Obamacare and the GOP: Watch What Happens!

[tyflier]

And amazingly, the agencies in charge of these investigations manage to spend months "investigating" parents who probably haven't done anything wrong while overlooking parents who go on to murder their children.

I firmly believe that it's necessary to protect children from genuine abuse & neglect, and that these are very real problems. But here in MA we've had a couple of high profile child deaths that slid right past the agencies that were supposed to protect the children, and I've come in contact with people who spent months tangled in the CYS system after their ex-spouse dropped a dime on them for revenge reasons.

So although I am not advocating for elimination of these agencies, I do wonder how well they really function at protecting children. And in my relatively libertarian playbook, protecting those who cannot protect themselves is one of the KEY functions of the government, and children are the group most deserving of protection, because they are not physically, mentally or emotionally ready to protect themselves from things that most adults can handle, so they need help from private individuals and the government to keep them safe until they mature.

I was arguing neither for nor against child protection services and the manner in which they perform their duties. These agencies have outstanding benefits coupled with extraordinary drawbacks, just as any agency or group of agencies designed to accomodate every individual under a single set of guidelines will have.

I was merely pointing out that the implications of both the fatman's post and the article used as "support" are both argumentative against an institution and legality that already exists and has for 35+ years.

For the record, I have been both the benefactor AND the victim of CPS intervention. I was removed from an abusive home at 15 for my protection, which I am thankful for, and I had a vindictive complaint registered against me, which was investigated and immediately dismissed. I have been "through the system" from both sides of the coin, so I feel fairly comfortable discussing it...

 

[tsst]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_healt...lYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDanVkZ2VpbnZhc3Ry

Is there actually a federal judge that believes the constitution exists for a reason other than as political toy to be twisted in the name of tyranny?!?! Maybe so!

The government had argued the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the government the power to require individuals to buy health insurance or face a penalty...

RICHMOND, Va. – A federal judge rejected a key provision of the Obama administration's health care law as unconstitutional Monday, ruling the government cannot require people to buy insurance ...

 

[Fatman608]

AP - President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul hit its first major legal roadblock Monday, thrown into doubt by a federal judge's declaration that the heart of the sweeping legislation is unconstitutional. The decision handed Republican foes ammunition for their repeal effort next year as the law heads for almost certain eventual judgment by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[jpccusa]

Health-reform advocates have little to fear from judge's ruling

Interesting finds, from the Washington Post and the Huffington Post, respectively.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee (and part-owner of a Republican campaign-consulting firm that fought the health-care overhaul legislation), has, as expected, ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional. So why are reform advocates so unexpectedly pleased?

There are two reasons, but first, let's put this into context. Hudson's ruling is the third from a district court so far. Previously, Judge Norman Moon found the mandate constitutional, and so did Judge George Steeh. Steeh and Norman were Clinton appointees, which is to say that the rulings have been proceeding along predictably partisan lines.

Hudson ruled against the government, but he didn't stop it. He refused the plaintiff's request for an injunction against the legislation's continued implementation.

That means the government can carry on setting up the legislation even as the legal process continues to work itself out. And, second, he refused to overrule anything but the individual mandate.

The real danger to health-care overhaul is not that the courts will strike down the individual mandate. That would be a problem, but there are a variety of ways to restructure the individual mandate such that it doesn't penalize anyone for deciding not to do something (which is the core of the conservatives' legal argument against the provision).

Paul Starr, who worked on Bill Clinton's effort to reform the health-care system, has proposed giving people the right to opt out of the mandate if they agree to be ineligible for the subsidies or insurance protections for five years. This policy problem, like most policy problems, can be worked out.

The danger was that, in striking down the individual mandate, the court would also strike down the rest of the bill. That's exactly what the plaintiff had asked Hudson to do. But the judge pointedly refused, noting: "The Court will sever only Section 1501 [the individual mandate] and directly-dependent provisions which make specific reference to 1501."

That last clause has made a lot of pro-reform legal analysts very happy. Go to the text of the health-care law and run a search for "1501." It appears exactly twice in the bill: In the table of contents and in the title of the section. There do not appear to be other sections that make "specific reference" to the provision, even if you could argue that they are "directly dependent" on the provision. The attachment of the "specific reference" language appears to sharply limit the scope of the court's action.
ad_icon

Another interpretation says that Section 1501 relies on Section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code, which contains the mandate's enforcement mechanism, and so that was the part Judge Hudson meant to identify. But 5000A isn't mentioned in the insurance regulations, which are the only pieces of the bill that plausibly rely on the mandate for their effectiveness. So pretty much any other part of the bill you can think of fails either the "directly dependent" or the "specific reference" test.

Hudson will not have the last word on this. Anthony Kennedy will. The disagreements between the various courts virtually ensure that the Supreme Court will eventually take up the case. But right now, the range of opinions stretch from "the law is fine" to "the individual mandate is not fine, but the rest of the law is." That could create problems for the legislation if the mandate is repealed and Republicans block any attempts at a fix, but it's a far cry from a world in which the Supreme Court strikes down the whole of the health-care law.

It might, however, be a worse world for Republicans. The individual mandate began life as a Republican idea. Its earliest appearances in legislation were in the Republican alternatives to the Clinton health-care bill, where it was co-sponsored by such GOP stalwarts as Bob Dole, Orrin G. Hatch and Charles E. Grassley. Later on, it was the centerpiece of then-Gov. Mitt Romney's health-reform plan in Massachusetts, and then it was included in the Wyden-Bennett bill, which many Republicans signed on to.

It was only when the individual mandate appeared in President Obama's legislation that it became so polarizing on the right. The political logic was clear enough: The individual mandate was the most unpopular piece of the bill (you might remember that Obama's 2008 campaign plan omitted it, and he frequently attacked Hillary Clinton for endorsing it in her proposal). But as a policy choice, it might prove disastrous.

The individual mandate was created by conservatives who realized that it was the only way to get universal coverage into the private market. Otherwise, insurers turn away the sick, public anger rises, and, eventually, you get some kind of government-run, single-payer system, much as they did in Europe, and much as we have with Medicare.

If Republicans succeed in taking it off the table, they may sign the death warrant for private insurers in America: Eventually, rising cost pressures will force more aggressive reforms than even Obama has proposed, and if conservative judges have made the private market unfixable by removing the most effective way to deal with adverse selection problems, the only alternative will be the very constitutional, but decidedly non-conservative, single-payer path.

The federal judge set to issue one of the first decisions on the Obama administration's health care law has financial ties to both the attorney general who is challenging the law and to a powerhouse conservative law firm whose clients include prominent Republican officials and critics of reform.

This week, District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson is likely to render a procedural verdict on the Virginia Attorney General's lawsuit which contends that the federal health care overhaul is unconstitutional. The Bush appointee has been hearing oral arguments in his Richmond courtroom dating back to March. His verdict could serve as an important template for more than a dozen other states following Virginia's lead.

But with power comes scrutiny. And as judgment day approaches, a Democratic source sends over judicial disclosure forms Hudson filed that could raise questions about his impartiality. From 2003 through 2008, Hudson has been receiving "dividends" from Campaign Solutions Inc., among other investments. In 2008, he reported income of between $5,000 and $15,000 from the firm. (Data from 2009 was not available at the Judicial Watch database.)

A powerhouse Republican online communications firm, Campaign Solutions, has done work for a host of prominent Republican clients and health care reform critics, including the RNC and NRCC (both of which have called, to varying degrees, for health care reform's repeal). The president of the firm, Becki Donatelli, is the wife of longtime GOP hand Frank Donatelli, and is an adviser toformer Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, among others.

Another firm client is Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia and the man who is bringing the lawsuit in front of Hudson's court. In 2010, records show, Cuccinelli spent nearly $9,000 for Campaign Solutions services.

Campaign Solutions did not immediately return a request for information on the judge's relationship with the company.

The nexus between the chief lawyer and the judge spurs questions about judicial objectivity. At the very least, it shows how tightly connected the legal and political worlds can be and how difficult it is to remove the partisan threads from the heath care related lawsuits.

UPDATE: Campaign Solutions, Inc. sent over the following statement detailing Hudson's investment in the firm:

Judge Hudson has owned stock in Campaign Solutions going back 13 years to the founding of the company or well before he became a federal judge. Since joining the federal bench, he has fully disclosed his stock ownership in the company. He is a passive investor only, has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the firm, and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company.

 

[jpccusa]

Have you seen this video put out by Kaiser Family Foundation yet? It is easy to understand and it removes many of the misinformation introduced by the media and politicians.


(in case the embedding doesn't work, here is the link)

The Kaiser Family Foundation is a non-profit, private operating foundation focusing on the major health care issues facing the U.S., as well as the U.S. role in global health policy. The Kaiser Family Foundation is not associated with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries.

For more info on the Affordable Care Act, go here.

 

[jpccusa]

Yesterday the House voted on the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and here is Keith Olbermann to explain what happened:

Video 1


Video 2

And here is Dr. Rachel Maddow

And a Republican Congressman from IL being questioned by Chris Matthews

And to finish, this one that is directly related to the title of this thread.

 

[Rich Z]

Have any of you heard about this little wrinkle they slipped into this health care law?

Health care law's massive, hidden tax change
By Neil deMause, contributing writerMay 5, 2010: 11:00 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- An all-but-overlooked provision of the health reform law is threatening to swamp U.S. businesses with a flood of new tax paperwork.

Section 9006 of the health care bill -- just a few lines buried in the 2,409-page document -- mandates that beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year.

The stealth change radically alters the nature of 1099s and means businesses will have to issue millions of new tax documents each year.

Right now, the IRS Form 1099 is used to document income for individual workers other than wages and salaries. Freelancers receive them each year from their clients, and businesses issue them to the independent contractors they hire.

But under the new rules, if a freelance designer buys a new iMac from the Apple Store, they'll have to send Apple a 1099. A laundromat that buys soap each week from a local distributor will have to send the supplier a 1099 at the end of the year tallying up their purchases.

The bill makes two key changes to how 1099s are used. First, it expands their scope by using them to track payments not only for services but also for tangible goods. Plus, it requires that 1099s be issued not just to individuals, but also to corporations.

Taken together, the two seemingly small changes will require millions of additional forms to be sent out.

"It's a pretty heavy administrative burden," particularly for small businesses without large in-house accounting staffs, says Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Businesses.

Eliminating the goods exemption could launch an avalanche of paperwork, he says: "If you cater a lunch for other businesses every Wednesday, say, that's a lot of information to keep track of throughout the year."

The paper trail
Why did these tax code revisions get included in a health-care reform bill? Welcome to Washington. The idea seems to be that using 1099 forms to capture unreported income will generate more government revenue and help offset the cost of the health bill.

A Democratic aide for the Senate Finance Committee, which authored the changes, defended the move.

"Information reporting improves tax compliance without raising taxes on small businesses," the aide said. "Health care reform includes more than $35 billion in tax cuts for small businesses ... indicating that during these tough economic times, Congress is delivering the tax breaks small businesses need to thrive."

The new rules could drastically alter the tax-reporting landscape by spotlighting payments that previously went unreported. Freelancers and other independent operators typically write off stacks of business expenses; having to issue tax paperwork documenting each of them could cut down on fraudulent deductions.

More significantly, the 1099 trail would expose payments to small operators that might now be going unreported. If you buy a computer for your business from a major chain retailer, the seller almost certainly documents the revenue. But if you buy it from Tim's Computer Shack down the street, Tim might not report and pay taxes on his income from the sale.

The IRS estimates that the federal government loses more than $300 billion each year in tax revenue on income that goes unreported. Using 1099s to document millions of transactions that now go untracked is one way to begin to close the gap.

While all but unnoticed at the time -- a Pennsylvania business group issued the first warning last October as the idea emerged in draft Senate legislation -- the 1099 rule changes began sparking attention in the blogosphere in the last week. The libertarian Cato Institute called it a "costly, anti-business nightmare"; Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., introduced legislation last week that would repeal the new 1099 requirements.

The notion of mailing a tax form to Costco or Staples each year to document purchases may seem absurd to small business owners, but that's not the worst of it, tax experts say.

Marianne Couch, a principal with the Cokala Tax Group in Michigan and former chair of a citizen advisory group to the IRS on small business and self-employed tax issues, thinks the bigger headache will be data collection: gathering names and taxpayer identification numbers for every payee and vendor that you do business with.

But she also sees a silver lining in the new law.

Her firm already recommends collecting tax data on all vendors, since the IRS requires that you have it on hand at the time of the transaction, not just at tax-filing time. And eliminating the corporate and goods exemptions at least means that businesses will no longer have to pour over every transaction to determine if it needs a 1099. The new rule is simpler: If it crosses the $600 threshold, it's in.

"There are probably going to be some hiccups along the way, because systems will need to be redesigned," says Couch. "But overall I believe it will make compliance on the payor end a lot more streamlined and easier."

In any case, the final impact of the law won't be known until the IRS issues its regulations on the new law, which aren't expected to arrive until sometime next year. The IRS has not yet commented on when it will release regulations or schedule public hearings, and an agency spokesman was unsure when it will do so. The new requirements kick in January 1, 2012.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smallbusiness/1099_health_care_tax_change/

Think what that is going to mean to YOU if you are a small business. If you sell any one person $600 or more in animals or merchandise, they must do a 1099 and send you a copy. If you buy $600 or more from any one seller YOU must fill out a 1099 and send them a copy. So yeah you bought a lot of stuff on Ebay. Did any one seller get $600 or more? Heck, if you buy a single computer for $600 or more (or ANYTHING for that matter), you have to send a 1099 to the seller.

Lovely, eh?

 

[starsevol]

Have any of you heard about this little wrinkle they slipped into this health care law?



http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/05/smallbusiness/1099_health_care_tax_change/

Think what that is going to mean to YOU if you are a small business. If you sell any one person $600 or more in animals or merchandise, they must do a 1099 and send you a copy. If you buy $600 or more from any one seller YOU must fill out a 1099 and send them a copy. So yeah you bought a lot of stuff on Ebay. Did any one seller get $600 or more? Heck, if you buy a single computer for $600 or more (or ANYTHING for that matter), you have to send a 1099 to the seller.

Lovely, eh?

I knew about this, and I am dreading it. I own a small business (very small) and this is a nightmare.
I predict (and wish) that this healthcare bill will cost Obama a second term.
I am Hoping for a Change!

 

[Rich Z]

One little aspect of this that I don't think many people realize is that you are going to have to give your SSN and/or Federal tax ID number to anyone who buys $600 or more of merchandise from you so they can include it on the 1099 they have to fill out. And as well, the 1099 YOU send to someone you buy merchandise from will include YOUR SSN too. So much for trying to protect yourself from identity theft.

Hell, if I walk into a store to buy some merchandise and the total is more that $600 and they DEMAND my SSN, I'll tell them to just shove it and walk away from the purchase.

I am SOOO glad I retired my business last year. What a headache this would have been.

 

[jpccusa]

Great post Rich, but here are follow ups:

Posted at 12:13 PM ET, 01/20/2011
Three Democratic senators push for 1099 reform
By Felicia Sonmez

Three Democratic senators have penned a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) pushing for a vote on repealing a provision of the national health care overhaul regarding tax-reporting requirements for businesses.

Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) and Maria Cantwell (Wash.) sent the letter to Boehner Thursday morning.

The unpopular 1099 tax provision, which requires businesses to report to the Internal Revenue Service all purchases of $600 or more, has been panned by members of both parties. Late last year, efforts by Sens. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to repeal the provision came up short, and a Democratic-led effort to include 1099 repeal in the tax-cut package was one of several proposed add-ons nixed by Republicans during the lame-duck session.

A repeal measure, H.R. 4, has already been introduced but a vote has not been scheduled. House Republican aides had previously said that they expected it would be taken up shortly after a vote on the full repeal measure, which passed the House Wednesday.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said Republican leaders support the 1099 repeal but emphasized that their top priority is repeal of the entire health care law.

"While we support eliminating the 1099 requirement, it is far from the only job-destroying provision in Washington Democrats' law," Steel said. "Now that the House has passed a law to repeal it, the best course would be for the Senate to do the same, and I hope these senators are pressing Senate Majority Leader Reid to do just that."

The full text of the letter to Boehner is after the jump.

January 20, 2011

Dear Speaker Boehner,

Now that you have moved past repeal of the Affordable Care Act, we encourage you to work on efforts to improve the law moving forward. In this spirit, we urge you to take up and pass H.R. 4, a bill which simply strikes the tax-reporting requirement in the health reform law. We have heard from small business men and women in our states who have voiced concern that this provision is burdensome and unnecessary, and could potentially undermine our nation's economic recovery. Repealing this provision would be an important and practical way to improve the Affordable Care Act. We are confident that the Senate can quickly act on H.R. 4 once the House has passed it.

Section 9006 of the Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111-148) requires all business entities to file a 1099 form with the Internal Revenue Service for each vendor for whom they have cumulative transactions of $600 or more. Small businesses in our states have raised concerns that in order to comply with this new requirement, which takes effect next year, businesses will have to institute new record-keeping methods. The change is particularly onerous for small businesses, our nation's engines of growth, who cannot afford to employ extra lawyers and accountants to comply with the new rules. The provision may also have the unintended consequence of distorting behavior in the marketplace, as large businesses will have an incentive to minimize their reporting requirements by consolidating purchases with large vendors, harming small, regional vendors.

This past November, voters sent both parties a clear message: focus on job creation. As President Obama has recently noted, our economy will recover more quickly and create more jobs if we can reduce regulations on business. Repealing this provision would be a great first step as we work together to grow the economy.

Sincerely,
Senator Ben Nelson Senator Maria Cantwell Senator Amy Klobuchar

Source: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/three-democratic-senators-ask.html

AND

Despite Stated Opposition To Health Care Reform's 1099 Provision, Republicans Vote Against Repeal
December 01, 2010 3:55 pm ET

For some time now, Republicans have desperately attempted to kill health care reform, peddling misleading claims and outright distortions to undermine the benefits of the law. In many instances, they have pointed to supposed ill-conceived provisions to denounce the legislation, using these specific details to contend that the bill is damaged beyond repair and therefore must be repealed. In particular, Republicans have decried the bill's 1099 reporting requirements for small businesses, claiming they are unnecessarily burdensome and will limit job creation. But when given an opportunity to vote on Sen. Max Baucus' (D-MT) amendment to repeal the 1099 provision and demonstrate their commitment to helping small businesses, Republicans balked. Indeed, despite their professed opposition to the 1099 provision, only two Republicans voted for the amendment.

Republicans Launched Full-Scale Attack On Health Care Reform's 1099 Reporting Requirements...

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE): 1099 Provision "Has Nothing To Do With Improving The Healthcare Of This Country And Should Not Be Part Of This Law Or Any Other." From The Hill: "'The most routine business expenses will be subject to this new burdensome paper trail,' Johanns said Monday. 'This mandate has nothing to do with improving the healthcare of this country and should not be part of this law or any other.'" [The Hill, 7/26/10]

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY): 1099 Provision "Must Be Repealed — Unless We Want Our Businesses To Die An Economic Paperwork Death By A Thousand Cuts." In an August 12 op-ed in Politico, Sen. Enzi wrote: "Placing trillion-dollar health care costs on the backs of entrepreneurial teenagers, freelance writers, housekeepers and other businesses without in-house accounting departments is ludicrous. This section of the health care reform law does nothing to improve health care. Section 9006 must be repealed - unless we want our businesses to die an economic paperwork death by a thousand cuts." [Politico, 8/12/10]

* Section 9006 Of The Health Care Bill Requires All Businesses To File 1099 Tax Forms If They Purchase More Than $600 In Goods Or Services In A Year. According to CNNMoney.com: "Section 9006 of the health care bill -- just a few lines buried in the 2,409-page document -- mandates that beginning in 2012 all companies will have to issue 1099 tax forms not just to contract workers but to any individual or corporation from which they buy more than $600 in goods or services in a tax year." [CNNMoney.com, 5/5/10]

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): 1099 Provision "Goes Way Too Far And Should Be Repealed." From a September 14 press release regarding the 1099 reporting requirements: "'Our nation's small businesses shouldn't be used as a cash cow to fund liberals' big-spending, high-taxing, debt-increasing agenda. But that's exactly what's happened and the $2.6 trillion health law is a prime example,' said Hatch. 'Washington Democrats put this overly-burdensome mandate on the backs of our job creators to help pay for a radical health law that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. It goes way too far and should be repealed.'" [Press Release, 9/14/10, emphasis added]

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): 1099 Provision Would Create "An Enormous Amount Of Paperwork And Complexity." According to The Hill:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) slammed the tax provision this week, saying it would create "an enormous amount of paperwork and complexity" for the nation's businesses.

"It's no wonder businesses are not expanding," McConnell told Fox News Wednesday. "The president's job killing agenda has been a big factor there."

[The Hill, 8/6/10]

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME): "I Am Committed To Repealing This Provision." In a Fosters.com article titled "Paperwork requirement will harm small businesses," Sen. Collins wrote:

I voted against the health care bill because I knew that it would impose billions of dollars in new penalties on employers - ultimately paid for by American workers in the form of reduced wages and lost jobs - without producing improvements in health care affordability and quality. This 1099 provision, which apparently escaped the attention of many who voted for the bill, confirms my view.

I am committed to repealing this provision (as well as other ill-advised provisions of the new law.) Last month, I joined an effort to strike it from the law through an amendment to a small business bill. Unfortunately, our amendment failed. I was disappointed that the Senate missed a critical opportunity to repeal an unfair mandate that will further burden our small businesses, which are already struggling during these difficult economic times. I have co-sponsored stand-alone legislation to repeal this senseless, counter-productive provision, and will persist until it is done. If our nation is to recover from the economic doldrums, it will be due to the hard work and energy of our small business community, not to a deluge of tax forms.

[Fosters.com, 10/28/10, emphasis added]

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX): "Onerous Provision" Will "Slow Job Creation At A Time That We Should Be Doing Everything Possible To Encourage And Accelerate It." In an article on her official Senate site, Sen. Hutchison wrote:

Unfortunately, those especially vulnerable to the negative impact of this requirement are the ones who are already hurting most in our economic climate - small businesses. Corporations and larger companies will see their operating costs rise, but many of them have dedicated bookkeepers or full accounting departments, enabling them to more easily take on the heavier workload. But most small businesses will not be so fortunate. Already scarce resources and stretched workforces will have to be diverted from productive business activities to cumbersome reporting tasks. Rather than focusing on company expansion, job creation, and wage growth, a business owner might find himself mired in the work of bureaucratic compliance. Ultimately, this provision will slow job creation at a time that we should be doing everything possible to encourage and accelerate it.

[...]

This onerous provision inside a heavy-handed health care law is another example of an overgrown government that is becoming too intrusive and too expensive. I cosponsored an amendment to repeal the 1099 provision, but it failed to pass. I will work during the next Congress to reverse the effects of this disastrous bill. We must work toward the right reforms. Reforms that will actually lower costs for patients - not raise them. Reforms that will strengthen small businesses - not stifle them.

[Hutchison.Senate.gov, 10/22/10, emphasis added]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC): "The Health Care Bill Had Many Terrible Provisions And This Is Among The Worst." From an August 4 press release issued by Sen. Graham:

Under the health care law, small businesses, churches, charities, and state and local governments, would be required to track their purchases and file 1099 forms with the IRS for every transaction with another business over $600. This includes everything from office supplies to basic services.

"The health care bill had many terrible provisions and this is among the worst," said Graham. "The paperwork requirement the Obama health care bill will put on even the smallest businesses in South Carolina will be devastating. Instead of small business owners spending their time growing their business, they will spend time filling out more government paperwork."

"I appreciate Senator [Mike] Johanns' introduction of this important legislation and am hopeful we will soon take it up in the Senate," said Graham. "Passage of this legislation will take a tremendous burden off the backs of small businesses. The paperwork burden is yet another example of why the Obama health care bill should be repealed and replaced."

[LGraham.Senate.gov, 8/4/10, emphasis added]

Sen. John Thune (R-SD): "Burdensome" 1099 Provision Should Be Repealed "Without Delay." In a September 17 op-ed posted on his official Senate website, Sen. Thune contended:

The costly 1099 paperwork mandate is a burdensome requirement for both large and small employers across South Dakota. What may seem like an innocuous tax requirement to the federal government, will end up costing our businesses, farmers, and ranchers time and money that could be better spent on improving their businesses or hiring new workers.

In an economic climate where many businesses are stretching every penny to prevent layoffs or to keep their doors open, the Obama Administration and the Congressional majority continue to push troubling regulations and new burdens on our small businesses. These policies ultimately create uncertainty and instability in the employment market, and stand in the way of job creation.

Congress should listen to the business community, the agriculture community, and the trade associations and repeal the 1099 provision of the health care bill without delay. Now is the time to give employers the freedom they need to grow and expand their operations--not the time to discourage growth and entrepreneurship through costly paperwork. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to repeal this burdensome requirement.

[Thune.Senate.gov, 9/17/10, emphasis added]

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): "Repeal Of The Onerous Provision Must Be A Priority For Congress." In a September 14 Statesman.com op-ed, Sen. Cornyn wrote:

The new health care law requires every business to report all payments in excess of $600 to the Internal Revenue Service on a Form 1099. That is not as big a burden for large corporations with lots of lawyers and accountants already on the payroll. But for small businesses it can be devastating.

[...]

Repeal of the onerous provision must be a priority for Congress. So I will join several of my colleagues to support legislation to do just that. We will stand with dozens of small-business owners, including many Texans, to help convince other senators that the little-noticed provision in the health care law is creating even more uncertainty and despair among our nation's job creators.

[Statesman.com, 9/14/10, emphasis added]

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) Co-Sponsored Legislation To "Repeal This Overly Burdensome Reporting Requirement." On August 6, Sen. Isakson's office issued a press release announcing the senator's co-sponsorship of five bills aimed at repealing provisions of the health care law. From the press release: "Section 9006 of the new health care law requires business owners to submit a separate 1099 reporting form for every single business-to-business transaction that totals more than $600 in a given year. As a result, small business owners will have to complete and submit 1099 forms for basic businesses expenses, including phone and internet service, shipping costs and office supplies. The legislation would repeal this overly burdensome reporting requirement." [Isakson.Senate.gov, 8/6/10]

...Yet Voted Against Amendment To Eliminate The Provision

Despite Previous Statements, Republicans Voted Against The Baucus Amendment. The following Republicans, who previously railed against health care reform's 1099 reporting requirements for small businesses, voted against the Baucus Amendment to eliminate the provision.

Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
McConnell (R-KY)
Thune (R-SD)

The amendment failed by a vote of 44-53, with only two Republicans voting "yea."

[S.Amdt. 4713 to S.Amdt. 4715 to S.510, Vote#254, 11/29/10]

Source: http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201012010011

No legislation is perfect right out of the Congress... There are ALWAYS amendments, and perhaps an amendment to the Section 9006 is due.

And Bethany, this one is for you: http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Obamas-Poll-Ratings-on-the-Rise-114290424.html :cheers:

 

[rexracer]

Just when I thought I couldn't get any more disgusted with Washington politics...

 

[Rich Z]

I guess they all forgot about this law....

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 significantly changes many aspects of Information Collection by the Federal government. The act,which went into effect October 1, 1995 requires agencies to plan for the development of new collections of information and the extension of ongoing collections well in advance of sending proposals to OMB. Agencies must:

•Seek public comment on proposed collections of information through "60-day notices" in the Federal Register;
•Certify to OMB that efforts have been made to reduce the burden of the collection on small businesses, local government and other small entities, and
•Have in place a process for independent review of information collection requests prior to submission to OMB.
Each HHS Operating Division (OPDIV) has a Reports Clearance Officer charged with coordinating the information collection activities within their respective OPDIV. More information about this Act is available from DHHS at http://www.hhs.gov/oirm/infocollect/. (See related links outside of CMS at the bottom of the page.)

http://www.hhs.gov/ocio/policy/collection/paperworkredact.html

 

[Duff]

Think what that is going to mean to YOU if you are a small business. If you sell any one person $600 or more in animals or merchandise, they must do a 1099 and send you a copy. If you buy $600 or more from any one seller YOU must fill out a 1099 and send them a copy. So yeah you bought a lot of stuff on Ebay. Did any one seller get $600 or more? Heck, if you buy a single computer for $600 or more (or ANYTHING for that matter), you have to send a 1099 to the seller.

Lovely, eh?

Unless I'm completely mis-reading this, it's only for BUSINESS transactions. Not PERSONAL transactions. That's a HUGH difference. If you sell over $600 to an individual, they don't have to send you anything. If they are buying it as a business expense, than they will need the forms. Or they could just not report it as a business expense and not have to do any paperwork. While I agree it will mean alot more paperwork, anything that cuts down on tax cheats and fraud is OK with me. If this goes into effect, then claimed business expenses will need to backed up with proof. Ok, now I see why so many are die-hard against it.

 

[starsevol]

Unless I'm completely mis-reading this, it's only for BUSINESS transactions. Not PERSONAL transactions. That's a HUGH difference. If you sell over $600 to an individual, they don't have to send you anything. If they are buying it as a business expense, than they will need the forms. Or they could just not report it as a business expense and not have to do any paperwork. While I agree it will mean alot more paperwork, anything that cuts down on tax cheats and fraud is OK with me. If this goes into effect, then claimed business expenses will need to backed up with proof. Ok, now I see why so many are die-hard against it.

I run a small business. It is very small, as my husband and myself are the only people who work there. We own a bicycle shop. We only deal with around 12 companies that supply us with inventory.
We have never ever cheated on taxes or commited fraud of any kind.
So, why am I against this?

This will hurt every business in this country, both large and small. Most businesses will have to hire a person just to do the paperwork involved to operate. That means that they will either have to fire someone on staff that they really need, or they will not be hiring for any new positions. Any business that is just treading water due to this economy will be forced out of business. Then their entire staff wil be unemployed. Is that what we want?
The negative ramifications of this thing are huge and very real.
If you think the economy is bad now, just wait til this beauty is enacted.....

As far as not reporting these transactions as business expenses, what else would you call inventory, or heating oil to warm the store, or office supplies, or anything else obviously business related?

 

[Rich Z]

Unless I'm completely mis-reading this, it's only for BUSINESS transactions. Not PERSONAL transactions. That's a HUGH difference. If you sell over $600 to an individual, they don't have to send you anything. If they are buying it as a business expense, than they will need the forms. Or they could just not report it as a business expense and not have to do any paperwork. While I agree it will mean alot more paperwork, anything that cuts down on tax cheats and fraud is OK with me. If this goes into effect, then claimed business expenses will need to backed up with proof. Ok, now I see why so many are die-hard against it.

I believe many people here either are, or plan to be, selling snakes. Or perhaps selling items on Ebay. Or how about running a yard sale? Like it or not, in the eyes of the IRS, than makes you a business.

I strongly suspect that this gets the IRS's foot into the door to eventually require a paper trail for EVERY transaction made by anyone. How are you going to like it when you buy that $1K computer and the IRS comes knocking on your door to sniff around to see if you are actually engaged in some sort of underground business?

Hell, even retired and merely running my websites, I can think of probably a half dozen or more 1099s I would be required to submit. Server hosting, programming expenditures, Comcast bill, electric bill, phone bill, software and hardware vendors for PC merchandise, etc. Heck, does that mean I need to keep track how much I spend at each service station for gasoline for my vehicles? With the price of gasoline these days, it won't be real hard to spend more than $600 at one or more local stations.

Sorry, I'm just not going to do that. If they want to haul my butt to jail for thumbing my nose at this ridiculous law, then bring it on.

 

[jpccusa]

Like I said, no legislation EVER left the Congress and didn't need some tweaking... There are ALWAYS amendments, and perhaps an amendment to the Section 9006 is due.

As I posted above, people are already trying to address your concerns, Rich and Bethany. The provision is not popular NOR effective.

Perhaps voters should call the Senators who voted "NO" and complain about the lack of support to amend the problem. Now if you live in Maine, Texas, Wyoming, South Carolina, Utah, Texas, Georgia, Nebraska, Kentucky, or South Dakota, perhaps they should also include a lesson on morals into their call.

Again, here is the list of Senators who slammed the provision and yet voted against an amendment to fix it:

Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
McConnell (R-KY)
Thune (R-SD)

(Complete list on this vote here)

BTW, isn't it interesting how conservative media (CNN, FOX, etc.) didn't say a word about the vote that would fix the "Health care law's massive, hidden tax change"?

 

[Outcast]

Like I said, no legislation EVER left the Congress and didn't need some tweaking... There are ALWAYS amendments, and perhaps an amendment to the Section 9006 is due.

As I posted above, people are already trying to address your concerns, Rich and Bethany. The provision is not popular NOR effective.

Perhaps voters should call the Senators who voted "NO" and complain about the lack of support to amend the problem. Now if you live in Maine, Texas, Wyoming, South Carolina, Utah, Texas, Georgia, Nebraska, Kentucky, or South Dakota, perhaps they should also include a lesson on morals into their call.

Again, here is the list of Senators who slammed the provision and yet voted against an amendment to fix it:

Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
McConnell (R-KY)
Thune (R-SD)

(Complete list on this vote here)

BTW, isn't it interesting how conservative media (CNN, FOX, etc.) didn't say a word about the vote that would fix the "Health care law's massive, hidden tax change"?

Exactly how much of that amendment are we seeing though. I know politicians are sneaky buggers that will try to slip anything through the cracks. I like how it gets rid of the tax issue, but what do the other parts of the amendment say? There are always two parts to a story, why would these Senators vote against it if there were nothing wrong with it?

I also know that one side will say something, and when the other side offers up the solution, the complainers will say it isn't good enough.
I just want to know if there is any other reason to the negative votes for the amendment, other than political rivalry.

 

[jpccusa]

I agree Aaron... there must had been another part of that amendment that was not good enough for everyone (15 Democrats voted NO).

As for Republicans voting NO, that could be because they pledged to do so.

According to this article, "Most senators support repealing the requirement, but they couldn't agree Monday on whether to make up the lost revenue."

And this article explains more about the efforts to repeal that part of the Healthcare Law

Democrat vows to repeal 1099 filing rule from healthcare law
By Mike Lillis - 11/12/10 03:37 PM ET

A leading Senate Democrat vowed Friday to introduce legislation killing a part of the new healthcare reform law that imposes new tax-filing requirements on small businesses.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Finance Committee and a leading architect of the reform law, said a provision requiring businesses to report more purchases to the IRS will impose undue paperwork burdens on companies amid an economic downturn when they can least afford it.

Baucus, who had pushed legislation scaling back the requirement earlier in the year, now wants it repealed in full.

“I have heard small businesses loud and clear and I am responding to their concerns," Baucus said in a statement. "Small businesses are the backbone of our economy in my home state of Montana and across the country, and they need to focus their efforts on creating good-paying jobs — not filing paperwork."

Since the midterm election, Democrats have signaled a willingness to change the provision.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Friday that the 1099 requirement is one of the rare provisions of the healthcare law where the two parties agree that a change is needed.

"That's probably the first place we could go together," she told NPR's "Morning Edition."

Last week, President Obama also conceded that the filing provision threatens to put too much strain on businesses.

"The 1099 provision in the healthcare bill appears to be too burdensome for small businesses," Obama said at a White House news conference the day after Democrats were trounced in midterm elections. "It just involves too much paperwork, too much filing. It's probably counterproductive."

Beginning in 2012, the Democrats’ new healthcare reform bill requires businesses to file 1099 forms with the IRS when goods purchased from another business, even corporations, exceed $600 in a year. That's more burdensome than previous law, under which the reporting requirement related only to services from non-incorporated businesses in excess of $600.

The provision is not a new tax, but is designed to force businesses to comply with existing tax laws. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the change will generate roughly $17 billion over 10 years.

Behind the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business, the nation's businesses have slammed the provision as a job-killer.

In September, the Senate shot down two separate bills addressing the requirement. The first, sponsored by Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), would have repealed the provision altogether, paying the tab by eliminating billions of dollars in preventive healthcare funds included in the reform law.

The second, sponsored by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), would have scaled back the requirement by repealing the new filing requirement for all businesses with fewer than 25 employees, and hiking the reporting threshold for large businesses.

The Democrats’ bill, offset by killing a tax break for the nation's oil giants, was also shot down.

Baucus’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the forthcoming legislation.

Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatc...ort-to-repeal-1099-filing-requirement-?page=2

 

[kathylove]

My guess (although I haven't read it) is that those who voted against it don't want the partial fix - they want to repeal the whole thing. After their symbolic vote against it fails, then they will probably address individual pieces of it, such as the above problem.

But you are right - they are sneaky. They could attach something as unrelated as the python bill to it (just an example of something totally unrelated, not saying that this is actually the case here), so they can sneak in a personal agenda along with something else that is more widely concerning to almost everyone.

 

[jpccusa]

Found this one too

It basically explains that votes# 253 (Johanns) and 254 (Baucus) were competing. Both failed to pass.