Share with a friend:

AFTER THREE DAYS OF ORAL ARGUMENTS THIS WEEK, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  For three days, four separate questions unique to the law were considered: 1) Does the Anti-Injunction Act prohibit challenges until the first tax penalty is collected in 2015? 2) Can Congress require individuals to maintain a minimum level of health insurance? 3) Can the individual mandate be severed from the rest of law when determining constitutionality? 4) Can Congress condition federal Medicaid assistance to states on their adoption of coverage thresholds?

FEW CASES IN THE MODERN ERA MATCH THE IMPORTANCE of the Supreme Court's pending ruling on the Administration’s health care law.  At its core, the overriding question facing the justices is whether the federal government, under its powers to regulate interstate commerce, can compel someone into a market.  In this case, the market is health care insurance.  The presentation of oral arguments was informative and constructive, indicating that the future of the law could hinge on precedent pertaining to the regulation of wheat (Wickard v. Filburn) and firearms (U.S. v. Lopez).  A recap of the proceedings, including audio of the oral arguments, is available on C-SPAN’s website.

PREDICTIONS STILL MIXED.  Beyond some of the leads offered by each justice in their questioning, opinions on what the court will do remain split.

THE CURTAIN HAS BEEN PULLED BACK ON THE ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS and there are two distinct proposals on the table.  The President’s budget proposal presents a $1.5 trillion net spending increase.  The alternative, authored by Congressman Paul Ryan, cuts spending by $5 trillion compared to the President’s budget.  Click here for more information on the House budget plan.

INCLUDED IN THE HOUSE BUDGET IS A BIPARTISAN MEDICARE REFORM PROPOSAL first introduced by Democratic Senator Ron Wyden and Republican Congressman Paul Ryan.  Their idea is based on a simple premise: if you prefer to keep your Medicare, you can, but if you want to acquire private insurance utilizing incentives, you can do that too.  A recent column by Lanny Davis—Wyden-Ryan plan deserves a look—explains the proposal in greater detail.

THE “BUFFETT RULE” IS SCORED—According to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, the Buffett Rule—which is a proposed tax on higher earners and in most cases, job creators, since many small businesses file taxes as individuals—would only raise $31 billion over the next 11 years.  Worth noting: Budget deficits over that same period add up to $7 trillion.   Read more from the Associated Press.

SGT. PERALTA UPDATE: Based on the evidence I provided, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus confirmed that the case in now under review by the Board on Awards and Decorations.  This is great news.  It is also significant progress in the right direction.  My office did acquire a second video taken by a Marine combat cameraman the day Sergeant Peralta was killed.  Read my letter to the Secretary of the Navy that accompanied the second video.

BACK TO THE FEDERAL TREASURY.  Each year, House offices are provided an operating budget.  In 2011, I returned $197,865 of my office budget to the federal treasury, along with a 5 percent reduction in overall funding that I strongly supported.  In 2010, I returned $227,710 to the treasury.  For 2012, budgets have been reduced by another 6.4 percent, for a total reduction of 11.4 percent in two years.

UNEMPLOYMENT HOLDS STEADY IN LAST JOBS REPORT.   Click here to read my statement following the release of February’s statistics on March 9, 2012.