Oklahoma Court Rules that IRS Obamacare Subsidy Rule is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion”

The most significant legal
challenge to Obamacare right now involves a somewhat complex debate
about statutory interpretation, the legal validity of the insurance
subsidies offered through federal exchanges, and multiple
simultaneous waves of court challenges across the
country. 

But at its heart is a single question: Should the text of
the legislation be interpreted literally, according to its plain
and unambiguous meaning, or, as the administration would prefer,
should it not? 

The administration and its supporters hae argued that the
challenge is frivolous and cynical, a legal ploy designed to gut
the law, but it took another loss in court yesterday, suggesting
once again that the argument from the challengers is not without
merit. 

The challengers argue that Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and
the administration acted illegally by interpeting the legislative
language, which says only that subsidies may granted to insurance
plans purchased in exchanges established by a state (defined as the
50 states plus the District of Columbia), to mean that subsidies
may be granted for plans purchased on exchanges established by the
state as well as the federal government, which last year set up and
operated exchanges in 36 states. The final outcome of this dispute
is potentially very significant: If the challengers win, then that
means the subsidies offered in those 36 federally run exchanges
will no longer be legally available. 

Several versions of this challenge are now making their way
through the court system: In Virginia, a panel of judges from the
Fourth Circuit decided
in July
that, even though “a literal reading of the statute
undoubtedly accords more closely with [the challengers’] position,”
the administration had the better case overall, after giving
“deference” to the IRS interpretation. On the same day, a panel of
judges in the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the challengers,

agreeing
that the legislation “plainly makes
subsidies available only on Exchanges established by
states.” That decision was later vacated when the full
D.C. circuit has agreed to rehear the case; most observers believe
that the full circuit decision is likely to favor the
administration. 

In the meantime, the challengers have scored another
victory, this time from in a lower court in Oklahoma, who, much
like the three-judge panel in the D.C. Circuit, ruled that the
plain language of the legislation is clear, and that absent
ambiguity in the plain language, its meaning cannot be ignored or
conveniently interpreted away. 

“The court holds that the IRS rule is arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in
accordance with law,”
writes
 District Judge Ronald White. 

“This is a case of statutory interpretation. ‘The text is
what it is, no matter which side benefits’,” he says, quoting
Bormes v. United States. “Such a case…does not ‘gut’ or
‘destroy’ anything. On the contrary, the court is upholding the Act
as written.” 

How much will this matter? In the short term, not much.
White stayed his decision, pending the resolution of any potential
appeal, and with the full D.C. Circuit rehearing the other case
decided in favor of the challengers, its likely that there will be
no circuit split, at least for the moment. The question is how the
Supreme Court will treat the case. It’s rare for the High Court to
take a case without a circuit split, but if the Oklahoma case is
decided in favor of the challengers, it could result in a circuit
clash. And it’s at least possible, though not in any way certain,
that the ruling could help convince the Supreme Court to take the
case even without a circuit split.

“It’s a judicious opinion,”
writes
Cato Institute Health Policy Direct Michael Cannon, who
helped conceive the underlying legal challenge, “and now that we
(once again) have different courts in different jurisdictions that
have issued opposing rulings, Pruitt greatly
strengthens the case for the Supreme Court to
review King.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1nMsFrA
via IFTTT

Oklahoma Court Rules that IRS Obamacare Subsidy Rule is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion"

The most significant legal
challenge to Obamacare right now involves a somewhat complex debate
about statutory interpretation, the legal validity of the insurance
subsidies offered through federal exchanges, and multiple
simultaneous waves of court challenges across the
country. 

But at its heart is a single question: Should the text of
the legislation be interpreted literally, according to its plain
and unambiguous meaning, or, as the administration would prefer,
should it not? 

The administration and its supporters hae argued that the
challenge is frivolous and cynical, a legal ploy designed to gut
the law, but it took another loss in court yesterday, suggesting
once again that the argument from the challengers is not without
merit. 

The challengers argue that Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and
the administration acted illegally by interpeting the legislative
language, which says only that subsidies may granted to insurance
plans purchased in exchanges established by a state (defined as the
50 states plus the District of Columbia), to mean that subsidies
may be granted for plans purchased on exchanges established by the
state as well as the federal government, which last year set up and
operated exchanges in 36 states. The final outcome of this dispute
is potentially very significant: If the challengers win, then that
means the subsidies offered in those 36 federally run exchanges
will no longer be legally available. 

Several versions of this challenge are now making their way
through the court system: In Virginia, a panel of judges from the
Fourth Circuit decided
in July
that, even though “a literal reading of the statute
undoubtedly accords more closely with [the challengers’] position,”
the administration had the better case overall, after giving
“deference” to the IRS interpretation. On the same day, a panel of
judges in the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the challengers,

agreeing
that the legislation “plainly makes
subsidies available only on Exchanges established by
states.” That decision was later vacated when the full
D.C. circuit has agreed to rehear the case; most observers believe
that the full circuit decision is likely to favor the
administration. 

In the meantime, the challengers have scored another
victory, this time from in a lower court in Oklahoma, who, much
like the three-judge panel in the D.C. Circuit, ruled that the
plain language of the legislation is clear, and that absent
ambiguity in the plain language, its meaning cannot be ignored or
conveniently interpreted away. 

“The court holds that the IRS rule is arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in
accordance with law,”
writes
 District Judge Ronald White. 

“This is a case of statutory interpretation. ‘The text is
what it is, no matter which side benefits’,” he says, quoting
Bormes v. United States. “Such a case…does not ‘gut’ or
‘destroy’ anything. On the contrary, the court is upholding the Act
as written.” 

How much will this matter? In the short term, not much.
White stayed his decision, pending the resolution of any potential
appeal, and with the full D.C. Circuit rehearing the other case
decided in favor of the challengers, its likely that there will be
no circuit split, at least for the moment. The question is how the
Supreme Court will treat the case. It’s rare for the High Court to
take a case without a circuit split, but if the Oklahoma case is
decided in favor of the challengers, it could result in a circuit
clash. And it’s at least possible, though not in any way certain,
that the ruling could help convince the Supreme Court to take the
case even without a circuit split.

“It’s a judicious opinion,”
writes
Cato Institute Health Policy Direct Michael Cannon, who
helped conceive the underlying legal challenge, “and now that we
(once again) have different courts in different jurisdictions that
have issued opposing rulings, Pruitt greatly
strengthens the case for the Supreme Court to
review King.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1nMsFrA
via IFTTT

Populations of Vertebrate Species Down 52 Percent Since 1970, Says Living Planet Index Report

Living Planet IndexYesterday, the World Wildlife Fund activist group
published its Living Planet Index 2014 report that
calculates that the Earth is home to about half the number of
vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish) that it
hosted in 1970. Let’s be clear: The report is NOT saying that half
of vertebrate species have gone extinct, but that the overall
number of wild vertebrates have declined by half. The trend is
calculated using a complicated system for weighting the declines in
various vertebrate species populations. Interestingly, this report
comes just two months after a study,”Defaunation in the
Anthropocene
” published in Science reported:

Among terrestrial vertebrates, 322 species have become extinct
since 1500, and populations of the remaining species show 25
percent average decline in abundance.

The comparable LPI terrestrial vertebrate figure is 39 percent
since just 1970. 

In any case, the LPI parses data from 10,380 populations of
3,038 species out of an estimated 62,839 vertebrate species that
have been described globally. From the report: 

The Living Planet Index (LPI), which measures trends in
thousands of vertebrate species populations, shows a decline of 52
per cent between 1970 and 2010 (Figure 2). In other words, the
number of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish across the
globe is, on average, about half the size it was 40 years ago. This
is a much bigger decrease than has been reported previously, as a
result of a new methodology which aims to be more representative of
global biodiversity.

Biodiversity is declining in both temperate and tropical
regions, but the decline is greater in the tropics. The 6,569
populations of 1,606 species in the temperate LPI declined by 36
per cent from 1970 to 2010. The tropical LPI shows a 56 per cent
reduction in 3,811 populations of 1,638 species over the same
period. Latin America shows the most dramatic decline – a fall of
83 per cent. Habitat loss and degradation, and exploitation through
hunting and fishing, are the primary causes of decline. Climate
change is the next most common primary threat, and is likely to put
more pressure on populations in the future.

The report also notes some countervailing population trends:

Even though slightly more populations are increasing than
declining, the magnitude of the population decline is much greater
than that of the increase, resulting in an overall reduction since
1970. 

The LPI finds that 37 percent of the population declines result
from direct exploitation, e.g. overfishing; and 31.4 and 13.4
percent is from habitat degradation and destruction, e.g., cutting
down tropical forests. 

Steep declines in animal populations have happened before. A
2008
article
 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences
calculated that at the end of the last Ice Age human
hunters so decimated the populations of large tasty critters that
the total biomass of the world’s terrestrial animals did not
recover to its previous level until the Industrial Revolution. But
then most of the recovered biomass consisted of human beings and
our domesticated animals. By one
estimate
the world’s farms and ranches harbor today about 1.4
billion cattle, 1.9 billion sheep and goats, 980 million pigs, and
19.6 billion chickens. 

Just two months ago in my article, “Predictions
of a Man-Made Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Exaggerated
,” I
argued that trends in population growth, reforestation,
agricultural productivity,and urbanization all point in a more
hopeful direction over the balance of this century with regard to
protecting wild species. 

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1qWnxeZ
via IFTTT

$6 Billion Activist Fund Relational Liquidating: Here Are Its Top Holdings

Lately it seems that not a day goes by without some big or not so big fund manager realizing they have had it with Bernanke/Yellen’s legacy farce of a market, and exiting stage left, doing so either in bombastic style, a la Bill Gross, or in a more subdued fashion, in the vein of Stanley Druckenmiller, or sometimes in part (or in whole) liquidating without telling anyone, like what BlueCrest is rumored to have done last week.

So not surprisingly, today brings the latest hedge fund unwind, with the WSJ reporting that $6 billion veteran acitivst hedge fund Relational Investors LLC, plans to wind down its operations and dissolve its current funds by the end of next year, according to people familiar with the matter. The reason? The same reason why Jamie Dimon himseld is about to quit the financial industry any second: the firm’s co-founder and public face, Ralph Whitworth, has throat cancer and while he said he was taking a leave of absence in July, he appears to have changed his mind and made it permanent.

From the WSJ:

Plans remain fluid and the ultimate status of funds and positions in them will be sorted out over the next year or so, the people said.

 

The firm’s executives expect eventually to launch a new fund with the same name, though founders Mr. Whitworth and David Batchelder will cede day-to-day control, the people said.

 

Shortly thereafter, Relational said no new investments would be made, citing Mr. Whitworth’s indefinite medical leave. The firm said it would continue to manage the current portfolio with Mr. Batchelder at the helm.

But the question on everyone’s mind is what happens tomorrow, and thus today, as everyone discounts the upcoming liquidations of the fund’s largest positions, which are Hewlett Packard, SPX and Mondelez, and where Relational is a 10% holder in GBNK, MHR, SPW and PMCS.

So here is a partial list of everyone else that is about to be dumped en masse as Relational is merely the latest fund to liquidate.

It won’t be the last, and in this CYNK&P market, in which one seller is all it takes to start an avalanche, the Fed better be taking notes.

Source: BBG




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1vy4nCo Tyler Durden

Ray Dalio: “There Is Always A Downturn”

Thanks to The Federal Reserve’s extreme monetary policy, “the prospective return of asset classes is very narrow,” warns Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio, with expected returns for equities of “only about 4 percent.” This is a problem, he explains in this brief clip, as monetary policy relies on that transmission mechanism of apparent wealth creation to keep the dream alive. In Europe and Japan there is no “spread”, Dalio notes, and in the US it is miniscule – which means monetary policy is practically ineffective. While he believes in the short-term, the US economy can maintain stability (not commenting on the market per se), his “biggest concern is when the next downturn comes in 1-2 years,” the central bank must be on the ‘tighter’ side of market expectations to be capable of providing its life-giving elixir once again. Simply put, Dalio sums up “there is always a downturn”something that no Wall Street economist is expecting.

 

 

More from Bridgewater’s Dalio here




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1v6skhU Tyler Durden

Ray Dalio: "There Is Always A Downturn"

Thanks to The Federal Reserve’s extreme monetary policy, “the prospective return of asset classes is very narrow,” warns Bridgewater’s Ray Dalio, with expected returns for equities of “only about 4 percent.” This is a problem, he explains in this brief clip, as monetary policy relies on that transmission mechanism of apparent wealth creation to keep the dream alive. In Europe and Japan there is no “spread”, Dalio notes, and in the US it is miniscule – which means monetary policy is practically ineffective. While he believes in the short-term, the US economy can maintain stability (not commenting on the market per se), his “biggest concern is when the next downturn comes in 1-2 years,” the central bank must be on the ‘tighter’ side of market expectations to be capable of providing its life-giving elixir once again. Simply put, Dalio sums up “there is always a downturn”something that no Wall Street economist is expecting.

 

 

More from Bridgewater’s Dalio here




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1v6skhU Tyler Durden

Who Is Buying The Islamic State’s Illegal Oil?

Submitted by Chis Dalby via OilPrice.com,

In June 2014, computer files captured from a courier for the Islamic State shortly after the fall of Mosul revealed that the group had assets of $875 million, largely gained in the sacking and looting of Mosul and its central bank.

The size of the group’s bank account has now risen to an estimated $2 billion dollars, thanks in part to revenues from ransom paid for kidnapped foreigners and more pillaging. However, oil remains the group’s primary source of income.

The 11 oil fields that IS controls in Iraq and Syria have made it a largely independent financial machine. Reports show that IS-controlled fields in Iraq produce between 25,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil per day, at an estimated value of approximately $1.2 million, before being smuggled out to Iran, Kurdistan, Turkey and Syria.

That doesn’t account for revenue from oil fields that IS has held much longer in Syria, which take the Islamist group’s daily profit to just under $3 million.

But if the regional narrative of IS’s rise is to be believed, the group is universally loathed. How, then, is it so readily finding customers to buy its oil abroad?

Oil smuggling is hardly new in Iraq and Syria — Iran and Turkey have been major conduits for illegal oil exports since the days of Saddam Hussein. Those smuggling rings are still very active, and are now working with IS and contributing to its exploding wealth.

In an interview with CNN, Luay al-Khatteeb, the director of the Iraq Energy Institute, explained that “IS smuggles the crude oil and trades it for cash and refined products, at a refined price,” thanks to its own refineries in Syria.

One important reason that smugglers have been so eager to work with IS is that the terrorist group sells its oil on the cheap. A barrel of oil that would ordinarily sell for over $100 can be discounted as much as 75 percent. But it’s still a profitable sale for IS, as the money it loses from such a discount is more than made up for by the readiness of customers to buy its oil and the plethora of routes through which it can export it.

“The crude is transported by tankers to Jordan via Anbar province, to Iran via Kurdistan, to Turkey via Mosul, to Syria's local market and to the Kurdistan region of Iraq, where most of it gets refined locally,” Khatteeb explained. “Turkey has turned a blind eye to this and may continue to do so until they come under pressure from the West to close down oil black markets in the country's south.”

One of the more terrifying aspects of IS’s newly found wealth is that it is no longer based on the traditional donor model, in which rich sympathizers in the Middle-East and the West pour generous funds into training and capacity-building of fresh jihadists. IS’s goal has always been to form a caliphate, and although no country would recognize it as such, it is running the territory it conquers as a state, albeit through illegal means; IS is pumping, refining and selling oil, just like any other petro state.

What’s more, now that it controls fertile provinces in western Iraq, such as Anbar and Nineveh, the group also now sits on 40 percent of Iraq’s wheat crop, and can force farmers to deal only with them, sometimes for no pay. Baghdad is now worrying about a medium-term food crisis, since 20 percent of its stores are in IS-held territory and thousands of farmers have fled.

Clearly, there’s a stark difference between the financial operations of IS and those of Al-Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations. U.S. President Barack Obama recently admitted that his administration and the intelligence community had underestimated IS, which now looks like a nightmare to Washington.

The group has captured American military-grade weaponry and equipment and freed from jail former soldiers who know how to use it. It is independently rich but operates outside the normal fiscal system, which means conventional financial sanctions can’t touch it. It has set up its own illicit trading networks in an area it controls with an implacable totalitarianism. It effectively combines political terror, religious zealotry and financial muscle to bend local populations to its will.

IS’s powerful economic engine may not guarantee that it will one day peacefully rule the territory it claims, but $3 million a day more than assures that it can continue financing its fight to do so.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1vxWrRB Tyler Durden

Who Is Buying The Islamic State's Illegal Oil?

Submitted by Chis Dalby via OilPrice.com,

In June 2014, computer files captured from a courier for the Islamic State shortly after the fall of Mosul revealed that the group had assets of $875 million, largely gained in the sacking and looting of Mosul and its central bank.

The size of the group’s bank account has now risen to an estimated $2 billion dollars, thanks in part to revenues from ransom paid for kidnapped foreigners and more pillaging. However, oil remains the group’s primary source of income.

The 11 oil fields that IS controls in Iraq and Syria have made it a largely independent financial machine. Reports show that IS-controlled fields in Iraq produce between 25,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil per day, at an estimated value of approximately $1.2 million, before being smuggled out to Iran, Kurdistan, Turkey and Syria.

That doesn’t account for revenue from oil fields that IS has held much longer in Syria, which take the Islamist group’s daily profit to just under $3 million.

But if the regional narrative of IS’s rise is to be believed, the group is universally loathed. How, then, is it so readily finding customers to buy its oil abroad?

Oil smuggling is hardly new in Iraq and Syria — Iran and Turkey have been major conduits for illegal oil exports since the days of Saddam Hussein. Those smuggling rings are still very active, and are now working with IS and contributing to its exploding wealth.

In an interview with CNN, Luay al-Khatteeb, the director of the Iraq Energy Institute, explained that “IS smuggles the crude oil and trades it for cash and refined products, at a refined price,” thanks to its own refineries in Syria.

One important reason that smugglers have been so eager to work with IS is that the terrorist group sells its oil on the cheap. A barrel of oil that would ordinarily sell for over $100 can be discounted as much as 75 percent. But it’s still a profitable sale for IS, as the money it loses from such a discount is more than made up for by the readiness of customers to buy its oil and the plethora of routes through which it can export it.

“The crude is transported by tankers to Jordan via Anbar province, to Iran via Kurdistan, to Turkey via Mosul, to Syria's local market and to the Kurdistan region of Iraq, where most of it gets refined locally,” Khatteeb explained. “Turkey has turned a blind eye to this and may continue to do so until they come under pressure from the West to close down oil black markets in the country's south.”

One of the more terrifying aspects of IS’s newly found wealth is that it is no longer based on the traditional donor model, in which rich sympathizers in the Middle-East and the West pour generous funds into training and capacity-building of fresh jihadists. IS’s goal has always been to form a caliphate, and although no country would recognize it as such, it is running the territory it conquers as a state, albeit through illegal means; IS is pumping, refining and selling oil, just like any other petro state.

What’s more, now that it controls fertile provinces in western Iraq, such as Anbar and Nineveh, the group also now sits on 40 percent of Iraq’s wheat crop, and can force farmers to deal only with them, sometimes for no pay. Baghdad is now worrying about a medium-term food crisis, since 20 percent of its stores are in IS-held territory and thousands of farmers have fled.

Clearly, there’s a stark difference between the financial operations of IS and those of Al-Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations. U.S. President Barack Obama recently admitted that his administration and the intelligence community had underestimated IS, which now looks like a nightmare to Washington.

The group has captured American military-grade weaponry and equipment and freed from jail former soldiers who know how to use it. It is independently rich but operates outside the normal fiscal system, which means conventional financial sanctions can’t touch it. It has set up its own illicit trading networks in an area it controls with an implacable totalitarianism. It effectively combines political terror, religious zealotry and financial muscle to bend local populations to its will.

IS’s powerful economic engine may not guarantee that it will one day peacefully rule the territory it claims, but $3 million a day more than assures that it can continue financing its fight to do so.




via Zero Hedge http://ift.tt/1vxWrRB Tyler Durden

A Tale from Post-Constitutional America – This is What Happens if You Turn Your Back on Hilary Clinton

Screen Shot 2014-10-01 at 11.48.52 AMThe name Ray McGovern should be familiar to longtime readers of Liberty Blitzkrieg. The former C.I.A. analyst has been a vocal critic of the oligarch cesspool of fraud and deception that these United States has decayed into. I highlighted some of his criticisms a year ago in the post, Ray McGovern: “Obama is Afraid of the C.I.A.”, in which he memorably stated:

I think he’s just afraid and he shouldn’t have run for president if he was going to be this much of a wuss. 

Well, Mr. McGovern is back in the news. This time it’s for daring to turn his back on your royal highness, Hilary Rodham Clinton, in an act of non-violent public protest. We learn from Bill Moyers that:

continue reading

from Liberty Blitzkrieg http://ift.tt/1nMavWV
via IFTTT