GIULIANI WON'T BE TRUMP'S ATTORNEY GENERAL (CHRISTIE, SANTORUM, SESSIONS??)

GIULIANI WON'T BE TRUMP'S ATTORNEY GENERAL:

WILL IT BE CHRISTIE, SANTORUM OR SESSIONS??


Sources: Fox News, CNN, YouTube


****** Rudy Giuliani out of contention for Cabinet


Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has removed his name from consideration for a position in President-elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet, the transition team announced Friday.

Giuliani, who is currently a vice chairman on the presidential transition team, had been rumored to be in consideration for secretary of state.

"My desire to be in the Cabinet was great but it wasn't that great and he had a lot of terrific candidates and I thought I could play a better role being on the outside and continuing to be his close friend and adviser," Giuliani told Fox News' Neil Cavuto.

Trump met with Giuliani on Nov. 29., when the matter was discussed. He confirmed to Fox News that he had only been interested in being secretary of state.

"Honestly, the other positions I didn't have an interest in, so that really was the only one I had any real interest in," he told Cavuto.

Giuliani said he now intends to continue his work in the private sector. He also warned against the selection of Mitt Romney for the position, saying the former Massachusetts governor had "gone over the line" in previous criticisms he made about Trump.

"I will support [Trump's] decision, but my advice would be that Mitt went a little too far. You can make friends and make up but I would not see him as a candidate for the Cabinet," Giuliani told Cavuto.

Trump praised Giuliani in a statement, calling him “an extraordinarily talented and patriotic American.”

"He is and continues to be a close personal friend, and as appropriate, I will call upon him for advice and can see an important place for him in the administration at a later date."

Reince Priebus, tapped to be Trump’s chief of staff, said that Giuliani was “was vetted by our team for any possible conflicts and passed with flying colors."

TaxMasters Files For Bankruptcy! Company's Advertising Success Proves U.S. Tax Code Reform Badly Needed

TaxMasters Files for Bankruptcy


The well-known and controversial tax advisory firm, TaxMasters Inc., filed for bankruptcy this morning, just as it was preparing to head to court to defend itself from charges of deceptive practices leveled by the Texas attorney general.

The Houston-based company, best known for a national advertising campaign that made company's bearded, red-haired founder Patrick Cox a recognizable figure, was the subject of an ABC News investigation in April, in which customers had alleged that the company persuaded them to pay large upfront fees, but never delivered on promises of helping them resolve their tax problems.

The commercials boast that the company's staff of former IRS agents and tax professionals "have helped many good people just like you."

But Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said the ads have been misleading. He filed a multi-count civil case against TaxMasters, accusing it of deceiving its customers and violating the state's debt collection laws.

"In the midst of a national economic downturn, TaxMasters used a nationwide marketing campaign to offer services for distressed taxpayers who needed help dealing with the IRS," Abbott said. "A state investigation and nearly 1,000 customer complaints indicate that the defendants routinely misled customers about the nature of their tax resolution service agreements – and worse, attempted to enforce those improper agreements through unlawful debt collection tactics."

ABC News made repeated attempts to contact the company and its founder last week, as word began circulating that it was in financial distress.

TaxMasters' customers had reported to KTRK, the owned-and-operated ABC News station in Houston, that they were not able to get responses when calling about their tax filings, and one described visiting the company's office, only to find the doors locked. A telephone sales agent told an ABC News reporter that the company "was not taking any new sales," but would not discuss the company's dire finances any further.

Within the past month, the landlord that owns the building where the company is headquartered sued alleging that Taxmasters failed to pay its January rent. A contracting firm handling construction work at the office also sued the company alleging it had not been paying its bills. Videos on the company's website displaying the well known TaxMasters advertisements featuring Cox were no longer working. Recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission carry a warning that the company's earlier financial statements are being amended and should no longer be relied upon.

A spokesman for the Texas Attorney General told ABC News the state was preparing to head to court this morning in its civil case, but had not heard anything specific about TaxMasters' financial status. Court papers filed Monday morning indicate that TaxMasters has filed for bankruptcy with between $1 million and $10 million in liabilities.

TaxMasters Ad Blitz Increased Sales Volume, Says Company

The TaxMasters ad blitz has been a driving force in the company's soaring corporate revenues. The company, which went public in 2010, brought in $45.7 million, a three-fold increase in two years, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company linked "an increase in advertising expense" to "increased sales volume" in its year-end filing.

The Minnesota attorney general's office, which has also been investigating the firm, told ABC News that many of the company's employees are skilled tele-marketers who have little knowledge of the complicated tax issues faced by people who have fallen behind in filing their returns or making tax payments.

"This is a company which is taking advantage of people, and unfortunately when people see it on TV, they do believe in it," Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson told ABC News. "When you call, you think you're talking to a tax professional. You're really talking to just a salesperson who's trying to get you to sign up."

Cox declined to be interviewed by ABC News, and in a written statement he did not address the specific allegations in the two states' lawsuits. TaxMasters has denied the allegations in the lawsuits and Cox said the company "prides itself on honest customer service, a transparent process with our customer, and seeking fair treatment from the IRS."

At the heart of the problem, says Attorney General Swanson, is a requirement that customers pay an upfront fee ranging between $2000 and $8000.

"When you pay these upfront, advanced fees, now you're signed up, you're stuck, and the promised help doesn't materialize," she told ABC News.

Audio tapes of some sales calls, turned over to the attorney general by TaxMasters, prove the point, she says.

Salespeople tell potential customers TaxMasters is 97 or 98 percent successful in reducing the amount of taxes owed.

"You're owing $19,000," the TaxMasters salesman tells a customer on a recording provided to ABC News by the attorney general.

"I mean we can get you down to basically next to nothing," he continues. "I think we are the most successful tax resolution company. We're 97 percent successful," the salesman says.

"Not true," said Attorney General Swanson. "It's another falsehood of this company. These salesmen tell people that to sign them up, but they don't deliver on those promises."

The IRS says only a small number of taxpayers ever qualify for such a substantial reduction in taxes owed.


View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, CNN, Google Maps

Cuccinelli vs Obamacare: Who'll Win Mandatory Purchase Challenge?

Right Ruling Against Obamacare Doesn't Go Far Enough


Yesterday a Va. Federal Court rightly struck down as unconstitutional Obamacare’s individual mandate. But this decision is only half right. It also shows that if Congress won’t repeal this law entirely, then tinkering with it might doom our chances in court of having this whole monstrosity thrown out.

Judge Henry Hudson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that Obamacare’s individual mandate—requiring most Americans must buy health insurance—is unconstitutional. Although states might be able to require people to buy health insurance (like they do car insurance), the federal government cannot because it’s not authorized by any provision in the U.S. Constitution.

After correctly striking down the mandate, Judge Hudson then went in the wrong direction. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli argued that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the rest of Obamacare’s 2,700 pages. As such, striking down the mandate means you have to strike down the whole law. Judge Hudson declined to take that step.

Cuccinelli’s right, and Judge Hudson—who’s a very good judge—got this one wrong. Hudson held that the record doesn’t make clear whether Congress intended the law to survive without the mandate, and that without such a record he should only strike down the part that’s clearly unconstitutional.

That’s not what Supreme Court precedent requires. As I explained in detail in a brief I filed on behalf of the Family Research Council in the multi-state challenge to Obamacare in Florida, if a provision in a law is unconstitutional, a court must ask whether the statute can function in the manner Congress intended without the invalid part. If not, then the court must strike down the whole law.

There are two key points on this question of severability when it comes to Obamacare.

First, the law does not contain a severability clause, in which Congress announces that if part of the law is found invalid, the remaining provisions continue to carry the force of law. Courts treat a severability clause as strong evidence that Congress intended the rest of a law to survive without the unconstitutional section.



Even without a severability clause, a court still presumes an unconstitutional provision can be severed. It just doesn’t take as much to make the case that Congress would rather have no law at all.

That’s where the second point becomes critical. In Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare’s official name), Congress inserted a finding that the individual mandate, “is essential to creating effective health insurance markets.” Then, in their briefs and court arguments, the Justice Department admitted that the individual mandate is absolutely necessary for Obamacare to function as Congress intended.

The Virginia district court did not comment on this congressional finding and these government admissions. Taken in this context, the mandate is so intertwined with various parts of the law that a court needs to strike down many of Obamacare’s 450 sections.

Judge Hudson noted that he would have no way of knowing which provisions of Obamacare Congress intended to save without the mandate, also commenting that a number of provisions surely cannot be severed from the mandate. However, the correct course in that event is to strike down the entire law, allowing Congress to take the issue up all over again.

That raises a serious cautionary flag to Congress. The new Congress should do everything possible to repeal Obamacare entirely. However, if those efforts fail—as they likely will given that President Obama will veto any flat-out repeal, meaning a repeal couldn’t succeed before the 2012 elections—Republicans must not allow partial repeals to doom the court challenges to Obamacare.

Some moderate Democrats support a bill that would repeal the individual mandate. If that were to pass, then all of the major Obamacare lawsuits would become moot (since all of them challenge the mandate), and would be thrown out of court. Should that happen, then the rest of Obamacare would survive until 2013—or permanently.

Repeal Obamacare entirely. If Congress can’t, then it should be very careful, allowing the lawyers on these cases every opportunity to convince the Supreme Court that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and cannot be severed from the remainder of the law.

If the Court holds the mandate unconstitutional and that it cannot be severed, then the whole law goes down, and we’ll kill this leviathan once and for all.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Va. Federal Judge Strikes Down Health Care Law


A Federal Judge declared the Obama administration's health care law unconstitutional Monday, siding with Virginia's attorney general in a dispute that both sides agree will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read the Va. judge's ruling on the health care law (.pdf)

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson is the first federal judge to strike down the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan. Several other lawsuits have been dismissed and others are pending, including one filed by 20 other states in Florida.

"The Minimum Essential Coverage Provision is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution," Hudson wrote in a 42-page decision. However, he declined to invalidate the entire healthcare law, a small victory for Obama.

The law has become a cornerstone of Obama's presidency, aiming to expand health insurance for millions more Americans while curbing costs, and his Justice Department lawyers have been sent around the country to defend it in federal courts.

The Obama administration will likely appeal.

Virginia Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli filed a separate lawsuit in defense of a new state law that prohibits the government from forcing state residents to buy health insurance. However, the key issue was his claim that the federal law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional.

Hudson, a Republican who was appointed by President George W. Bush, sounded sympathetic to the state's case when he heard oral arguments in October, and the White House expected to lose this round.

Administration officials told reporters last week that a negative ruling would have virtually no impact on the law's implementation, noting that its two major provisions — the coverage mandate and the creation of new insurance markets — don't take effect until 2014.

The central issue in Virginia's lawsuit was whether the federal government has the power under the constitution to impose the insurance requirement. The Justice Department said the mandate is a proper exercise of the government's authority under the Commerce Clause.

Cuccinelli argued that while the government can regulate economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, the decision not to buy insurance amounts to economic inactivity that is beyond the government's reach.







Business On Obamacare: Resist, Don't Repeal


Congressional Republicans are touting plans to repeal the Obama Administration's health care reform law, but they face wariness for a full rollback from a key constituency: the business lobby.

In the weeks before the midterm elections, many Republicans used the health care law to tap into anti-government sentiment and angst about the economy. In their Pledge to America, Republican candidates committed to "repeal and replace the government takeover of health care" by any means necessary. Even John Boehner, the incoming House Speaker, filed a brief on Nov. 16 in support of a lawsuit filed by 20 states challenging the constitutionality of a central part of the new law that requires individuals to purchase health insurance. "ObamaCare is a jobkiller, and our economy simply cannot afford this unprecedented, unconstitutional power grab by the federal government," Boehner said in a statement.

But few in the business community want to embark on the grueling process of seeking a full repeal of health care reform, because they believe it will ultimately fail. Even if a repeal effort passed the Republican-led House, it would be certain to die in a Senate still dominated by Democrats. And if repeal legislation miraculously survived the Senate, President Obama would never sign it. The more viable strategy, business believes, is to try to tweak or eliminate key parts of the law. James Gelfand, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's director of health policy, says of the new law, "We'd like it to go away. But we're business people, and we're pragmatic."

The Big Business game plan is moving forward on several key fronts. The first strike is likely to come on the provision of the law requiring businesses to file 1099 tax forms on any individual or business with which it incurs an expense of more than $600 over the course of a year, starting in 2012. Small-business owners, in particular, warn that the requirement will overwhelm them with paperwork — and, consequently, stymie job creation and economic growth. Last week, a senior Democrat, Senator Max Baucus, announced plans to file legislation repealing the 1099 portion of the law. Second, business groups will focus on new restrictions on how much individuals can deduct on nonprescription drugs, like Tylenol, using flexible spending accounts.

The business community also plans to fight new regulations that would fully implement health reform. On Nov. 17, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's CEO, Tom Donohue, challenged what the organization calls a "regulatory tsunami" by the government, including the one created by health care. As the health care law is implemented in the coming years, the chamber predicts it will create 183 new agencies, commissions and panels. While the new law sharply expands Americans' access to health care, critics warn of the cost: a CATO Institute report claims that the law will increase taxes by nearly $670 billion in the coming decade. "We've never seen anything on this scale before," Donohue said, adding, "It defies all logic and common sense." The chamber will hire a regulatory economist and encourage its internal law firm to take a more activist posture in fighting increased regulation.

The last prong of the attack will come in congressional oversight. In the coming weeks, Republicans are expected to hold hearings on what has happened with the health care law. That may look good for the television cameras and generate headlines. It will also test the public's willingness to go further with a broader legislative rollback of the law.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Fox News, Heritage Foundation, MSNBC, Politico, Red State, TIME, Washington Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Foreclosure Moratorium! Obama Opposes! More Homeless Coming!

White House Warns Against Broad Foreclosure Moratorium


The White House Tuesday rejected calls for a broad moratorium on home foreclosures, saying it feared such a step could harm the U.S. housing market and hinder a housing recovery.

"There are a series of unintended consequences to a broader moratorium," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters.

Disclosures that some big mortgage processors filed affidavits without proper scrutiny in thousands of foreclosure cases has drawn calls from some lawmakers and civil rights groups for foreclosures to be halted in all 50 states.

But it is not clear if any individual or single regulator has the power to impose a nationwide moratorium, with most mortgage regulation conducted on a state-by-state basis.

The health of the housing market is a major concern as the Obama administration tries to step up the economy's recovery from its worst downturn since the 1930s.

Gibbs said the administration is determined to "get to the bottom of" a problem of hasty foreclosures.

"We want to take the just and necessary steps to ensure that the process is being followed legally," he said. "At the same time, we don't want to see broader harm done to the housing market and to the housing recovery."



Lawmakers are acutely aware of voter angst over jobs and the sluggish economy with the Nov. 2 congressional election three weeks away, and regulators face heavy pressure to prevent a repeat of the 2007-2009 financial crisis that began when the U.S. housing bubble burst.

Temporary pauses in foreclosures have expanded among major lenders as the courts, lawmakers and state attorneys general investigate whether banks supplied shoddy paperwork to support evictions of delinquent borrowers.



But an investor group and industry experts warned Monday that a nationwide foreclosure moratorium could penalize pension funds, insurance companies and other investors and make new loans more expensive.


View Larger Map


Sources: BOFA, CNBC, MSNBC, Google Maps