<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Allen Quist for CongressIssues</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.quistforcongress.com/topics/issues/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.quistforcongress.com</link>
	<description>Minnesota 1st Congressional District</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:35:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>UN Gun Control</title>
		<link>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2011/12/un-gun-control/</link>
		<comments>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2011/12/un-gun-control/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2011 19:30:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Allen Quist</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quistforcongress.com/?p=320</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[President Obama is supporting a UN arms treaty that could bring international gun control to the United States and slap America&#8217;s gun owners with severe restrictions. This treaty is part of the Agenda 21 master plan which requires that international gun control be applied to all countries. In view of the seriousness of this proposal, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>President Obama is supporting a UN arms treaty that could bring international gun control to the United States and slap America&#8217;s gun owners with severe restrictions. This treaty is part of the Agenda 21 master plan which requires that international gun control be applied to all countries.</p>
<p>In view of the seriousness of this proposal, I am giving my support to a bill that has been introduced in Congress, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h3594:" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112_h3594&amp;referer=');">HR 3594</a>. It stipulates that if the UN adopts this treaty, the United States would then immediately withhold all funding from the UN. The bill also declares that any treaty violating our Constitution will not be ratified by the United States.</p>
<p>Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh introduced HR 3594 last Wednesday, and he has been joined so far by eleven of his Republican colleagues in the House.</p>
<p>HR 3594 is described as follows:</p>
<blockquote><p>To express the sense of the Congress that the United States should not adopt any treaty that poses a threat to national sovereignty or abridges any rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, such as the right to keep and bear arms, and to withhold funding from the United Nations unless the President certifies that the United Nations has not taken action to restrict, attempt to restrict, or otherwise adversely infringe upon the rights of individuals in the United States to keep and bear arms, or abridge any of the other constitutionally protected rights of citizens of the United States.</p></blockquote>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Allen Quist</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2011/12/un-gun-control/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Press Release: Marriage Penalty in health care bills</title>
		<link>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/press-release-marriage-penalty-in-health-care-bills/</link>
		<comments>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/press-release-marriage-penalty-in-health-care-bills/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:11:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Biers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Press releases]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.quistforcongress.com/?p=125</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PRESS RELEASE ALLEN QUIST FOR CONGRESS December 3, 2009 Contact: Brad Biers 651-261-2182 Marriage Penalty in the U.S. House and Senate Health Care Bills (Mankato, MN) &#8211; “The House and Senate Health Care bills contain a huge marriage penalty for the American middle class.” Allen Quist said today. Following is the complete statement by Allen [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PRESS RELEASE<br />
ALLEN QUIST FOR CONGRESS<br />
December 3, 2009<br />
Contact: Brad Biers 651-261-2182</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">
<h2>Marriage Penalty in the U.S. House and Senate Health Care Bills</h2>
<p>(Mankato, MN) &#8211; “The House and Senate Health Care bills contain a huge marriage penalty for the American middle class.” Allen Quist said today.</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold;"> Following is the complete statement by Allen Quist on the marriage penalty: </span></p>
<p>“There is a huge middle class marriage penalty hidden in the House and Senate health care bills. The penalty becomes evident by evaluating questions like the following: How much would two single people, each making $30,000 per year, pay for private health insurance if the Pelosi bill was in effect now? The answer is $1,320 per year for both individuals combined (based on the premium limits and subsidies outlined on the charts below). But how much would they pay for the same level of insurance under the Pelosi bill if they were to marry? Their combined cost would then be about $12,000 a year (the estimated cost for private insurance).</p>
<p><strong>“Health insurance premium costs for two adults with equal incomes if the Pelosi bill was in effect now:</strong></p>
<div style="padding-left: 20px;">
<table class="figs" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr valign="middle">
<th>Combined yearly income</th>
<th>Combined premium cost if single</th>
<th>Combined premium cost if married</th>
<th>Change</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>$60,000</td>
<td>$1,320</td>
<td>$12,000</td>
<td>+$10,680</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>$70,000</td>
<td>$1,960</td>
<td>$12,000</td>
<td>+$10,040</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>$80,000</td>
<td>$2,880</td>
<td>$12,000</td>
<td>+$9,120</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>$90,000</td>
<td>$12,000</td>
<td>$12,000</td>
<td>0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Sources:  The numbers on the chart are based on (a) a chart provided by The Committees on Ways &amp; Means, Energy &amp; Commerce, and Education &amp; Labor, October 29, 2009, see next chart; (b) the current Federal Poverty Levels; see final chart below; and (c) the estimate that two adults would pay $12,000 annually for individual health insurance with average benefits if their income exceeds 400% of the Federal Poverty Level.</span></span></div>
<p>“Once the income of Americans exceeds 400% of the Federal Poverty Level, there are no limits on the premiums they can be charged, and their premiums are no longer subsidized. The poverty level is much higher for two people living unmarried as compared to the same two people being married. That is why citizens in many cases will pay far more for insurance if they are married. Why should married people be subjected to financial discrimination?</p>
<p>“This extraordinary penalty people will pay, should they marry, extends all the way from a two-person combined income of $58,280 to $86,640, a spread of $28,360. A large number of people fall within this spread. As premiums for private insurance escalate, as expected, the marriage penalty will become substantially larger.</p>
<p>“The Senate bill also creates a marriage penalty, in this case by imposing a new tax on individuals who make $200,000 annually but it also applies to married couples making $250,000 each year. This marriage tax on the affluent, however, is just the tip of the marriage penalty iceberg in the Senate bill.</p>
<p>“The Senate bill stipulates that two unmarried people, 52 years of age, with private insurance and a combined income of $60,000, $30,000 each, will pay a combined cost of $2,483 for medical insurance. Should they marry, however, they will pay a combined cost of $11,666 for insurance—a penalty of $9,183 for getting married (based on tables <a href="http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx?referer=');">available here</a>).</p>
<p>“This substantial marriage penalty applies to persons on individual insurance, but, as the Heritage Foundation’s Bob Moffit said: ‘if an employer has a health care benefits package that is 12 to 13 percent of payroll, and they can solve their problem by paying an 8 percent payroll tax [into the Exchange], I think they’re going to do it,’ (New York Times, 9-30-09). And Howard Dean said that, ‘small business won’t need to buy health care for its employees any more’ (Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, 11-29-09).</p>
<p>“Businesses will shed their employees and health care dollars into the Exchange, but the dollars that are paid back out will be directed only to those who make less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. Those above the Poverty Level will receive none of their previous insurance benefits from businesses. For that reason the new system is income redistribution on steroids.</p>
<p>“ ‘Household’ is defined in both bills as including those who can be claimed as dependents for federal income tax purposes thereby clarifying that adults can avoid the marriage penalty by living together unmarried. The new system provides a huge incentive for doing so.</p>
<p>“The bills additionally contain De Facto salary caps. How much would a married couple pay for private insurance under the House bill if their income was $58,000 per year?  The answer is $2,088. But what if their income increased by $1,000? Their annual premium would then be about $12,000. The economic penalty for going off the subsidized system is so severe that it will be difficult for people to increase their earnings beyond 400% of Poverty Level. The Senate bill works essentially the same way.</p>
<p>“Senior citizens and small businesses have already been identified as big losers in the health care bills. Married citizens in the middle class need to be added to the list.”</p>
<p><span style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline;">Official summary of premium limits and subsidy levels in the House bill*</span></p>
<div style="padding-left: 20px;">
<table class="figs" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr valign="middle">
<th>Income</th>
<th>premium limit as % of income</th>
<th>% paid by individuals</th>
<th>Caps on out of pocket costs</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Under 133 &#8211; 150% FPL</td>
<td>1.5 – 3%</td>
<td>3%</td>
<td>$500/$1000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>150 &#8211; 200% FPL</td>
<td>3 – 5.5%</td>
<td>7%</td>
<td>$1,000/$2,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>200 &#8211; 250% FPL</td>
<td>5.5 – 8%</td>
<td>15%</td>
<td>$2,000/$4,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>250 &#8211; 300% FPL</td>
<td>8 – 10%</td>
<td>22%</td>
<td>$4,000/$8,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>300 &#8211; 350% FPL</td>
<td>10 – 11%</td>
<td>28%</td>
<td>$4,500/$9,000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>350 &#8211; 400% FPL</td>
<td>11 – 12%</td>
<td>30%</td>
<td>$5,000/$10,000</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p><strong>Federal Poverty Levels now in use:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Single person = $10,830</li>
<li>Two person household = $14,570</li>
<li>Three person household = $18,310</li>
<li>Family of four = $22,050</li>
</ul>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>400% of Federal Poverty Level:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Single person = $43,320</li>
<li>Two person household = $58,280</li>
<li>Three person household = $73,240</li>
<li>Family of four = $88,200</li>
</ul>
<p><em> *  Chart provided by The House Committees on Ways &amp; Means, Energy &amp; Commerce, and Education &amp; Labor, October 29, 2009.</em></p>
<p><em><br />
</em></p>
<p><strong>Media advisory:</strong> Allen Quist bio and high resolution photograph available on the <a href="http://www.quistforcongress.com/about-allen/">About Allen</a> page.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.quistforcongress.com/2009/12/press-release-marriage-penalty-in-health-care-bills/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

