A $363,000 Tax Bill to Widow Led to Obama Shift in Defense of Marriage Act

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer had a 40-year engagement and a two-year marriage, starting with a wedding in Canada recognized under the laws of New York, where they lived, and ending when Spyer died two years ago.

Her death triggered a $363,053 federal tax bill from which her widow would have been exempt had she been married to a man, because the federal Defense of Marriage Act bars the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex unions.

Windsor’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the act was one of two cited by the Obama administration to justify its decision to stop defending the law. The decision may be a turning point in the fight over putting same-sex marriages on the same footing as heterosexual unions.

“I couldn’t believe that our government would charge me $350,000 because I was married to a woman and not a man,” Windsor, 81, said in a video statement from the American Civil Liberties Union, which is helping to represent her.

View Full Story

15 States Seek Arizona-like Immigration Law

At least 15 states seek an immigration law modeled off of the controversial immigration law in Arizona that is currently on hold, while legislators in other states are awaiting clarification from the courts prior to introducing their own rules.

The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, also referred to as Arizona SB1070, is the most contested legislative act in decades. It would allow law enforcement officers to stop people and demand identification and gives the officers the power to detain illegal immigrants while their immigration status is being adjudicated.

Arizona’s immigration law is currently on hold, waiting pending court appeals, after a federal judge blocked parts of the Arizona law in July, granting a request from the federal government.

President Obama strongly opposed to the law and called for a federal overhaul of immigration laws.

View Full Story

First health law appeal rejected

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to revive a challenge to President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, leaving intact a ruling that said a California man and an interest group filed their lawsuit prematurely.

The case marks the first time that the high court has been called upon to act on the health care law, which is also being challenged by 20 states in 2 lawsuits.

In rejecting the appeal, the justices dropped a hint that all 9 of them will take part if they ultimately consider the law's constitutionality. Two justices whose participation has been the subject of discussion -- Elena Kagan and Clarence Thomas -- both took part in Monday's action.

Justice Kagan, who served as Mr. Obama's top courtroom lawyer before he appointed her to the Supreme Court, was pressed by Republican senators considering her nomination this year to say whether she would disqualify herself from disputes over the health care law.

View Full Story

State workers feeling pain of implementing health-care law

Even as President Obama prepares to acknowledge the six-month mark since he signed his health-care overhaul into law, the legislation remains something of a mystery for patients and politicians alike. Its impact is instead being felt largely by state workers nationwide whose job is to implement the law - and thus begin the mammoth task of transforming the care Americans receive.

For legions of men and women such as James Focht, who coordinates health information technology for the District, that means longer hours and extra work.

When Focht's alarm clock screeched at 3:45 one recent morning, he pulled himself out of bed in the dark, switched on a computer and started tapping out a proposal for a federal grant that would make it easier for hospitals, doctors and other providers to share electronic patient records. He hurried to finish his draft, take a shower and get to work at the D.C. Department of Health Care Finance by 8:15 a.m. so that other executives could edit the proposal and send to the Department of Health and Human Services by 5 p.m.

View Full Story

New U.S. Health Law Won’t Curb Growth in Spending This Decade

Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. health overhaul that Democrats said would slow the rising costs of health care will have little overall effect on spending in the next 10 years, according to an analysis by government actuaries.

By 2019, U.S. health-care spending will make up almost $1 of every $5 spent in the country, or 19.6 %, of gross domestic product, according to the report. Over the decade, costs will increase by 6.3 % each year -- 0.2 % faster than before the law was signed by President Barack Obama in March.

“The overall net impact is moderate,” Andrea Sisko, an economist with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Office of the Actuary, said at a press conference. The government analysis appeared today in the journal Health Affairs.

Reducing the rate of growth in health-care costs was a central goal of Obama’s overhaul championed by the administration and congressional Democrats. Proponents argued lowering costs for the public and private sector would keep the country from being overwhelmed by the expense of delivering health care.

View Full Story

Michael Steele: Arizona Immigration Law Doesn't Reflect Entire GOP

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele said today that Arizona's controversial immigration measure does not reflect the beliefs of all Republicans.

Speaking to Spanish-language television network Univision, Michael Steele said this: "The actions of one state's governor is not a reflection of an entire country, nor is it a reflection of an entire political party."

Steele's reference is to the decision by Arizona Republican governor Jan Brewer to sign the bill.

"The governor and the people of Arizona made a decision that they thought was in their best interest, and that's the beauty of a republic, that's who we are," Michael Steele added, as The Hill reports. (The Hill has posted video of the exchange, though it is overdubbed in Spanish.)

Last month a judge put on hold the most controversial aspects of the law, among them requirements that law enforcement must check a person's immigration status in certain situations and that immigrants carry their identification papers in public. 

Steele's comments are somewhat off-message from a GOP that has largely embraced the immigration measure, along with a majority of Americans. 

President Obama has criticized the measure as potentially discriminatory, and Latino leaders have suggested the GOP has "declared war on Latinos." A few Republicans have worried that while its rhetoric around immigration could help the GOP in the short term, it could alienate a key voting bloc in the long run.