Category: Washington DC News

Taxed If You Do, Taxed If You Don’t
By Rep. Kristi Noem
April 10, 2015

When Benjamin Franklin said “In this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes,” I don’t know if even he knew the extent to which that would become true in America.

After the President’s health care law was enacted, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the mandates were in fact taxes on hardworking Americans.  The most notable tax included was a tax on those who don’t have health insurance, but over the next few years, another tax will come into play: a tax on those who do have insurance.

It’s called the health insurance tax – or HIT.  The President’s health care law included an annual multi-billion-dollar “fee” on health insurance companies, the costs of which will largely be passed directly on to consumers to the tune of $350 and $400 per year for a family plan.

Earlier this month, I met with local small businesses – many of whom helped pay for their employees’ health coverage long before the President’s mandates went into place.  Now, they’re wondering how they can afford to continue providing it.  Then again, they can’t afford not to either.  One employer told me:  “We can’t afford the insurance.  We can’t afford the fine [if we don’t provide insurance].  And so, if we have to cut them to 30 hours, for them that means what?  A third job?”  He didn’t see that as a good option either.

These taxes have real-world implications on small businesses, on families, on folks’ financial independence. That’s something the administration doesn’t seem to understand.

Over the last few years, Congress has passed and the President has signed nearly a dozen reforms to the health care law that give people some relief.  I want to do all I can to continue offering that relief, keeping in mind that my ultimate goal is to replace the President’s health care law with a patient-centered approach.

Currently, much of the focus centers on an ongoing Supreme Court case, King v. Burwell.  As written, the law only provides subsidies to those who purchase insurance through state-run exchanges.  But only 14 states opened their own exchanges.  The other 36 states, including South Dakota, use the federally run exchange.

Through regulations, the IRS made the subsidies available to everyone who purchased health insurance on an exchange – regardless of whether it was a state- or federal-run exchange.  The question before the Court now is whether the IRS broke the law in doing that.  If the Court rules that they did, millions could lose the financial assistance they’ve been getting from the federal government to help pay for health insurance.  The loss of that subsidy could undermine the President’s health care law, requiring that it be replaced.

A final decision will be issued by the Supreme Court in June, but Republicans in Congress are working on an alternative now.  I’m hopeful this will allow us to move quickly and purposefully if the Court rules against the President.

Regardless of what happens in King v. Burwell, this debate is not over.  I will remain committed to protecting hardworking taxpayers from the President’s health care law, which taxes you if you do and taxes you if you don’t.

###

Unlocking Leadership
By Rep. Kristi Noem
April 3, 2015

President Ronald Reagan once said, “The greatest leader is not necessarily the one who does the greatest things.  He is the one that gets the people to do the greatest things.”

Leadership isn’t about you.  It isn’t about being loud or a showman.  Leaders don’t look for credit; they find victory in creating a meaningful change.  They unlock opportunities for those around them.  They start each mission by listening and learning.  They tap into the potential of others and focus it on a common goal, a worthy purpose.

On April 8, I will hold my second annual Lead Now! Youth Leadership Conference for high school juniors and seniors.  Here, students from across the state will have the opportunity to learn from those who help unlock South Dakota’s potential – in everything from science to academia to social media and more.

What impresses me most about each of this year’s speakers is their proven ability to inspire other people to do great things.  Each leads by building, rather than destroying – and that’s a much needed example of leadership in today’s culture.

Our Founding Fathers did the same thing.  Colonial leaders didn’t inspire Americans by focusing on a defeat of the British; they asked the American people to fight for freedom, independence, and representation – principles that still inspire Americans to do great things today.

Consider the Declaration of Independence.  Yes, it contains a long list of grievances against King George that made clear what the American people were against at the time, but few of us could recite more than one or two of those grievances today.  Instead, we remember – and many can still recite – the sentences our Founding Fathers chose to begin that document: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Inspired leaders – including the leaders who will be presenting to students at the Lead Now! conference – focus attention on the values they fundamentally support, whether it’s greater equality through social media, opportunities for South Dakotans in science, or the pursuit of happiness.

Our state and our country will face some tremendous hurdles in the coming years – hurdles that could define a generation.  We will need strong leaders who look beyond their own capabilities and wrangle the potential of others in our community and our country – leaders who focus on building, rather than destroying – leaders who recognize that the greatest leader is one who gets the people to do the greatest things.

My hope is that the Lead Now! Youth Leadership Conference plays a role in inspiring our next generation of leaders.  I wholeheartedly believe South Dakota’s young people carry with them great potential.  Once it’s unlocked, I know they can change our world.

###

Noem Urges USDA & HHS to Base Food Guidelines on Nutrition, Not an Environmental Agenda

Washington, D.C. – In a letter to the Secretaries of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) Tuesday, Reps. Kristi Noem, Vicki Hartzler and more than 65 other Members of Congress urged the agencies to base upcoming food guidelines on nutrition factors, not an environmental agenda.  The congressional attention was sparked after the administration revealed it was taking a food’s carbon footprint into account when developing recommendations for new dietary guidelines – the first time such considerations have been made in U.S. history.

“The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Council has no business entering into environmental activism,” said Noem.  “The new environmentally friendly nutrition guidelines would largely leave meat – especially beef – out of what is considered to be a healthy dietary pattern.  This is not based on the work of nutritionists or epidemiologists, but the belief that the carbon footprint left by animals is too large.  It’s a misguided approach to nutrition that undermines the trust folks put into these recommendations.”

Every five years, USDA and HHS review the dietary guidelines for American food consumption. The new report recommends what should be included in the final dietary guidelines that will be issued later this year.  Once approved, the guidelines will be used as an educational tool and to help develop federal nutrition policy.  Today’s letter raises concerns that the report exceeds its Scope of Work by straying from purely nutritional evidence and venturing into areas like sustainability and tax policy.  It also highlights concerns that the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Council, which is responsible for drafting the proposed guidelines, may have subjectively hand-picked data to support pre-determined conclusions when making dietary recommendations for the report.

“The USDA is currently accepting public comments on these new guidelines and I encourage you to participate,” continued Noem.  “Just visit www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines and submit a comment by midnight on April 8, 2015.”

Scroll down for a full copy of the letter.

—

March 31, 2015

The Honorable Tom Vilsack
Secretary
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, D.C.  20250

The Honorable Sylvia Mathews Burwell
Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, D.C.  20201

Dear Secretaries Vilsack and Burwell:

We are writing today to express our sincere disappointment with the recent report issued by the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) and certain recommendations for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA).  The DGA play a critical role as the scientific basis for federal nutrition policy development and form the basis of Federal nutrition policy, education, outreach, and food assistance programs used by consumers, industry, nutrition educators, and health professionals. Therefore, it is essential that the DGA be based on sound nutrition science and not stray into other areas outside of this specific discipline.

However, after reviewing the DGAC report that was released February 19, 2015, we believe that the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee greatly exceeded their scope in developing recommendations for the Secretaries of USDA and HHS to the detriment of the American diet. It is the responsibility of the Secretaries to ensure that this advisory committee stay focused on nutritional recommendations and not the wider policy realm of sustainability and tax policy, in which members of this committee had neither expertise, evidence, nor charter.

We are disappointed with reports from observers that the approach of the 2015 DGAC suggests studies were either selected or excluded to support pre-determined conclusions.  For example, the DGAC’s recommendation on lean red meat directly contradicts years of peer reviewed scientific research on the benefits of lean red meat as a high quality source of protein in a healthy diet.  It is crucial for HHS and the USDA to recognize the need for flexibility in the American diet that reflects the diverse population of this country.

It is extremely difficult to reverse or change public policy, once enacted, without causing consumer confusion. Inaccurate and conflicting dietary guidance messages are detrimental to consumer understanding of nutrition and the ability to build healthy diets. At a time when consumers are already subjected to conflicting and often contradictory nutrition and health information, providing the public with science-based, realistic and achievable information is more likely to contribute to improved public health outcomes.

We encourage you to focus the development of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines based on a “preponderance” of current scientific and medical knowledge and to ensure that the 2015 DGA are irrefutably science-based, consistent with advice from other federal agencies, and are communicated in terms easily understood by the public.

###