Health care bill’s most powerful person: “The Commissioner”

I’ve started reading the health care bill (H.R.3200), and one thing that has caught my attention already is the position of “Health Choices Commissioner,” referred to throughout the bill as simply “Commissioner.” The Commissioner would be appointed by the President to head up a newly-created, “independent agency in the executive branch of the Government” called the Health Choices Administration.

The Commissioner would have broad, sweeping powers. “Commissioner” appears 203 times in the bill, so I can’t list everything, but here are just a few of the Commissioner’s powers:

  • Establish qualified health benefits plan standards, including the enforcement of those standards.
  • Establish and operate a “Health Insurance Exchange” in which private health care plans will have to participate.
  • Define the terms “employer,” “employee,” “full-time employee,” “part-time employee,” and “dependent” for the purposes of the bill.
  • Access financial records of private health insurers and companies who self-insure and report it to Congress. “Such report shall include any recommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure.”

There are many more things the Commissioner gets to decide. In fact, a lot of the language in the bill is vague, and the Commissioner is given the power to define the specifics. If you thought the Department of Homeland Security had too much power (and gave the Executive Branch more power than the other branches), just wait until this takes effect. It will take — what is it, something like 13% of the U.S. economy? — and put it under the direct control of the Executive Branch. And this one person, whom the President will appoint, will have nearly unfettered authority to define terms, and establish and enforce standards.

FactCheck.org looks at the President’s health care speech

You can get all the details here, but here’s a summary of President Obama’s less-than-accurate points during his health-care speech Wednesday night:

  • Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn’t insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.
  • The president said “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” But the House bill would permit a “public option” to cover all abortions, and would also permit federal subsidies to be used to purchase private insurance that covers all abortions, a point that raises objections from anti-abortion groups. That’s true despite a technical ban on use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion coverage.
  • The president repeated his promise that his plan won’t add “one dime” to the federal deficit. But legislation offered so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  • The president overstated the degree of concentration in the insurance industry. He said that in 34 states the “insurance market” is controlled by five or fewer companies, but that’s true only of insurance bought by small groups, not the entire “insurance market.”
  • Obama said his plan won’t “require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.” It’s true that there’s no requirement, but experts say the legislation could induce employers to switch coverage for millions of workers.

Regarding that third point: I have watched and read even the most liberal columnists say that the President’s promise to provide national health care without raising the deficit is totally bogus. It is going to raise the deficit. A lot.

Who has the best record in the National League?

Answer: The St. Louis Cardinals

Cardinals Logo

Yep. They’ve been tied for first place with the Los Angeles Dodgers for a while, but that changed Wednesday. The Cardinals completed a sweep of the Milwaukee Brewers Wednesday afternoon, and the Dodgers lost to the Arizona Diamondbacks the same evening. That puts the Cardinals (84-57) a game ahead of the Dodgers (83-58), and at the top of the overall National League standings. And, I might just mention, they’re 11.5 games ahead of their nearest Central Division rival, the Chicago Cubs.

Also, the Cardinals’ magic number for clinching the Central Division title is now 12. GO CARDS!

Team W L Pct. GB
St. Louis Cardinals 84 57 .596
LA Dodgers 83 58 .589 1
Philadelphia Phillies 79 58 .577 3
Colorado Rockies 80 60 .571 3.5
San Francisco Giants 76 64 .543 7.5
Florida Marlins 74 65 .532 9
Chicago Cubs 71 67 .514 11.5
Atlanta Braves 71 68 .511 12
Houston Astros 68 71 .489 15
Milwaukee Brewers 66 73 .475 17
Cincinnati Reds 63 76 .453 20
San Diego Padres 63 78 .447 21
New York Mets 62 77 .446 21
Arizona Diamondbacks 62 79 .440 22
Pittsburgh 54 84 .391 28.5
Washington 47 92 .338 36

Moss Ave. school no longer considered for MSTA

Up until last night, the proposed Math, Science and Technology Academy (MSTA) charter school was to be housed at the former Washington School on Moss Avenue (currently being used for Adult Education). But it sounds like that building is no off the table, according to today’s paper:

District 150 Superintendent Ken Hinton said the site of the former Washington School on the city’s West Bluff is not large enough to house a proposed math, science and technology academy. Instead, Hinton suggested Tuesday that such a school open at Loucks…

It’s always been established that the current building is “too small.” The original plan was to expand it. In June 2008, Hinton had this to say:

Physically, he [Hinton] envisions keeping the front facade in place, but everything else would be renovated and “look nothing like it does now.” In order to enlarge the school, he sees it expanding northward (the front of the school faces south, more or less), possibly extending to the corner of Garfield and St. James.

So, what happened to plans to enlarge the school? What’s the real reason this site was abandoned?

City Attorney says nothing more can be done to protect against erroneous sales tax collection

Back in July, I reported on some overtaxing that was taking place in Peoria. I discovered first-hand that when businesses erroneously charge too much sales tax, the citizen who is overcharged pretty much has to fend for himself to get reimbursed.

A communication from the city’s legal department to the city council more or less confirms that state of affairs. Councilman Gary Sandberg had requested that the city draft an ordinance that would impose penalties on businesses that collected more sales tax than they are statutorily authorized to collect. The memo to the council is in response to Sandberg’s request.

In a nutshell, the memo states that sales tax collection is handled at the state level — the city has no power to enforce collection or impose penalties for collecting the wrong amount (whether too little or too much). A plain reading of state statutes confirms this, unfortunately. However, City Legal then goes on to state:

A review of the State sales tax statutes, however, reveals that, in fact. there is a specific provision, 35 ILCS 120/2-40, which provides that purchasers are entitled to refunds from retailers who erroneously collect Retailers’ Occupation Tax and further provides that any erroneously collected tax not refunded must be forwarded to the Illinois Department of Revenue. 35 ILCS 120/2-13 provides for civil and criminal penalties for those who file fraudulent returns, who collect Retailers’ Occupation Tax and do not forward it to the Illinois Department of Revenue and who do not properly collect the tax. In short, the State sales tax statutes cover the field for civil and criminal penalties for sales tax violations.

The thrust of this and subsequent paragraphs, as I see it, is to assure the council that citizens are adequately protected by state law, and thus a local statute would not be needed even if it were permitted (which it’s not). But I would argue that it’s not adequate. Yes, 35 ILCS 120/2-40 does provide that, if the seller collects too much sales tax, “the purchaser shall have a legal right to claim a refund of that amount from the seller.” But this puts the onus on the purchaser to prove to the seller that they collected the wrong amount in the first place.

That might be easy if dealing with a local merchant (of course, a local merchant probably wouldn’t make that mistake in the first place), but when dealing with an out-of-town company, the local manager will generally give you a blank look and say, “the sales taxes are put in the computer by our corporate office.” So then you have to try to contact the corporate office, and the red tape only gets worse from there. Bottom line: it’s not worth your time to fight it unless you’ve purchased a big-ticket item and the difference in tax is significant.

Furthermore, the civil and criminal penalties listed under 35 ILCS 120/13 (not 35 ILCS 120/2-13, which doesn’t exist) only covers deliberately fraudulent acts and the failure to remit to the state all sales tax money collected. It doesn’t cover a situation like the one that happened in Peoria in July. We already knew that because I called the state and was basically told that as long as the business is remitting the money, the state isn’t going to do anything to correct the problem. It falls on the citizen to call the business and somehow convince them that they’re charging the wrong tax rate.

And that’s where this system falls apart. When you, Joe Citizen, complains that a business is charging the wrong tax rate, you are the one who has to prove it. From personal experience this year, I can tell you that the seller is going to defend the tax rate the store is charging. They get official documents from the home office in Chicago or Minnesota or wherever that says the tax rate is X, and by golly, the tax rate is X. Why should they listen to you? You’re probably just uninformed or a general complainer about how high taxes are.

There has to be a way for official notification to be sent to places that are charging the wrong tax rate. The city did do that this past month in order to clear up confusion with a number of businesses. But there is no policy in place that would require the city to do that. I would argue that they only did it because of the media spotlight that was put on the issue, because they certainly didn’t offer to do that for me when I complained, before the story got picked up by the local mainstream media.

If nothing else can be done (and that appears to be the case), the city should at least establish a procedure wherein citizens can notify the city of erroneous tax charges, and the city will notify the company of the correct rate. Someone needs to go to bat for the citizens of Peoria. Why shouldn’t it be the City?

Peoria passed up for another grant

This isn’t Peoria’s year for winning grant awards. After losing out to Morton for some IDOT money, Peoria got more bad news — this time from the Illinois Department of Human Services (IDHS). A recent Issues Update reports:

In April 2009, the City submitted a funding application for $9.3 million in NSP funds to the Illinois Department of Human Services. The NSP funds were granted to the State as part of the early federal “stimulus” efforts, and the State decided to pass the funds through to local governments and agencies.

The City received notice on September 2, that our application was not selected for funding. We will follow up with the State to determine the deficiencies with the application.

These funds would have been used for down payment assistance for 33 new home buyers, the purchase-rehabilitation-sale of 5 existing housing units, the demolition of 71 deteriorated housing units, and the construction of 47 new housing units in older neighborhoods.

According to the IDHS, “The Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) provides grants to purchase foreclosed or abandoned homes and to rehabilitate, resell, or redevelop these homes in order to stabilize neighborhoods and stem the decline of house values of neighboring homes.” The program awards are listed on the IDHS website. Whereas Peoria requested a $9.3 million grant, the largest grant awarded was $4.833 million to 55th & State Redevelopment, LLC, in Chicago. Other recipients included the cities of Champaign ($1.395M), Rock Island ($3.133M), Quincy ($1.9M), and East St. Louis ($2.5M).

The future is here: Flying car makes its debut

Here it is, the car of your dreams:

It’s called the Terrafugia Transition, and it technically isn’t a car. It’s a “roadable aircraft.” That means it’s really an airplane that you can drive on the street like a car and even park in your garage, but it’s not — I repeat, not — a “flying car.”

Now that we’ve got that straight, I’m going to call it a “flying car” for the rest of this post.

When my mom and dad were growing up, a trip to the moon in a rocket was science fiction. Then in 1969, man got in a rocket and went for a stroll on the moon. It seems that if man can imagine it, eventually it becomes reality (except world peace, sadly), and we’ve been imagining flying cars for a long time. The Transition is not exactly the compact, wingless model I was expecting from watching The Jetsons, but it’s impressive nevertheless.

Also impressive is the price, anticipated to be $194,000. They won’t be ready to ship until 2011, but you can reserve one now for a $10,000 deposit. I’m sure the price will come down, though. And when it does, I wonder what effect it will have on American life.

The Transition runs on regular unleaded gasoline. You don’t have to rent a hangar to store it. And it doubles as your ground transportation. The cost of owning your own personal aircraft will be reduced to about the same as the cost of owning a car… albeit a very, very expensive car. But given the size and prices of SUVs these days, there’s not that much of a difference anymore. If you want to some minute upgrades for your vehicle, you can start with parts like a car sunshade.

So, what if these catch on? What will that do to our large suburban and rural lots? Will the installation of private runways be all the rage? How would it impact commercial air transportation if frequent fliers decide to use their own personal flying car in order to avoid delays and invasion of privacy at airports? Will local commuter air service disappear like local commuter rail did decades ago?

What about the increase in air traffic? What if, instead of 10 planes with 60 passengers each in the sky, we end up with 300 flying cars with two passengers each? And what if those cars can take off and land on any private runway? Suddenly, we could all be living next to an airport, and there would be no way to get away from it. Maybe the FAA would establish highways in the sky, a la The Jetsons, in order to relegate flight to certain approved airspace. I would imagine emergency landing strips would have to be provided along these routes in case your flying car develops a problem. (Incidentally, the Transition comes with an optional full-vehicle parachute.)

And think about how far away you could live from where you work. That would give “suburbia” a whole new definition. For instance, commuting from a home in Peoria to a job in Chicago would be a breeze in a flying car, effectively making Peoria a new suburb of Chicago. Of course, Hersey Hawkins already believes that (when asked where Bradley University is located during an appearance on Wheel of Fortune in the late ’90s, he replied, “just outside of Chicago”).

According to the Terrafugia website, it only takes about 20 hours of training of get a Sport Pilot license, which is the minimum required to fly the Transition. Who will be the first person in Peoria to get one?

Labor Day Parade at 2 p.m. today (Updated)

Don’t forget about the Labor Day Parade (presented by the West Central Illinois Labor Council) at 2 p.m. today in downtown Peoria. The parade will start at the 500 block of Monroe Street, go southwest to Main, then down Main to the riverfront, where there will be a picnic with musical entertainment.

Happy Labor Day, everyone!

UPDATE: I took my son to the parade today. Some random observations:

  • We were near the corner of Madison and Main, and from that position, it looked like the parade was well-attended. It wasn’t as well-attended as the Santa Claus Parade, but there were people lining both sides of the street on the parade route.
  • I saw Sharon Crews, Terry Knapp, and Hedy Elliott-Gardner (among others) marching in the parade, representing the teachers’ union. Hedy even said “hi”!
  • Lots of candy was thrown to the kids. I hate that part of modern parades. And yes, I know everyone will think I’m an old stick-in-the-mud for saying so. To me, it really detracts from the point of the parade (celebrating/recognizing the participants and the organizations they represent), instead turning the event into a competition for candy with parents as referees.
  • Speaking of candy, it always amuses me to see union families collecting said candy in Wal-Mart bags. Why any union member would shop at a chain as anti-union as Wal-Mart I’m sure I’ll never know.
  • I believe John Vespa was the only Republican in the parade.
  • Lots of union workers carried signs from the Illinois AFL-CIO that said “Health Care Can’t Wait.”