It brought full dinner pail economics to the McKinley era and could again.*

It also brought the laboring classes to the Republican party and that’s essential. There is no hope for capitalism, fiscal solvency and constitutional governance and liberty in America if the Republican party remains in thrall to the War Party and the crony capitalist racketeers who occupy its commanding heights in the Imperial City.

*No wonder they will stop at nothing to stop Trump.*

But they won’t succeed. The American public is finished with the corruptions and destructions of the Imperial City. The Grand Old Party Is done.

*So just maybe the door is open for The Donald to usher in a Grand New Bargain.* Reported by Zero Hedge 20 hours ago.

"I see this as a two-step process," Clinton said with respect to expanding health insurance access to undocumented immigrants Reported by CBS News 14 hours ago.

Houston area fitness chain seeks to partner with local businesses to promote wellness in the workplace.

Houston, TX. (PRWEB) March 22, 2016

Earlier this month, Dynamic Fitness launched corporate fitness memberships for local businesses in the Houston, Texas area. The fitness chain also implemented a Corporate Fitness Month, offering innovative, weekly blog posts on the topic and a special, limited-time-only deal on their new corporate program in the month of March.

This is a brand new program offered by Dynamic Fitness and the goal is to partner with the community to advocate for wellness in the workplace. The fitness center is reaching out to any kind of business that embraces a wellness program, ranging from small neighborhood stores to large firms with over two hundred employees. Dynamic Fitness knows the benefits of its corporate memberships and wants to invite other businesses to engage in this valuable program.

“We’re going to help out companies and HR departments by offering corporate memberships at a discounted rate,” said Jared Williams, the CEO of Dynamic Fitness. This discount gives neighborhood businesses a higher incentive to sign up, while the program itself will keep employees coming back to the gym.

In addition, this membership also includes four free personal training sessions, part of the fitness center’s Dynamic Results program. Dynamic Fitness is offering these sessions to help employees of local businesses in the first 4 to 5 weeks of their fitness routine. This will guide them to get on the right track to continue visiting the facility and use the full extent of their corporate memberships. This kind of membership will guide employees to finally make the fitness decision they’ve been thinking about.

Williams went on to emphasize, “We understand that getting started is the hardest part of fitness. For companies, it’s important for employees to be physically active in a fitness program. It helps with their productivity at work and also results in less sick days, lowering health insurance costs.” With this program, Dynamic Fitness has opened the door to partner with nearby businesses and build professional relationships with them.

Dynamic Fitness plans to expand the program to include corporate competitions and other corporate team building events later this year.

About Dynamic Fitness:
Dynamic Fitness aims to be the leading fitness provider in the communities it serves. Their amenities, spread out through 30,000 sq. feet facilities, include tanning, free weight areas, swimming pools, group training programs, and more, in addition to convenient open hours. To learn more about Dynamic Fitness and to view offerings by location, please visit http://www.thedynamicfitness.com Reported by PRWeb 10 hours ago.

Kauffman Foundation Policy Digest explores policies that could mitigate entrepreneurial risks

Kansas City, Mo. (PRWEB) March 22, 2016

With new firm formation in decline, could policies that protect against some entrepreneurial risks and economic hazards encourage more people to start companies? According to a new Entrepreneurship Policy Digest released today by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, a more robust safety net could do just that.

Researchers found that business ownership increased 16 percent among households that were newly eligible for food stamps. And, in France, an unemployment insurance program increased business creation by allowing entrepreneurs to insure against business failure by retaining access to their unemployment benefits. Significantly, the program did not attract less-qualified or less-talented entrepreneurs, but drew entrepreneurs who outpaced their incumbent competitors in terms of hiring, productivity and wages.

The report recommends these strategies to encourage entrepreneurship:·     Reduce the opportunity cost of entrepreneurial experimentation. This can be accomplished through family-friendly policies such as subsidized child care or preschool to boost the number of female entrepreneurs, and reforming unemployment insurance to help nascent entrepreneurs mitigate the downside risks of starting businesses.
·     Facilitate asset accumulation. This is an especially important issue for millennials, many of whom are encumbered by heavy student debt burdens that make it difficult to accumulate the savings needed to bootstrap a startup.

The Policy Digest also includes a review of research on health insurance and entrepreneurship. Supporters of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) claimed that decoupling health insurance and employment would boost entrepreneurship.

The Digest also links to “Entrepreneurship and Economic Dynamism: Marginal Returns from Health Policy Thus Far,” a white paper by Tom Miller, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. The paper includes an assessment of several possible changes in the near-term direction of national health policy and their potential impact on entrepreneurial activity, business formation and economic dynamism, including a look into the effects of the ACA on business creation rates.

About the Kauffman Foundation
The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation is a private, nonpartisan foundation that aims to foster economic independence by advancing educational achievement and entrepreneurial success. Founded by late entrepreneur and philanthropist Ewing Marion Kauffman, the Foundation is based in Kansas City, Mo., and has approximately $2 billion in assets. For more information, visit http://www.kauffman.org, and follow the Foundation on twitter.com/kauffmanfdn and facebook.com/kauffmanfdn. Reported by PRWeb 5 hours ago.

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Research and Markets (http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/qdndxc/personal_accident) has announced the addition of the "Personal Accident and Health Insurance in the US, Key Trends and Opportunities to 2019" report to their offering. The 'Personal Accident and Health Insurance in the US, Key Trends and Opportunities to 2019' report provides detailed analysis of the market trends, drivers, challenges in the US personal accident and health insurance segment. It prov Reported by Business Wire 4 hours ago.

Working for yourself can be very fulfilling, but it requires attention to detail -- especially when it comes to your taxes. The tax challenges of self-employment make it even more important that you take advantage of every bit of tax savings available to you in order to keep your business in sound financial shape. Start with these 13 deductions.

*1. Retirement Plans -* Typically, a retirement plan is the best tax advantage available to independent contractors. Save for retirement, accrue tax-deferred growth, and gain tax deductions -- it's a win-win-win situation. Qualified plans include 401(k)s, SEPs (Simplified Employee Pensions), and SIMPLE (Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees) IRAs.

*2. Self-Employment Tax -* Bad news: You pay employer and employee taxes, since you are both. Good News: The half of your self-employment tax that you pay as an employer is deductible.

*3. Home Office -* Home office deductions receive greater scrutiny these days, but if your office meets the criteria in IRS Publication 587, "Business Use of Your Home," take advantage. The home office must be your principal place of business and be used on a regular basis for business purposes only.

*4. Depreciation -* Assets used only for your business can be depreciated if they have a life of greater than one year and are used to generate income. If you use equipment for both home and business, consult IRS Publication 946, "How to Depreciate Property," to see if depreciation applies in your case.

*5. Health Insurance Premiums -* You may be able to deduct health insurance premiums for you, your spouse, and your dependents if you meet certain sets of criteria. See IRS Publication 535, Business Expenses" for details.

*6. Communications Expenses -* Communication-related bills such as Internet access and cell phone service are deductible in the proportion that they are used for business. Ask for a partitioned bill from the providers when possible. Otherwise, it may be hard to prove the percentage of business use.

*7. Mileage -* Driving expenses related to business can be deducted at the standard mileage rate of 57.5 cents per mile for the 2015 tax year. Otherwise, you can deduct actual expenses for fuel, licensing, maintenance and repairs, and depreciation. In both cases, keep business and personal use expenses separate.

*8. Other Travel Expenses -* Business-related travel is 100% deductible. The corresponding meals and entertainment expenses are 50% deductible.

*9. Bank Fees -* As a self-employed individual, you may be able to deduct certain bank fees if you keep your business and personal bank accounts separate, as well as the associated transactions.

*10. Educational Expenses -* Expenses that help to expand your business-related knowledge such as seminars, dues and subscriptions, and continuing education classes in your line of work are deductible. They must be related to your profession to qualify.

*11. Interest -* Interest on loans and business-only credit cards are deductible -- but again, it is important that these loans and credit cards are strictly and purely applicable to your business.

*12. Office Supplies -* Non-depreciable business items may be deducted as standard business expenses, assuming they are purchased only for your business. Keep your receipts as proof.

*13. Advertising and Promotion Costs -* A broad variety of advertising expenses can be deducted, from simple business cards to full media With superior recordkeeping and strict separation of personal and business expenses, you can claim the above expenses and increase your tax savings. The same attention to detail that makes you a good business owner will make you a good tax analyst -- at least for your own tax return.

This article was provided by our partners at moneytips.com
To read more:

Self-Employment Tax Guide
How To Save For Taxes If You Are A Freelancer

Deducting Volunteer Travel Expenses
-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 2 hours ago.

The new Certificate Holder–Audiology Preceptor (CH-AP™) training program prepares preceptors for roles of coach, mentor, teacher, and evaluator in clinical settings.

Reston, VA (PRWEB) March 22, 2016

The American Board of Audiology® (ABA) today announced the launch of its Certificate Holder–Audiology Preceptor (CH-AP™) Training Program for licensed audiologists and university faculty audiologists who provide the vitally important audiological clinical instruction that is required for audiology students to earn their degrees.

The new CH-AP, which will be available through the American Academy of Audiology eAudiology Web-based platform, is the first national assessment-based certificate training program for audiology preceptors and was created to offer ease of access to valuable training materials that will offer comprehensive, uniform, and formal training.

“Preceptors are responsible for more than one-fourth of an audiology student’s educational experience, which is an incredible responsibility. These dedicated audiologists have taken on the role of coach, teacher, role model, mentor, and evaluator. They have an essential role in the audiology educational model and often are the last teachers a student has before graduation,” said Meagan Lewis, AuD, chair of the ABA Board of Governors and holder of the ABA Board Certified in Audiology® credential and the ABA Cochlear Implant Specialty Certification (CISC®).

“A well-trained preceptor is essential to helping students become practice-ready clinicians, prepared with the technical and professional skills they’ll need to be successful; the CH-AP Training Program is designed to do that for current and future audiologists,” Dr. Lewis said.

CH-AP is a voluntary certificate program aimed at creating a well-rounded, knowledge-based precepting experience that will provide critically important opportunities for students to apply classroom learning in authentic clinical settings. It also will help facilitate the student’s transition from novice clinician to competent, independent professional. Successful completion of four modules is required to earn the CH-AP certificate:

Module 1—Role of the Preceptor in a Clinical Environment (2 hours)
Module 2—Clinical Dynamics – Assessment & Performance (2 hours)
Module 3—Creating Effective Learning Programs (2 hours)
Module 4—Legal, Ethical, and Professional Considerations (2 hours)

In addition to the four modules, the CH-AP training program includes tools designed to allow audiologists to customize what they study to meet their unique needs, including:· assessing the readiness of a clinical site,
· recruiting and selecting students,
· understanding Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) regulations,
· adhering to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliance,
· setting goals,
· understanding and adhering to Medicare, and
· teaching initial clinical assessments to students.

A presentation about the CH-AP, including training fees, detailed curriculum for training modules, and eligibility requirements is available at http://www.boardofaudiology.org.

The CH-AP Training Program is based on and aligned with international ASTM E2659 Accreditation Standards that provide guidelines for quality program development and administration, distinguish qualified workers with industry-recognized credentials, and differentiate certificate programs from non-assessment-based programs that award “certificates of attendance” or “certificates of participation.”

“We chose to create an assessment-based certificate program because training and assessments are tightly linked to the CH-AP program’s learning objectives,” Torryn Brazell, MS, CAE, ABA’s managing director, explained. “Assessments ensure that CH-AP certificate holders have been exposed to and understand the core competencies required to precept effectively and create a well-rounded experience for future audiologists.”

Module 1 must be completed successfully before an audiologist can access the other modules. Subsequent modules may be taken in any order once an audiologist has taken and passed the Module 1 assessment. Audiology students also may register for and audit the courses, but may not apply for the CH-AP certificate until after becoming a licensed practicing audiologist.

Once an audiologist has successfully completed the four modules and earned the CH-AP certificate, the ABA will add his or her name to the CH-AP National Registry of Audiology Preceptors™, which will be open to the public so that consumers, university programs, and students may search for preceptors who hold the certificate.

“When you earn the CH-AP certificate, which is valid for five years, you show your mastery of preceptor core competencies and your commitment to the audiology profession,” Dr. Lewis said. “The ABA’s goal is to create a new cohort of skilled preceptors who are the best possible coaches, teachers, role models, evaluators, and mentors who are prepared to create the best possible field placement experiences for students.”

The CH-AP Training Program was developed with the support of hundreds of audiologists who participated in surveys and focus groups, answered questionnaires, shared expertise in working groups, and helped develop the certificate’s core curriculum.The project was underwritten by Starkey Hearing Technologies, with module support from Sprint CapTel and Audigy Group.

Learn More About the CH-AP at AudiologyNOW!
The ABA will highlight the new CH-AP training program at the American Academy of Audiology’s AudiologyNOW! 2016 conference in Phoenix. Torryn P. Brazell, MS, CAE, John Coverstone, AuD, Board Certified in Audiology®, and immediate past chair of the ABA Board of Governors, and Chris Focht, AuD, Board Certified in Audiology®, will present sessions that relate to the CH-AP on April 14 and 15.

About the American Board of Audiology®
The American Board of Audiology® (ABA) creates, administers, and promotes rigorous credentialing programs that elevate professional practice and advance patient care. ABA credentials are earned by leading audiologists, respected by other health-care providers, and trusted by patients. The ABA administers the Board Certified in Audiology®, the Pediatric Audiology Specialty Certification (PASC®), the Cochlear Implant Specialty Certification (CISC®), and the Certificate Holder–Audiology Preceptor (CH-AP™) Training Program, all of which are voluntary credentialing programs. Reported by PRWeb 2 hours ago.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider appeals by Christian groups demanding full exemption on religious grounds from a requirement under President Barack Obama's healthcare law to provide health insurance covering contraceptives. Reported by Reuters 13 hours ago.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider appeals by Christian groups demanding full exemption on religious grounds from a requirement under President Barack Obama’s healthcare law to provide health insurance covering contraceptives. The court was set to hear a 90-minute oral argument ... Reported by Raw Story 13 hours ago.

PYA (Pershing Yoakley & Associates), a national management consulting and accounting firm, has released an updated white paper that provides a concise explanation of the requirements for participation in the Medicare Shared Savings Program.

Knoxville, TN (PRWEB) March 23, 2016

As of January 1, 2016, there are 434 accountable care organizations (ACOs) participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). With the new Medicare Merit-Based Incentive Payment System on its way, interest in MSSP participation is at a peak.

The MSSP application process is complicated by the overwhelming level of detail contained in the hundreds of pages of MSSP regulations and related guidance. PYA’s updated white paper, MSSP ACO Roadmap , condenses those rules down to the core requirements. The Roadmap arranges the information to facilitate substantive discussions and decision-making, rather than hand-wringing over every last regulatory provision.

According to the Roadmap, “completing the MSSP application is no small feat, and interested providers should get started as soon as possible. The first step in the process is a careful and thorough review of MSSP requirements for participation.”

With the Roadmap, all of the information needed for such a review is compiled in a single document. The Roadmap covers five areas: (1) the case for MSSP participation, (2) ACO formation and MSSP application, (3) operations, (4) shared savings payments, and (5) private payer programs.

Copies of the Roadmap are available on PYA’s website. For more information about the white paper, contact Martie Ross at PYA, (800) 270-9629.

About PYA

For over three decades, Pershing Yoakley & Associates (PYA), a national healthcare consulting firm, has helped clients navigate and derive value amid complex challenges related to regulatory compliance, mergers and acquisitions, governance, business valuations and fair market value assessments, multi-unit business and clinical integrations, best practices, tax and assurance, business analysis, and operations optimization.

PYA’s steadfast commitment to an unwavering client-centric culture has served the firm’s clients well. PYA is now ranked by Modern Healthcare as the nation’s 9th largest privately owned healthcare consulting firm. PYA affiliate companies offer clients world-class data analytics, professional real estate development and advisory resources for healthcare providers, self-insured employer health insurance claims audits for Fortune 500 companies, wealth management and retirement plan administration, and business transitions consulting.

For more information, please visit http://www.pyapc.com/. Reported by PRWeb 11 hours ago.

A survey has found that while almost all Massachusetts residents are insured, more than a third went without some form of health care last year due to concerns over cost and access. The survey, released by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation, was conducted last year via phone by the Urban Institute. Of the of the 2,017 people, upward of 95.7 percent of non-elderly adults said they had health insurance. Yet, 37 percent of the respondents said they went without needed health care in… Reported by bizjournals 7 hours ago.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on March 23 in Zubik v. Burwell, the second direct challenge to the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This time, the plaintiffs are religiously affiliated businesses like universities, hospitals, and nursing homes: nonprofits that serve the general population, but have a corporate affiliation to a faith group. Those organizations argue that, like churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship, they should be fully exempt from the law’s requirement that employer-provided health insurance plans cover contraception as preventive care. The cases are part of conservatives’ longstanding attacks on the Affordable Care Act generally, and the birth control benefit specifically—objections to which began as soon as President Obama signed the ACA into law.* *

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.

Under a new bulletin private insurers cannot deny, cancel, terminate, limit, restrict or refuse to issue plans based on a person's gender identity, transgender status or if the person is undergoing a gender transition.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Reported by Delawareonline 4 hours ago.

Thousands of children of legal immigrants will be closer to obtaining subsidized health insurance this summer, after the Legislature passed a long-debated expansion of the state's KidCare program. Reported by cbs4.com 2 hours ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A government report says the web portal for health insurance coverage under President Barack Obama's law logged 316 security incidents during a period of about 18 months. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office says none of the attempted cyberattacks appeared to have succeeded in compromising sensitive data, including the personal information of millions of consumers shopping for subsidized health insurance. Reported by SFGate 2 hours ago.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared to be headed toward a possible 4-4 split over a legal challenge launched by Christian groups demanding full exemption on religious grounds from a requirement under President Barack Obama’s healthcare law to provide health insurance covering contrace... Reported by Raw Story 1 hour ago.