“This week the Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care bill, and the decision will have consequences far beyond just the future direction of our health care system. If the individual mandate is struck down, it would be a major blow to the power of the federal government to use the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause to require Americans to act in certain ways.  If it is upheld, it would be a significant victory for those who believe the federal government can do virtually anything apart from what is specifically constitutionally barred.

“While the Supreme Court deliberations grab the headlines, something else happened this month that will have major implications on health care and its impact on Americans and the ever-growing national debt. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an updated analysis of the cost of the health care law using the most current budget data, and the findings are disheartening.  When the bill was signed into law in 2010, it was estimated that an increased burden on Medicaid and taxpayer-funded health insurance subsidies would cost taxpayers $938 billion over ten years. The new updated estimate this month finds the real cost to be nearly $1.8 trillion between now and 2022. This is a punch to the gut for Members of Congress working to reduce the debt.  In short, it just got almost $1 trillion more difficult to tackle the debt, and the costs of the health care bill are only expected to rise.

“To put $1 trillion in perspective, let’s look at a widely supported government agency, NASA.  NASA receives roughly $18 billion dollars of funding every year.  To save a trillion dollars you would have to completely defund NASA… 56 times over. 

“With this example, you can see why it is so hard to cut $1 trillion out of the discretionary budget.  Given that most economists agree we need to find $4 to $6 trillion to really stabilize the debt and put us on a path to eventually erase it completely, even eliminating NASA 56 times doesn’t make a dent.

“The reality is eliminating the debt can’t be done immediately, and it can’t be done with only spending cuts.  While cuts are an important part of it, we need to institute real, long term, structural reform of our mandatory spending programs that are on auto-pilot and growing by the day.  The system is unsustainable – a couple turning 65 today probably paid over $109,000 into Medicare in their lives but will receive on average over $343,000 in benefits.  Meanwhile, starting this year, 10,000 Americans will enroll in Medicare every day for the next 20 years. Our children and grandchildren have little hope of seeing any benefits themselves under our current system.

“Along with real reform of Medicare, Congress must find the courage to reform, not just patch, our outdated tax code. We need to simplify the code and streamline regulations while closing loop-holes, creating the economic growth necessary to reduce the deficit.  With these reforms in place we can actually reduce tax rates for ALL individuals and businesses, and still have funds left over to reduce the debt.  It is crucial that any savings from tax reform not be used to simply implement more spending.  The tax code should be a simple system intended to raise the necessary revenue for appropriate government functions, not a complex system through which the government directs social behavior and forces certain outcomes.

“This week Congress is considering these issues and will vote on the House Republican Budget offered by Chairman Paul Ryan. It is a bold and tough reform proposal that deals with the issues of our auto-pilot programs head on.  The Medicare reforms are tough but fair and offer anyone the option of keeping their current benefits if they so choose.  Despite demagoguery from Democrats and the White House, the Ryan Plan has proved to be durable and is gaining support. While it won’t receive bipartisan backing this year, it signifies the intention of Republicans to fix our debt problem. I am proud of my colleagues for offering this plan despite “political experts” claims that it will hurt the party in an election year.

“The Simpson-Bowles approach is another proposal that I strongly support because it puts everything on the table, leaving no “sacred cows” untouched.  And while the news that Obama’s health care bill will cost taxpayers an extra $1 trillion is discouraging, it should make Congress bolder in the fight to reduce the size of government, fix our outdated tax code, and reform our bloated mandatory programs. The public is way ahead of Congress on this, and Congress must catch up and begin making the same tough decisions and sacrifices that American families are making every day.”

Simpson Co-Sponsors Legislation to Stop Additional Harsh Regulations on Family Farms
Bill Aims at Prohibiting Feds from Restricting Youth Working in Ag Industry
Congressman Mike Simpson cosponsored H.R. 4157, the Preserving America’s Family Farms Act. This legislation addresses the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) proposed regulations for labor practices for youth working in agricultural operations. The proposed rule would limit the ability of farmers and ranchers to hire youth to work in agriculture.

“I grew up moving pipe and breaking ground for new crops,” said Simpson. “It is a time in my life that I consider very significant, and working on farms taught me the value of hard work and the importance of success and determination. I want to make sure today’s youth have the same opportunities that I had growing up, part of which is being able to work, save money, and go to college.  Jobs in agriculture provide these opportunities and need to be preserved.”

The proposed rule would ban hiring youth younger than sixteen to do certain types of farm work and ban so-called “hazardous” work, including operating tractors or working with livestock.  Furthermore, the “parental exemption” portion of the rule would prohibit youth from doing various farm activities on farms not solely owned by their parents—including farms owned by extended family or other farms on which the youth do not reside. With this rule, DOL has attempted to narrow the definition of the family farm so that chores could be considered illegal unless the farm on which the youth works is wholly owned by his or her parents.

“This proposal is a misguided idea that threatens the ability of America’s youth to contribute to work on their family’s farm and other agricultural operations,” said Simpson. “This proposed rule would also restrict families in their efforts to pass on the generational knowledge and the hands-on learning that is so critical to the survival of the agricultural industry.”

The Preserving America’s Family Farms Act would prohibit the DOL from finalizing the proposed regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act that relate to on-farm youth labor. H.R. 4157 is currently in the House Agriculture Committee.

In the News

Northwestern Lawmakers Weigh In On Health Care Case
By Matt Laslo, March 26, 2012, www.radio.boisestate.edu 

Idaho and 25 other states challenge the country's health care law in the U.S. Supreme Court this week. The justices will hear challenges on three parts of the law but the biggest question facing the justices is whether the government can force people to purchase private health insurance.

Idaho Republican Congressman Mike Simpson says a ruling in favor of the individual mandate would greatly expand federal power. He questioned, “If they can do that, what can’t they do under the commerce clause?”
 
The law's supporters argue that sections of the U.S. Constitution give Congress authority over the economy and health care makes up around one fifth of the American economy.
Idaho’s attorney general is in Washington D.C. this week to watch the proceedings. He supports the suit along with the majority of Idaho's elected leaders.  But in Washington State it’s a different story.
 
Washington's Republican attorney general is teaming up with conservatives to challenge the individual mandate in the health care law. Washington Democratic congressman Jim McDermott predicts a backlash for Attorney General Rob McKenna who is running for governor. “For the attorney general of the state of Washington to do it was really stupid politics because the state of Washington wants reform,” McDermott says.
 
McKenna’s participation in the case helps him shore up his conservative base. The state attorney general says he doesn’t want the whole law repealed, just the individual mandate.
 Washington Republican Doc Hastings says McKenna’s position is more about the Constitution than politics. “I think that the coalition of 26 states have a very, very solid case.”
 
Congress will deal with other issues this week, but every lawmaker will have one eye across the street on the majestic pillars of the Court.