U.S. Entering Peak Tornado Season
March 31, 2010 – More tornadoes generally strike most often during the spring months and particularly in tornado-prone states Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska and Texas, according to the National Weather Service.
On average, about 1,270 tornadoes touch down in the United States each year, and a slightly below-normal 1,156 tornadoes were reported last year with 21 deaths attributed to the violent twisters. A tornado is a violently rotating column of air that extends from storm clouds to the ground ranked along the “Fujita Scale.”
An F0 tornado with wind speeds of between 40 mph and 72 mph is categorized as a “gale” tornado on the Fujita Scale capable of causing light damage to chimneys, snapping tree branches and causing minor damage to signs. An F1 tornado is a “moderate” storm as ranked by the Fujita Scale and would have wind speeds of up to 112 mph and is capable of damaging roofs, pushing vehicles off roadways and destroying small out buildings. An F2 tornado is considered “significant” with wind speeds of up to 157 mph and capable of toppling trees, destroying rooftops and mobile homes and creating deadly missiles from small objects.
An F3 tornado reaching wind speeds of up to 206 mph and is capable of downing wide swaths of trees and destroying multiple homes is considered a “severe” tornado on the Fujita Scale. An F4 tornado with wind speeds of up to 260 mph is considered to be “devastating” and is capable of completely leveling well-built homes, lifting other homes off their foundations and. An F5 tornado is considered an “incredible” tornado with wind speeds of up to 318 mph capable of sending car-sized missiles flying more than 100 yards. An F6 tornado with wind speeds of up to 379 mph is considered “inconceivable” and exists only on the Fujita Scale and cannot be discerned from an F5 tornado.
About 74 percent of all tornadoes reported between 1950 and 1994 were F0 or F1 twisters causing minimal amounts of damage, according to The Tornado Project. About 25 percent of tornadoes were F2 or F3 twisters and only about 1 percent of tornadoes are the violently destructive and often deadly F4 and F5 twisters. Although F4 and F5 storms accounted for only 1 percent of reported tornadoes between 1950 and 1994, they inflicted about 67 percent of all deaths caused by tornadoes during the same time frame.
With peak tornado season upon the United States, the Insurance Information institute is reminding homeowners to ensure they are fully protected with suitable levels of insurance coverage if living in tornado-prone areas of the United States. With the recent housing market collapse, many homeowners now carry too little insurance protection to fully restore their homes if damaged or destroyed by a tornado. Vehicles can be insured against damages from tornadoes and other weather events through optional comprehensive automobile insurance coverage.
Federal COBRA Health Insurance Subsidy Expires April 5
March 30, 2010 – The federal subsidy helping unemployed Americans maintain their group health insurance benefits will expire on April 5 while federal lawmakers are on recess.
The U.S. Senate recessed on March 26 without approving a measure extending the federal COBRA health insurance subsidy for the unemployed, which expires March 31. The Senate is scheduled to resume session on April 12 and is expected to approve extending the federal subsidy through the end of the year. Funding for the federal unemployment benefits extension for unemployed Americans using up their initial six months of unemployment expires April 3, affecting an estimated 1.2 million Americans.
The federal COBRA health insurance subsidy program helps workers who lost their jobs due to the recent economic downturn maintain their prior group health insurance coverage by paying about 65 percent of the premiums. The COBRA subsidy initially lasted 9 months, but with the United States facing its worst job market in decades, an estimated 7 million unemployed Americans would have begun losing their subsidy on Feb. 28.
The latest extension was approved after Senate Democrats cut a deal allowing a floor vote on a funding measure for the temporary extension through April 5. U.S. Senator Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky) previously blocked a $10 billion spending bill providing funding to extend the COBRA health insurance subsidy program as well as the National Flood Insurance Program, federal unemployment benefits and federal highway projects, among others. Bunning objected to Democrats’ plans to add to the already record-level federal deficit, instead favoring using unallocated federal stimulus funding to fund the programs.
But Senate Democrats eventually agreed to allow a floor vote on an amendment sponsored by Bunning requiring the $10 billion come from the unallocated portion of the $787 billion federal stimulus bill approved last year. The amendment was defeated, after which the Senate voted to approve the funding measure and sent it to President Barack Obama, who signed it into law.
The $787 billion federal stimulus package approved last year allocated funds to help unemployed Americans continue their health insurance benefits through the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 – popularly known as COBRA.
American families who recently lost their primary incomes due to unemployment have seen their average monthly health insurance benefits payments rise from about $389 per month while employed to $1,111 per month if choosing to continue them through COBRA, according to the non-profit Families USA organization. A monthly health insurance premium of $1,111 uses up about 83 percent of the average monthly unemployment take-home benefits of about $1,332, according to Families USA.
Federal Lawmakers Allow National Flood Insurance Program to End
March 29, 2010 – Having just completed a highly contentious national health care overhaul that won’t take effect for years – aside from increased taxes, federal lawmakers on Friday recessed until April 12 and allowed the National Flood Insurance Program to expire yesterday.
The National Flood Insurance Program provides up to $250,000 in flood insurance coverage for homes and other properties located in federally designated flood plains. The National Flood Insurance Program provides coverage for about 5.6 million homes in the United States, none of which lose their coverage due to the lapse in the federal program. The lapse in the National Flood Insurance Program means no new policies can be written nor can any existing policies be renewed until federal lawmakers either extend it in its current form or approve long-lasting changes after Congress reconvenes in April.
The National Flood Insurance Program officially expired at midnight on March 28. Federal lawmakers were working on a measure extending unemployment benefits that included a temporary extension of the National Flood Insurance Program as well as the federal health insurance subsidy for helping unemployed Americans maintain their group health insurance benefits while looking for new jobs. But disagreements about the funding mechanism has delayed action until after the Congressional recess ends in April.
Federal lawmakers last month allowed the National Flood Insurance Program end for a short period for similar reasons, eventually approving a temporary extension after only a couple days. While the program is lapsed, current policyholders can continue to file and be reimbursed for claims, but people purchasing homes in designated flood plains won’t be able to close until the program is reinstated and flood insurance is purchased.
The National Flood Insurance Program initially expired a year ago, but instead of enacting permanent changes, Congressional leaders several times have chosen to simply temporarily extend the program in its current form while debating national health care reform that would not take effect for several years. The National Flood Insurance Program provides flood insurance protection for homes located in designated flood plains across the country.
Extending the National Flood Insurance Program until May 31, 2009, originally was part of the latest “stimulus” effort but was nixed as part of Senate Democrats’ cost-cutting efforts. Federal officials have extended the debt-riddled program’s deadline several times in lieu of enacting permanent changes. Lawmakers are divided on how to sufficiently fund the program and don’t agree on proposals to add coverage for wind damages to the National Flood Insurance Program.
The National Flood Insurance Program’s expiration would leave more than 5.5 million U.S. homes in flood-prone areas without flood insurance protection. The National Flood Insurance Program covers homes located in high-risk flood areas across the United States and is the insurer-of-last-resort in areas where private insurance companies deem it too risky to provide typical flood insurance protection.
The flood insurance program’s expiration date already was extended several times over the past year to give members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate time to work out differences in the program’s direction. House members are demanding the program be expanded to provide insurance protection against wind damage.
The National Flood Insurance Program originally was to expire on March 6 of last year, but federal lawmakers have delayed enacting permanent changes to the National flood Insurance Program while recently debating highly controversial national health care legislation.
National Flood Insurance Program to Expire – Again
March 26, 2010 – Yet another halt in the federal National Flood Insurance Program might occur this weekend as federal lawmakers drag their heels on enacting permanent changes to the national program insuring more than 5.5 million homes in the United States.
Unless federal lawmakers approve at least another temporary extension of the flood insurance program, the program will expire at 11:59 p.m. on March 28. Lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives want to extend the program another month to provide time to enact permanent changes, but members of the U.S. Senate earlier voted to extend it until the end of 2010. Instead of taking up the already-approved Senate bill, the House of Representatives instead approved their own measure extending the program only another month and referred it to the Senate for consideration.
The Senate now must concur with the House timeline to prevent the National Flood Insurance Program from expiring for the second time this year. The flood insurance program expired briefly on Feb. 28 when the Senate became bogged down in debate over funding for other federal programs. The current extension was approved on March 2, but the extended debate on national health care legislation kept the Senate preoccupied and as of today has been unable to concur with the House of Representatives on extending the program another month.
Even a temporary suspension in the National Health Insurance Program is problematic for many homeowners. When the federal program expired briefly earlier this month, it delayed the closing of the sale of homes located in federally designated flood areas. Homes in federally designated flood areas must be protected with flood insurance. No new flood insurance policies can be issued while the federal program is expired, but current policies remain in force until their expiration, and policyholders can file claims arising from flood insurance damage.
The National Flood Insurance Program initially expired a year ago, but instead of enacting permanent changes, Congressional leaders several times have chosen to simply temporarily extend the program in its current form while debating national health care reform that would not take effect for several years. The National Flood Insurance Program provides flood insurance protection for homes located in designated flood plains across the country.
Extending the National Flood Insurance Program until May 31, 2009, originally was part of the latest “stimulus” effort but was nixed as part of Senate Democrats’ cost-cutting efforts. Federal officials have extended the debt-riddled program’s deadline several times in lieu of enacting permanent changes. Lawmakers are divided on how to sufficiently fund the program and don’t agree on proposals to add coverage for wind damages to the National Flood Insurance Program.
The National Flood Insurance Program’s expiration would leave more than 5.5 million U.S. homes in flood-prone areas without flood insurance protection. The National Flood Insurance Program covers homes located in high-risk flood areas across the United States and is the insurer-of-last-resort in areas where private insurance companies deem it too risky to provide typical flood insurance protection.
The flood insurance program’s expiration date already was extended several times over the past year to give members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate time to work out differences in the program’s direction. House members are demanding the program be expanded to provide insurance protection against wind damage.
The National Flood Insurance Program originally was to expire on March 6 of last year, but federal lawmakers have delayed enacting permanent changes to the National flood Insurance Program while debating highly controversial national health care legislation.
Louisiana Lawmakers Act to Protect Homes with Faulty Drywall
March 24, 2010 – As one of the states strongly afflicted with a spate of homes suffering from faulty drywall manufactured in China, Louisiana officials have introduced legislation aimed at protecting homeowners dealing with drywall problems.
Separate bills introduced this week in the Louisiana Senate and House of Representatives prevent home insurers from raising homeowners insurance rates or canceling policies on homes in which owners file claims arising from drywall manufactured in China. Both measures also would prevent insurers from raising homeowners insurance rates of canceling coverage if an inspection shows the home contains contaminated drywall – whether or not an insurance claim had been filed. Although the bill in the House of Representatives seeks to protect only residential homes, the Senate bill would extend the same protections to commercial properties and would levy a $1,000 fine on insurers violating the proposed law.
Louisiana lawmakers said they have not heard of any cases in which homeowners had their homeowners insurance plans either canceled or premiums increased due to the problem with some Chinese drywall, but they have had many constituents express concerns they might have their premiums increased or homeowners insurance policies canceled because of the drywall problem, according to the Associated Press.
A recent federal study of 51 U.S. homes equipped with drywall manufactured in China indicates a “strong” link between in-home corrosion and drywall contents. Investigators from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission with the help of Chinese officials recently conducted an indoor air study of dozens of homes recently equipped with drywall manufactured in China. Without declaring results conclusive, researchers say there is merit to the more than 2,000 complaints the federal agency has received from U.S. homeowners.
“We now can show a strong association between homes with the problem drywall and the levels of hydrogen sulfide in those homes and corrosion of metals in those homes,” investigators for the Consumer Product Safety Commission said in their announcement of results.
Research results indicated hydrogen sulfide gas emitted by contaminated drywall is the primary culprit in corroding copper and silver in homes equipped with Chinese drywall. Researchers also discovered elevated levels of formaldehyde in newer homes – whether or not they had Chinese drywall. Modern cabinetry and carpeting emit low levels of formaldehyde, according to researchers. Although formaldehyde and hydrogen sulfide gas amounts detected were too low to pose safety risks, federal investigators suspect a combination of them and other compounds commonly found in homes potentially might be harmful to structures and public health.
Officials for the Consumer Product and Safety Commission intend to work with federal lawmakers to implement corrective measures and look into potential health problems tied to the substandard drywall.
As the U.S. housing boom hit its peak near the turn of the century, a shortage of construction materials forced many builders to utilize drywall manufactured in China. Unfortunately, some Chinese drywall contains gypsum and trace elements of strontium sulfide, which can emit corrosive sulfuric compounds and an odor similar to rotten eggs.
A recent report by the Associated Press indicates some 500 million pounds of Chinese gypsum board was imported to meet domestic construction demands – particularly between 2004 and 2008 when thousands of homes along the Gulf of Mexico were being rebuilt in the wake of four hurricanes slamming into Florida during a month-long stretch in 2004 and Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita destroying large areas of New Orleans and other Gulf Coast communities in 2005.
Federal officials estimate about 100,000 homes in the United States contain Chinese drywall. The total cost of replacing the faulty drywall could reach $25 billion, according to the Towers Perrin consulting firm. Some Chinese drywall manufacturers have said their products are safe and suggested bad gypsum tainted only some of the materials shipped to the United States in recent years. Many homeowners have blamed the Chinese drywall for corroding their homes’ copper pipes, causing other property damage and making family members ill.
‘Pay Czar’ Cuts Exec Pay at Five Bailed-Out Firms
March 24, 2010 – Executives at five large U.S. corporations that accepted U.S. taxpayer bailout dollars must take an average 15 percent pay cut, President Barack Obama’s “Pay Czar,” Kenneth Feinberg, announced yesterday.
Feinberg ordered top executives at American International Group (AIG), Chrysler, Chrysler Financial, General Motors and GMAC to take an average 15 percent pay reduction from their 2009 compensation levels, including an average 33 percent reduction in cash payments, according to the U.S. Treasury Department. Despite the pay cuts, Feinberg said most of the top-paid executives at the firms have remained.
Obama last year appointed Feinberg his “Pay Czar” responsible for establishing compensation levels for the highest-paid executives at the seven corporations still in debt to U.S. taxpayers after accepting large amounts of federal bailout funds through the federal government’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
In addition to the five firms already cited, Feinberg also was in charge of executive compensation at Bank of America and Citigroup, both of whom have repaid enough bailout funds to remain beyond Feinberg’s reach. But Feinberg is attempting to recoup executive pay at up to 419 firms accepting TARP funds regardless of whether or not they have repaid TARP funds, Reuters reported today.
Feinberg yesterday sent letters to officials at the 419 firms asking to review their pay levels from October 2008 through February 2009 to determine if any were “excessive,” according to Reuters. Feinberg reportedly will request repayment of annual executive compensation totaling more than $500,000 and deemed by Feinberg to be “not in the public interest,” but he has no authority to enforce such a decree.
Feinberg initially was appointed Obama’s “Pay Czar” after some 200 employees at embattled subsidiary AIG Financial Products received a total $100 million in bonus pay in 2009, causing a large public outcry drawing international news coverage. AIG Financial Products crippled its parent corporation, AIG, through exposure to more than $62 billion in mortgage-backed “collateralized debt obligations” tied to the U.S. housing market. AIG essentially insured large lenders against mortgage defaults and owed tens of billions of dollars after the U.S. housing market crashed and banks began foreclosing on defaulted mortgages in 2008.
Particularly infuriating to U.S. taxpayers, several federal officials became embroiled in a scandal last year over $165 million in bonus payments AIG paid its employees after U.S. Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) successfully amended legislation ensuring the retention bonuses would be paid to employees at the same unit responsible for AIG’s demise.
Dodd initially denied any role in the matter until proven otherwise. He then blamed President Barack Obama’s administration, claiming White House officials demanded the bonus payments be protected. Dodd and Obama are among the largest recipients of campaign contributions from AIG executives in recent years. To help quell the subsequent public outrage, Obama eventually appointed Feinberg as the federal “Pay Czar” in charge of reviewing executive bonus payments at companies accepting federal assistance.
Dodd remains a high-ranking member of the U.S. Senate but faces a tough re-election battle this year and trails likely opponents in local opinion polls. Dodd currently is working on legislation designed to reform the U.S. financial industry.
Obama Signs Health Care Bill; IRS Role Deepens
March 23, 2010 – As President Barack Obama signs controversial health care legislation into law today, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service is being given more extensive reach into the personal lives of U.S. citizens to ensure health insurance mandates and other provisions are followed.
The sweeping changes to the nation’s $2.5 trillion-a-year health care industry scheduled to be signed into law today require all U.S. citizens to obtain health insurance coverage and for job providers employing at least 50 people to offer health insurance benefits. But members of certain religious organizations, such as the Church of Christ Scientist and various Amish sects, that eschew traditional health care practices are exempted from the federal health insurance mandate.
To ensure individual and employer mandates are being met, the Internal Revenue Service will have the authority to determine whether people and businesses are abiding by the federal law and can levy $750 fines on individuals and employers not abiding the mandates. The Internal Revenue Service is scheduled to begin monitoring individuals and job providers to ensure compliance with the health insurance mandate in 2014. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the Internal Revenue Service’s oversight will cost taxpayers an additional $10 billion, which has not been allocated.
Attorneys general in 13 states have announced they are filing lawsuits challenging the federal government’s authority to require U.S. citizens to engage in commerce by mandating they purchase health insurance coverage if they don’t already have it. The only people exempted from the health insurance mandate are individuals for religious reasons, economic hardship, imprisonment or being a member of a federally recognized, aboriginal-American tribe.
The attorneys general for the states of Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina South Dakota Texas, Utah and Washington intend to file a collective lawsuit likely in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff told Reuters.
Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli said he intends to file Virginia’s legal challenge in a federal court located in the state capital of Richmond. Virginia recently enacted a law declaring state residents cannot be forced to purchase insurance.
Cuccinelli contends the federal government’s oversight of interstate commerce does not include the Constitutional authority to force citizens to purchase health insurance. If people choose not to purchase health insurance, then they are not engaging in commerce and cannot be regulated by the federal government, he says.
While more than a dozen state attorneys general already are working on court challenges to the federal health insurance mandate, at least 36 state legislatures have introduced or enacted measures in opposition to various elements of the federal health care package signed into law. Several state legislatures are not convening this year but might offer challenges next year.
Obama to Sign Health Care Bill; States Challenge Insurance Mandate
March 22, 2010 – Aside from some dissenting Democrats, members of the U.S. House of Representatives late Sunday night voted mostly along party lines to approve the Senate health care bill by a narrow 219-212 vote, Senate leaders say a reconciliation vote likely will be held this week after President Barack Obama signs the Senate bill into law tomorrow.
The $938 billion health care package that largely would begin to take effect in 2013 requires qualifying individuals without health insurance to purchase it or pay an annual $750 fine – unless the individual is a member of certain religious organizations, such as various Amish sects or the Church of Christ Science. It expands federal Medicaid health insurance coverage for the poor to people earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level – currently $10,830 for individuals and $22,050 for families with four members, and provides federal subsidies for qualifying individuals and families to help pay for health insurance coverage.
The legislation also would create health insurance exchanges for U.S. citizens to purchase affordable health insurance coverage with federal subsidies available for people earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Federal lawmakers say the health insurance mandate and creation of health insurance exchanges should help the estimated 31 million Americans currently lacking health insurance coverage to obtain it and force those who currently choose not to purchase health insurance to buy it.
The estimated cost of the health care reform plan – $938 billion over 10 years – would be paid through increased taxes on individuals reporting more than $200,000 and couples reporting more than $250,000 in annual income. Taxes also would be levied on so-called “Cadillac” health insurance plans provided by employers and costing $10,200 annually for individuals and $27,500 for families, and tanning salons using ultraviolet lamps would have to pay a 10 percent excise tax. Capital gains taxes also would go up, in addition to several other taxes.
The President has scheduled a bill signing tomorrow, after which the Senate will take up a companion reconciliation measure to iron out budgetary items. The House approved the reconciliation bill in addition to its health care vote last night, but Senate Republican leaders are saying the Senate parliamentarian very well might strike down one or more provisions in the reconciliation bill due to procedural missteps and requiring the House of Representative to take up the measure yet again.
But, even if all the political trickery and sleight-of-hand should result in the health insurance mandate becoming law, the attorneys general of seven states, including Florida and Texas, today announced they are filing suit challenging the legality of a federal health insurance mandate, and officials in at least 30 other states are considering similar action.
“The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state’s sovereignty,” Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said today in a statement announcing their intent. “On behalf of the State of Florida and of the Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama, if the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens.”
Reports: Dems Need Votes for Health Care; Deficit Increase Likely
March 19, 2010 – With President Barack Obama having postponed his planned trip to Asia to focus on a planned Sunday vote on changing the nation’s health care system, several news reports indicate Democrats need six more votes to approve a controversial Senate health care bill but might be dishonest about alleged cost savings.
Obama today announced Democrats don’t have the 216 votes necessary to approve the Senate health care bill and subject it to the reconciliation process as of this morning, but Obama and leading Democrats are attempting to gain the necessary votes from more than a dozen House Democrats yet to decide how they would vote, Bloomberg News reported today. Several Democrats oppose federal funding for abortion provided in the Senate health care bill; others oppose a proposed tax on high-end health insurance plans. And some members of the Hispanic caucus have said they might not support the measure due to its banning illegal immigrants from purchasing health insurance through proposed health insurance exchanges.
If the Senate bill is approved, Democrats want to use a rare reconciliation process to iron out fiscal differences between the House and Senate versions, but some pundits suggest Democrats are planning to do so illegally. Reconciliation only can be used for reducing federal deficits, and an unofficial Congressional Budget Office report announced yesterday suggests proposed changes might save the federal government some $138 billion over 10 years while extending health insurance coverage to an estimated 32 million people currently without health insurance. But Congressional Budget Office officials cautioned the analysis was only a preliminary one and needed additional analysis before an official report can be issued.
Leading Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate publicly are using the unofficial Congressional Budget Office analysis as leverage to continue with the reconciliation process, but a controversial March 18 internal memorandum allegedly circulated among House Democrats and obtained by Capitol Hill reporters suggests Democrats are misleading the public about reducing by some $371 payments to doctors participating in federal Medicaid and Medicare programs proposed in the Senate bill upon which leading Democrats want to hold a vote this Sunday.
“With many Americans nervous about the debt and deficit, we cannot stress enough that this bill is the key to getting costs under control. As the President has stressed repeatedly, health reform is deficit reduction,” the alleged memo reads. And the reduction in federal payments to doctors involved in federal health care programs is the source of the preliminary $138 billion deficit reduction mentioned in the unofficial Congressional Budget Office report leaked this week. But that $138 billion in “savings” over 10 years is based on reduced payments to doctors.
But instead of actually reducing payments to doctors through a “Sustainable Growth Rate” mechanism included in the Senate bill, the internal memo allegedly shows Democrats have included the cost-saving measure only long enough to get the Senate health care bill approved and plan to repeal after the Senate bill is passed.
“The inclusion of a full [Sustainable Growth Rate] repeal would undermine reform’s budget neutrality. So again, do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of [Congressional Budget Office] scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reduction and number of Americans covered,” the suspect memo reads. But, later, the alleged memo reveals the White House and leading Congressional Democrats already are negotiating support among doctors to repeal the cost saving mechanism if they succeed in enacting changes to the $2.5 trillion-a-year U.S. health care system.
“As most [House Democrat] health staff knows, Leadership and the White House are working with the AMA to rally physicians support for a full [Sustainable Growth Rate] repeal later this spring. However, both health and communications staff should understand we do not want that policy discussion discussed at this time, lest [it] complicate that last critical push to pass health reform,” the alleged memo reads. “When media raise the issue of the [Sustainable Growth Rate], only say that Congressional leaders are working with the physician community on this issue.”
Several leading Democrats have claimed the alleged memorandum is a hoax. Several news sources that have used the information say it comes from a reputable source, but they cannot confirm its authenticity. House Democrats have scheduled debate on the Senate health care bill to begin at 1 p.m. Sunday with a vote planned afterward.
FEMA Denies Florida Request for Chinese Drywall Assistance
March 19, 2010 – Florida homeowners who unknowingly have had faulty Chinese drywall placed in their homes during the past decade won’t receive federal compensation after officials for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) this week denied a request for financial assistance from Florida officials.
More than 2,500 residences have been identified by Florida officials as having lost value due to faulty drywall installed mostly in the early and mid 2000s and have nearly 90 other damage claims pending tied to Chinese drywall. Florida’s Lee County has had more than 1,100 homes damaged by Chinese drywall, and state officials have identified another 530 homes suffering metal corrosion after exposure to corrosive elements in some batches of Chinese drywall, the Insurance Journal reported this week.
Officials for Florida’s Division of Emergency Management last May requested financial aid through FEMA to help state homeowners afflicted with the bad Chinese drywall. State officials said Florida homeowners have “suffered greatly” and cannot afford to repair damaged homes, forcing many to move out to avoid possible health complications from noxious odors and fumes emitted by the bad Chinese drywall.
Federal officials said the bad drywall did not amount to either a disaster or an emergency qualifying for federal emergency-management funding despite much of the drywall having been placed in homes damaged by four hurricanes that pummeled the Sunshine State in 2004 and in the wake of 2005’s hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Instead of requesting emergency relief funding, FEMA officials suggested Florida officials work with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and federal housing authority officials to obtain federal assistance first made available in December to homeowners afflicted with faulty Chinese drywall.
A recent federal study of 51 U.S. homes equipped with drywall manufactured in China indicates a “strong” link between in-home corrosion and drywall contents. Investigators from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission with the help of Chinese officials recently conducted an indoor air study of dozens of homes recently equipped with drywall manufactured in China. Without declaring results conclusive, researchers say there is merit to the more than 2,000 complaints the federal agency has received from U.S. homeowners.
“We now can show a strong association between homes with the problem drywall and the levels of hydrogen sulfide in those homes and corrosion of metals in those homes,” investigators for the Consumer Product Safety Commission said in their announcement of results.
Research results indicated hydrogen sulfide gas emitted by contaminated drywall is the primary culprit in corroding copper and silver in homes equipped with Chinese drywall. Researchers also discovered elevated levels of formaldehyde in newer homes – whether or not they had Chinese drywall. Modern cabinetry and carpeting emit low levels of formaldehyde, according to researchers. Although formaldehyde and hydrogen sulfide gas amounts detected were too low to pose safety risks, federal investigators suspect a combination of them and other compounds commonly found in homes potentially might be harmful to structures and public health.
Officials for the Consumer Product and Safety Commission intend to work with federal lawmakers to implement corrective measures and look into potential health problems tied to the substandard drywall.
As the U.S. housing boom hit its peak near the turn of the century, a shortage of construction materials forced many builders to utilize drywall manufactured in China. Unfortunately, some Chinese drywall contains gypsum and trace elements of strontium sulfide, which can emit corrosive sulfuric compounds and an odor similar to rotten eggs.
A recent report by the Associated Press indicates some 500 million pounds of Chinese gypsum board was imported to meet domestic construction demands – particularly between 2004 and 2008 when thousands of homes along the Gulf of Mexico were being rebuilt in the wake of four hurricanes slamming into Florida during a month-long stretch in 2004 and Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita destroying large areas of New Orleans and other Gulf Coast communities in 2005.
Federal officials estimate about 100,000 homes in the United States contain Chinese drywall. The total cost of replacing the faulty drywall could reach $25 billion, according to the Towers Perrin consulting firm. Some Chinese drywall manufacturers have said their products are safe and suggested bad gypsum tainted only some of the materials shipped to the United States in recent years. Many homeowners have blamed the Chinese drywall for corroding their homes’ copper pipes, causing other property damage and making family members ill.
Idaho Joins Virginia in Outlawing Proposed Health Insurance Mandate
March 18, 2010 – As federal lawmakers zero in on a proposed Sunday vote on radical changes to the nation’s $2.5 trillion-a-year health care system, Idaho on Wednesday joined Virginia in formally outlawing a proposed federal health insurance mandate.
Idaho Governor Butch Otter on Wednesday signed the Idaho Health Freedom Act into law, joining Virginia as the first states to formally enact legislation challenging a key component of the highly contested federal health care legislation. The law requires the Idaho attorney general to file a legal challenge to any federal health insurance mandate the might be enacted. The measure is similar to the one recently enacted in Virginia and being considered by lawmakers in at least 36 other states.
Opponents to the Idaho law say challenging the potential federal mandate is a waste of state resources and money due to the fact federal law supercedes state laws. But Otter contends even the weight of federal law can be challenged.
“The ivory tower folks will tell you, ‘No, they’re not going anywhere,’” Otter told the IdahoStatesman. “But I’ll tell you what: You get 36 states, that’s a critical mass. That’s a constitutional mass.”
Idaho lawmakers enacted the measure during the same week House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a likely Sunday, March 20, vote on the health care bill already approved by the U.S. Senate that does not include a “public” health care option but does require all Americans to purchase health insurance or face a penalty. The measure also would allow federal funding of abortions but does not allow illegal immigrants to purchase health insurance through federal health insurance exchanges.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and other leading Democrats are trying to get the Senate bill approved in the House through a controversial reconciliation process never before used to enact major legislation and designed to prevent a likely GOP filibuster in the Senate through the normal legislative process.
Federal lawmakers in the House of Representatives are touting an “unofficial” and partial Congressional Budget Office scoring showing the proposed health care reform would cost $940 billion over 10 years and save the federal government about $130 billion over the same period. But officials at the Congressional Budget Office today issued a clarification saying the initial estimate does not take into account proposed changes in a proposed reconciliation measure Senate and House Democrats eventually want enacted into law.
“Although [the Congressional Budget Office] completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections,” Congressional Budget Office officials told House and Senate leaders in a statement today.
A divided House Budget Committee on Monday approved a controversial legislative maneuver to circumvent traditional U.S. Senate rules and force through sweeping national health care changes.
The House panel voted 21 to 16 to all a reconciliation process to occur. Two House Democrats broke from party ranks and voted against the reconciliation resolution. The health care plan already approved with 60 votes in the U.S. Senate before the death of Democrat Ted Kennedy and the surprise election of Republican Scott Brown derailed President Barack Obama’s efforts to push through sweeping changes to the $2.5 trillion-a-year U.S. health care system that would not take effect for several years.
Recognizing his “top domestic priority” and a key part of his 2008 presidential campaign platform might not get the necessary legislative support to become law, President Barack Obama today announced he is postponing an planned trip to Asia in order to stay in Washington and attempt to gain the required votes for passage Sunday.
Hartford Officials Announce TARP Repayment Plan
March 17, 2010 – Officials for The Hartford Financial Services Group yesterday announced a plan to repay its $3.4 billion debt to U.S. taxpayers.
The Hartford plans to sell nearly $1.5 billion in common shares, $500 million in preferred shares and $425 million in senior notes. The Hartford officials also plan to issue another $675 in senior notes through 2011. The funds will be used to repay the $3.4 billion borrowed through the federal Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) fund, which generated a great deal of controversy for a ranking U.S. Senate Democrat.
“We appreciate the critical role the government and the American taxpayers have played in stabilizing the financial markets and we are pleased to announce a plan to repurchase Treasury’s investment in fewer than 10 months,” said Hartford Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Liam McGee said in a prepared statement. “The Hartford always viewed the investment as temporary capital and intended to return it as soon as prudent.”
Officials for Connecticut-based The Hartford Financial Services Group in 2009 requested the taxpayer aid after suffering steep losses during the 2008 economic crash and were approved for participation in the TARP program with the help of embattled U.S. Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut). Dodd chairs the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs. The Hartford Financial Services Group donated a total of $161,600 to the Senator’s campaign while donors affiliated with The Hartford contributed another $94,550 to Dodd’s political ambitions in 2008, according to OpenSecrets.org. Currently, Dodd has accepted at least $115,300 from the Hartford Financial Services Group and another $94,550 from The Hartford toward any future election campaigns.
With Dodd’s help, The Hartford was among six major U.S. life insurance companies to be allowed access to the federal TARP program initially intended for ailing banks and other financial institutions. The $700 billion TARP fund was intended to purchase toxic assets and strengthen American banks to stave off a potential collapse of the nation’s financial sector. Federal officials since have changed the scope of the TARP program to allow other financial institutions to participate.
But Dodd, along with President Barack Obama, has received harsh criticism for using the TARP fund to bail out political benefactors as well as ensuring executives at AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would receive contractually obligated bonus pay despite their respective institutions needing taxpayer dollars to remain in business. The three organizations are among several that continue to ply Dodd, Obama and others with campaign donations despite having accepted federal bailout money.
‘Spongy’ Brakes Spur Honda Recall of 410,000 Vehicles
March 16, 2010 – Officials for the Honda Motor Company yesterday announced a voluntary recall of some 410,000 minivans and small trucks due to decreasing braking performance over time.
The recall targets 344,000 Honda Odyssey minivans and 68,000 Honda Element light trucks manufactured during 2007 and 2008. Honda officials said the traction control systems on the vehicles allow a minute amount of air into the hydraulic brake lines when adjusting braking on individual wheels to help maintain traction. Over time, the additional air causes the brakes the feel “spongy” and requiring more force to stop. If left unchecked, the brakes eventually could fail.
Officials for the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration say the problem has resulted in at least three accidents causing injuries to drivers and passengers but no known deaths. Honda officials notified the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration of the voluntary recall yesterday.
“Although not all vehicles being recalled are affected by this issue, we are recalling all possible units to assure all customers that their vehicles will perform correctly,” Honda officials said in a statement.
Honda owners of recalled vehicles in about a month will receive notifications of how Honda plans to implement corrective measures and schedule vehicle repairs. But company officials say owners with concerns about potential braking problems should contact their local Honda dealership to have the brake lines bled to remove any air bubbles and restore normal braking power. A more permanent fix will be done later by Honda vehicle technicians who will seal two tiny holes in the traction control system that eventually can allow air to build up in the brake lines and possibly cause a loss of braking power.
The Honda recall comes after the Toyota Motor Corporation recently recalled nearly 10 million vehicles for a variety of safety issues, including failing brakes and sudden acceleration in some vehicles federal officials say contributed to at least 52 traffic deaths in the United States. Compounding problems for Toyota, some 89 class action lawsuits have been filed regarding the recently falling values of used Toyota vehicles totaling a potential $3 billion in liabilities for the world’s largest automaker. The 89 lawsuits identified do not include existing lawsuits for legal liability in the dozens of accidents and deaths attributed to faulty Toyota vehicles in recent years.
Attorneys representing disgruntled Toyota owners accuse Toyota officials of deliberately ignoring reports of safety and mechanical issues with various models. The plaintiffs contend delays in correcting known problems have accelerated the loss of value for recalled Toyota models, according to the litigants. Attorneys cited recent devaluations of popular Toyota Corolla and Sequoia models, which Kelley Blue Book officials recently depreciated by up to $750 in light of the recall efforts, the Associated Press reported.
A group of federal judges on March 25 is scheduled to convene in San Diego to decide whether or not to consolidate the dozens of existing lawsuits into a single class action and try the case in only one jurisdiction.
House Committee Advances Health Care Reconciliation
March 14, 2010 – A divided House Budget Committee today approved a controversial legislative maneuver to circumvent traditional U.S. Senate rules and force through sweeping national health care changes.
The House panel voted 21 to 16 to allow a reconciliation process to occur. Two House Democrats broke from party ranks and voted against the reconciliation resolution. The health care plan already approved with 60 votes in the U.S. Senate before the death of Democrat Ted Kennedy and the surprise election of Republican Scott Brown derailed President Barack Obama’s efforts to push through sweeping changes to the $2.5 trillion-a-year U.S. health care system that would not take effect for several years.
Stunned from the upset loss that removed the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate, party leaders and Obama have turned to parliamentary sleight of hand. The House Rules Committee now will take up the measure and rewrite sections before House members vote on it possibly this week. House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi said a vote might be held on Sunday, March 20, keeping in step with prior health care votes being conducted at highly unusual times.
Reconciliation is designed to help lawmakers advance budgetary legislation containing controversial elements, but reconciliation never has been used as a final vote on major legislation. The last time reconciliation was used was to approve the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, which received some 79 votes just in the reconciliation process. The last controversial reconciliation vote was used for the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, in which 50 Republican Senators voted in favor with then-Vice President Dick Cheney casting the deciding reconciliation vote in favor of hotly contested tax cuts. Although the tax cutting measure barely survived the reconciliation process, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the final measure with 66 votes and bipartisan support.
Although reconciliation never has been used to give final approval to sweeping legislation, the President and leading Democrats are attempting to push through their health care reform efforts using only a reconciliation vote in order to circumvent Senate rules through a Parliamentarian sleight of hand. The Senate Parliamentarian already has ruled that for reconciliation to take place, the House of Representatives must vote in favor the $875 billion health care reform bill already approved with 60 votes in the Senate, and the President must sign it into law.
Once the Senate bill becomes law, only the provisions affecting the federal budget can be revised through the reconciliation process. Adding a student loan program takeover estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost taxpayers some $68 billion give Democrats more leverage over budgetary impacts, but they must overcome internal opposition before securing the number of votes needed for passage.
Because the Senate version of health care reform includes federal funding for abortions, several pro-life House Democrats oppose it. And the members of the House Hispanic Caucus have said they might not support the Senate measure due to its barring illegal aliens from purchasing health insurance through proposed federal health insurance exchanges.
Dems Moving on Reconciliation; Student Loan Takeover
March 12, 2010 – Despite extensive opposition to various health care reform proposals, U.S. House and Senate Democrats plan to hold a vote possibly as soon as next week on proposed changes to the $2.5 trillion-a-year U.S. health care system that now proposes a federal government takeover of student loan programs.
House and Senate leaders responding to pressure from the White House reportedly have reached a tentative agreement on the proposed health care reform measures that would include federal funding for abortions but not illegal aliens,
The U.S. House of Representatives Budget Committee is slated to take up the controversial reconciliation measure in an attempt to push through President Barack Obama’s “top” domestic priority despite lacking the necessary 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to approve major legislation and avoid a likely filibuster by political opponents. Reconciliation is designed to help lawmakers advance budgetary legislation containing controversial elements, but reconciliation never has been used as a final vote on major legislation.
The last time reconciliation was used was to approve the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, which received some 79 votes just in the reconciliation process. The last controversial reconciliation vote was used for the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, in which 50 Republican Senators voted in favor with then-Vice President Dick Cheney casting the deciding reconciliation vote in favor of hotly contested tax cuts. Although the tax cutting measure barely survived the reconciliation process, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the final measure with 66 votes and bipartisan support.
Although reconciliation never has been used to give final approval to sweeping legislation, the President and leading Democrats are attempting to push through their health care reform efforts using only a reconciliation vote in order to circumvent Senate rules through a Parliamentarian sleight of hand. The Senate Parliamentarian already has ruled that for reconciliation to take place, the House of Representatives must vote in favor the $875 billion health care reform bill already approved with 60 votes in the Senate, and the President must sign it into law.
Once the Senate bill becomes law, only the provisions affecting the federal budget can be revised through the reconciliation process. Adding a student loan program takeover estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost taxpayers some $68 billion give Democrats more leverage over budgetary impacts, but they must overcome internal opposition before securing the number of votes needed for passage.
Because the Senate version of health care reform includes federal funding for abortions, several pro-life House Democrats oppose it. And the members of the House Hispanic Caucus have said they might not support the Senate measure due to its barring illegal aliens from purchasing health insurance through proposed federal health insurance exchanges.
Despite the various challenges, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she is close to securing the 216 votes necessary to approve the Senate version of health care and has suggested a possible vote on the matter will be held on Sunday, March 20.