You are here: Home / Archives for Barack Obama

NDG Gossip: Eddie Long wants his money back!

October 6, 2011 By No Comments

By Tonya Whitaker
NDG Staff Writer

Man, oh man. Eddie Long knows better than to tell black folk to keep quiet!

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Oct. 1 the esteemed bishop is requesting that three of his accusers – Jamal Parris, Spencer LeGrande and Centino Kemp – return their hush money because he believes they have violated the secrecy agreement that was made several months ago. Bishop and his lawyers are trying to get back $900,000 from the accusers.

Long has some nerve. I am not here to play judge, jury, or a higher power, but he was the one who decided to pay these men off so they would not air his dirty laundry. To me, paying people off is admitting guilt. I know if someone went around trying to smear my name, I would fight tooth and nail to clear it. Long decided not to defend his honor. Now he is have a pissy fit because Kemp is planning to write a book and Parris is speaking out about the ordeal.

I wonder if the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church flock has now stopped drinking the darn Kool-Aid.

Unwise words

Are you ready for some unemployment? Singer Hank Williams Jr. claims he was angry at the economic situation in the country when he compared President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler. I am still trying to figure out the that out, but the stupidest part of the Fox and Friends interview on Oct. 3 with the wise guy is when he said Obama and Vice President Joe Biden where the enemies … “The Three Stooges.” Obviously, the old man can’t count either. I wonder if he was wasted?

Filed Under: Entertainment, Latest News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Harvey lashes out at West, Smiley

August 10, 2011 By 3 Comments

By Tonya Whitaker
NDG Staff Writer

It seems syndicated radio columnists Tom Joyner and Steve Harvey are taking turns attacking Tavis Smiley and Cornel West.

During an episode of The Steve Harvey Show, the funny man put West’s and Smiley’s poverty bus tour on notice, and called the men

Steve Harvey

“Uncle Toms” because Harvey thinks West and Smiley are intentionally attempting to damage President Barack Obama’s name.

“Where are you getting the money for these buses?” Harvey questioned.

The radio host concluded by saying that he’d spotted an Uncle Tom driving a bus and that West and Smiley were “poverty pimps.”

Harvey claimed each man has an agenda against Obama.

“I was a huge fan of Cornel West,” Harvey said. “(But) Tavis, I seen [sic] him coming a mile away. His anger started when he had a town hall meeting, President Obama couldn’t come because of the campaign trail and he sent Mrs. Obama. He has held that grudge ever since.”

Harvey contends West’s grudge against the Obamas stems from the Harvard professor not receiving extra tickets to Obama’s inauguration. The comedian said, “Have you ever been invited to the damn inauguration? Did Bush send for you? Did Clinton send for you? Did Reagan send for you?”

Harvey went on to say that West and Smiley do not have a legitimate reason to dislike Obama.

“You don’t have any real basis behind your dislike for this man…you keep masking it saying it’s not about hate. Then what is it about? Poverty existed before Jan. 20, 2008. Where was your damn bus then?”

This isn’t the first attack West and Smiley have encountered since they have decided voiced their concerns over Obama’s lack of response to black unemployment and rampant poverty in the African American community. In a July interview, Joyner was given the chance to respond to Smiley’s and West’s disdain for Obama’s job. In his response, Joyer attacked Smiley’s sexuality when referred to West as Smiley’s “side piece.”

Filed Under: Latest News, National Tagged With: , , , , ,

Why Obama still says no to gay marriages

July 7, 2011 By 1 Comment

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson

(New America Media) he said. This was not hyperbole that he had to shout to one of the country’s most prominent, and influential gay rights groups to get gay activists off his back about his opposition to gay marriage.

Despite the withering heat he has taken for that opposition, Obama has been the best friend that gays have ever had in the White House.

He backed gay rights in speeches and legislation more than a dozen times as an Illinois state legislator and U.S. Senator. The record number of gay appointments, and the speed with which he’s made them, were just the extension of his personal and political conviction that discrimination against gays is every bit the civil rights issue that discrimination against women and minorities is. He issued executive orders mandating that hospitals treat gay and lesbian couples the same as heterosexual ones, and at the same time expanded rights for gay couples who work in the federal government. He vigorously opposed Proposition 8, the California initiative that would have effectively banned gay marriage. He reversed his position on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and calls it abhorrent.

But he won’t take the final step and flatly say ‘I support gay marriage and will back every effort in every state to pass a gay marriage law’. This refusal mystifies, rankles and angers gay rights organizations and is the single biggest stumbling block to them giving Obama their full-throated, all-out backing.

Obama may in time back gay marriage — he’s said his position is “evolving” — but it’s not going to happen just yet.

This would require Obama to reverse not his political thinking, but his fundamental and personal beliefs. He made that perfectly clear in a blog talk last October when he flatly said he wouldn’t sign on to same sex marriage because of his “understandings” of what traditional marriage should be. That’s the decades old unambiguous and universally consecrated notion that marriage is and should only be between a man and a woman. It’s not just an antiquated, bigoted, and rapidly discredited understanding that Obama refers to, and that he’s still stuck on.

Obama is no different than many other fiercely liberal, tolerant and broad-minded African-American when it comes to diversity issues. But he, like many others, still can draw the line on gay marriage and that’s fueled by deeply ingrained notions of family, church, and community, and the need to defend the terribly frayed and fragmented black family structure. This mix of fear, belief, and traditional family protectionism has long been a staple among many blacks and virtually every time the issue of legalizing gay marriage has been put to the ballot, or initiative, or a legal challenge, or just simply the topic of public debate, there has been no shortage of black ministers and public figures willing to rush to the defense of traditional marriage.

The warning signs that many blacks were susceptible to religious and conservative pitches to oppose gay marriage lit up in 1997. Then the late Green Bay Packers perennial all-pro defensive end Reggie White, an ordained fundamentalist minister stirred a firestorm when he took a huge swipe at gay rights and gay marriage in a speech to the Wisconsin state legislature. White became the first celebrity black evangelical to say publicly what many black religious leaders said and believed privately about gay issues. Few blacks joined in the loud chorus that condemned his remarks.

A year before White’s outburst, a Pew Poll measured black attitudes toward gay marriage and found that blacks opposed it by an overwhelming margin. A CNN poll eight years later showed that anti-gay attitudes among blacks had softened at least publicly among many blacks. But the line continued to be just as firmly drawn on same sex marriage.

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in polls in 2009 and 2010 found that blacks opposed same sex marriage by gaping margins over whites or Hispanics. The finding was even more striking in that Pew also found that for the first time in the decade and half that it had been polling Americans on attitudes toward gay rights, and that includes gay marriage, less than half of Americans opposed same sex marriage.

It’s wrong-headed and wildly inaccurate to think that President Obama opposes same sex marriage out of narrow religious belief, conservative family upbringing, or a racial herd mentality that is unyielding on the traditional defense of family values. But it’s just as wrongheaded to say that none of these things have and do weigh in the president’s unwillingness to take the final step and say yes to gay marriage.

Time will tell when he will finally change, but that time hasn’t come yet and there are reasons why.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is host of the weekly Hutchinson Report Newsmaker Hour on KTYM Radio Los Angeles streamed on ktym.com and podcast on blogtalkradio.com and internet TV broadcast on thehutchinsonreportnews.com

Filed Under: Lead Story, National, Op Ed Tagged With: ,

Commission votes to make new cocaine sentencing guidelines retroactive

July 1, 2011 By No Comments

The United States Sentencing Commission voted unanimously on June 30 to give retroactive effect to its proposed permanent amendment to the federal sentencing guidelines that implements the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Retroactivity of the amendment will become effective on November 1, 2011― the same day that the proposed permanent amendment would take effect― unless Congress acts to disapprove the amendment.

“In passing the Fair Sentencing Act, Congress recognized the fundamental unfairness of federal cocaine sentencing policy and ameliorated it through bipartisan legislation,” noted Commission chair, Judge Patti B. Saris. “Today’s action by the Commission ensures that the longstanding injustice recognized by Congress is remedied, and that federal crack cocaine offenders who meet certain criteria established by the Commission and considered by the courts may have their sentences reduced to a level consistent with the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.”

Not every federal crack cocaine offender in federal prison will be eligible for a lower sentence as a result of this decision. The Commission estimates, based on Fiscal Year 2010 sentencing data, that approximately 12,000 offenders may be eligible to seek a sentence reduction. The average sentence reduction for eligible offenders will be approximately 37 months, and the overall impact on the eligible offender population will occur incrementally over decades. The average sentence for these offenders, even after reduction, will remain about 10 years. The Bureau of Prisons estimates that retroactivity of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 amendment could result in a savings of over $200 million within the first five years after retroactivity takes effect.

The Commission’s vote to give retroactive application to the proposed amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines does not give retroactive effect to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Only Congress can make a statute retroactive. Many crack offenders will still be required under federal law to serve mandatory five- or 10-year sentences because of the amount of crack cocaine involved in their offenses.
A federal sentencing judge will make the final determination of whether an offender is eligible for a lower sentence and by how much that sentence should be lowered in accordance with instruction given by the Commission. The ultimate determination will be made only after consideration of many factors, including the Commission’s instruction to consider whether reducing an offender’s sentence would pose a risk to public safety.

“The Commission is aware of concern that today’s actions may negatively impact public safety. However, every potential offender must have his or her case considered by a federal district court judge in accordance with the Commission’s policy statement, and with careful thought given to the offender’s potential risk to public safety. The average sentence for a federal crack cocaine offender will remain significant at about 127 months,” explained Judge Saris.

The Commission made its decision on retroactivity after significant deliberation and many years of research on federal cocaine sentencing policy. The Commission has issued four research reports to Congress on federal cocaine sentencing policy, testified numerous times before Congress, and held several public hearings on the topic of federal cocaine sentencing policy. The Commission solicited public comment on the issue of retroactivity and received over 43,500 written responses, the overwhelming majority of which were in favor of retroactivity. On June 1, 2011, the Commission held a full day hearing at which it heard from 20 experts and advocates within the criminal justice community. The Commission also carefully considered the views it received from Congress, the federal judiciary, and the Department of Justice.

The Commission considered a number of factors during its deliberations, including the purpose of the Commission’s amendment implementing the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which lowers the penalties for crack cocaine offenses consistent with the Act, the limit on any reduction allowed by the amendment, whether it would be difficult for the courts to apply the reduction, and whether making the amendment retroactive would raise public safety concerns or cause unwarranted sentencing disparity in the federal system. Ultimately, the Commission determined that the statutory purposes of sentencing are best served by retroactive application of the amendment.

In December 2007, the Commission voted to give retroactive effect to its 2007 crack cocaine amendment effective March 3, 2008, and the process was smoothly coordinated among the courts, probation officers, U.S. Attorney offices, and the federal public defenders community.

Since that time, the federal district courts have processed 25,515 motions, granting 16,433 motions for a reduced sentence and denying 9,082. The Commission has conducted a study of the recidivism rate of those offenders who received a reduced sentence as a result of the 2007 amendment as compared to a similarly situated group of federal crack cocaine offenders who served their normal term of imprisonment and determined that there is no statistically significant difference in recidivism rates between the two groups of offenders.

Filed Under: Lead Story, National Tagged With: ,

Gazette Gossip: It is Osama, not Obama morons!

May 4, 2011 By No Comments

By Tonya Whitaker
NDG Staff Writer

Was it a stupid mistake or an offensive remark? You decide. During the announcement of the death of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, Fox 40 in Sacramento, Calif., ran the headline “Obama bin Laden is dead.” Someone should have told the intern or the idiot senior staffer that bin Laden and President Barack Obama are not the same people. This is not the first time that the station has offended me and others by calling the president out of his name on a headline. The first glimpse was during the 2008 presidential campaign when an affiliate, hopefully not the same once, ran Obama bin Laden in a headline. You may not agree with the color of his skin or that the ploy to disprove his U.S. citizenship failed, but you have to give him respect because he is our leader.  SMH.

Flavor Flav arrested

Last week, I wrote that rapper Flavor Flav shut down the doors on his restaurant in Iowa for mismanagement and one-month-old potato salad being served to customers. His work to open a House of Flavor restaurant in Las Vegas has hit a minor snap. TMZ reported that while Flav was on business preparing the restaurant’s opening, he was pulled over by Las Vegas police and arrested for outstanding warrants. One of the charges was for driving with proof of insurance. Common now, Flav! He knows better. I hope he gets his stuff together.

Talking about changes

I recently came across a photo of author Sista Soulja (remember her?) and Jada Pickett-Smith at a book-signing event in Los Angeles. I never pay too much attention to Jada’s face, but on this rare occasion I noticed that she is trying to outdo father time. I think she had some work cosmetic surgery done on her cheeks. Her face looks as if she would make a good replacement for Jim Carrey in The Mask. Her cheeks are high and tight. The sad part of it is that she is a pretty lady. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Filed Under: Entertainment Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Gazette Gossip: Oprah ‘abandons’ Obama for OWN

April 13, 2011 By No Comments

By Tonya Whitaker
NDG Staff Writer

The New York Daily News reported last week that Oprah Winfrey has decided not to endorse President Barack Obama for his re-election campaign. The reason why Winfrey is backing a bit away from shouting Obama’s name for the mountaintop is a little surprising.

“Unlike in 2008, when a drop in ratings didn’t matter as much for the queen of TV, Oprah is now fighting every day to get people to tune into OWN,” a source told the newspaper.

What a difference four years makes. I would not say Winfrey is giving up on Obama, she is just taking care of home. Winfrey has vested a lot of time and money into OWN. She has made that perfectly clear. Pessimists, me included, wonder how a minute role in the Obama’s camp impact will affect the president’s campaign. Winfrey’s power in the smallest fashion still speaks volumes.

That ain’t baby bump
In February, photos surfaced on the Internet of a heavier-than-normal Fantasia Barrino. Quicker than an explanation could come of the singer’s mouth, rumors began to swirl that she was pregnant. Actually, Barrino plumped up for her upcoming role in a biopic about the greatest gospel singer to walk this earth, the late Mahalia Jackson. Once again, Barrino showed off her full figure and her feet during a performance an Indiana casino.

What was he thinking?
Allen Iverson needs to remember that no matter how much bling-bling or fame you got, if the cops stop you, you are quickly knocked back to being a black man in a car he stole. Last week, the former NBA guard was stopped by the police for failing to signal when switching lanes (common now!). To make a long story short, police confiscates his Lamborghini because the tags were expired. Iverson gets irate. Police officer calls for backup. Iverson tells police, “Do you know who I am?” (as if that matters to the cops). Iverson’s driver gets a citation. Iverson says bye-bye to his Lambo. Iverson apologizes to the police for losing his temper. Now Iverson can show empathy to all the young black men without a Lambo and without money in bank accounts that face abuse from the police. SMH!

Filed Under: Entertainment, Latest News Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Will CBC and Black leaders stick with Obama?

April 6, 2011 By No Comments

By Yussuf J. Simmonds
(NNPA) A year ago when President Barack Obama signed the landmark legislation known as the Healthcare Reform Act, he said, “At this moment, we are being called upon to fulfill our duty to the citizens of this nation and to future generations… I don’t know how passing health care will play politically, but I do know that it’s the right thing to do. It’s right for our families. It’s right for our businesses. It’s right for the United States of America.”

That was a milestone and since then, many state’s attorney generals have challenged its constitutionality. However, California’s Attorney-general Kamala Harris has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit strongly asserting the legality of federal health care reform and urging the court to uphold the law stating, “The law strikes an appropriate–and constitutional–balance between national requirements that will expand access to affordable healthcare while providing States with flexibility to design programs that achieve that goal for their citizens,” according to the amicus brief states.

In addition, since President Obama came into office, he has been dogged by chronic unemployment and a faltering economy when he inherited from his predecessor. The effects of those twins of national disaster have reportedly been on a rollercoaster ride, according to many economists.

However, the disastrous effects can also be readily seen through the experiences of the average American and especially Black Americans. Massive foreclosures, joblessness, unprecedented homeless, high consumer prices added to the aforementioned have lowered the standard of living and quality of life for a large segment of Americans.

Now comes war–another unprovoked military entanglement–in addition to the two that the President inherited that at present seem unwinnable and an inability to be extricated from. And, that is exacerbating most of what is ailing the country–economically and otherwise.

Some statistics: 46 of the 50 states are operating ‘in the red’ and cannot expect any assistance from the federal government, which is also operating ‘in the red’; one of the generals, reported to the Defense Budget Committee that the recent military engagement has cost approximately half a billion dollars; recovery from disasters such as Hurricane Katrina (more than five years ago), the more recent BP oil spill, and recoveries from the mid-western and eastern seaboard weather-relative tragedies, just to name a few, have been stalled at the expense of military expenditures.

The light at the end of the tunnel appears to be the support that President Obama has received especially from members of his own party even though they are the minority in the House (of Representatives); but the slim majority that he enjoys in the (U.S.) Senate often acts as a buffer to counteract the GOP majority in the House.

For example, during floor debate on the Republican legislation to repeal health care reform earlier this year, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) said in part, “I’m proud to join my Democratic colleagues on the floor this afternoon to state our unequivocal stance against health care reform repeal. The landmark health reform law takes a stand against the health care disparities that exist for low-income Americans, people of color, and people with pre-existing conditions…. I implore my Republican colleagues to work with us to strengthen the law, make it better, and provide health care and jobs to millions of Americans.”

Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA) released the following statement marking the anniversary of the Health Care Act: “One year ago, history was made when President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. On this important anniversary, there is certainly much to celebrate. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions of Americans are far better off now than they were a year ago. More Americans have increased access to quality health care than ever before, as well as improved coverage, more control and fewer obstacles to receiving the care they need….”

In an op-ed, Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) stated: “This week will mark one year since the Health Care Reform bill was enacted, making quality health care more accessible and affordable for all Americans. Before President Obama, before this legislation, we were the only modern industrialized nation in the world to lack any kind of comprehensive system ensuring that its citizens had access to basic medical care. Now we are headed towards a future where Americans of every economic level can afford basic health insurance….”

The plaudits for the President came from throughout the nation as Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) reiterated his continued support of the act that was designed to provide quality and affordable health care for all Americans: “The Affordable Care for America Act has the same monumental significance that Medicare and Medicaid has had for all Americans,” Thompson said. “The Affordable Care Act has extended health coverage to more than 32 million Americans by providing security for seniors, guaranteeing health insurance coverage for the uninsured, and making health care more affordable for middle class families….” Thompson maintains that the law is highly beneficial.

But, the light at the end of the tunnel dimmed somewhat as some of the President’s supporters, though standing shoulder to shoulder with him, questioned the value of him sending America’s military once again into battle. Thus far, many have proceeded cautiously.

Chairman Emanuel Cleaver, II (D-MO) of the Congressional Black Caucus issued the following statement on his recent address to the nation: “As an ordained minister, I am an advocate of the seven principles of a just war which are not, in my opinion, theologically present in the military policy relating to Libya. As a Member of Congress, however; I can understand the position that President Obama was in to protect the Libyan people in order to prevent a potential genocide. I am pleased that NATO will take control of the enforcement of the arms embargo and No Fly Zone on Wednesday, and equally pleased that the United States will take a supporting role in this effort. We cannot afford another Iraq or Afghanistan and I firmly believe that the President fully understands that.”

Filed Under: Feature Story, National Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Class size does matter

March 17, 2011 By No Comments

By Judge Greg Mathis

The struggling economy has, unfortunately, forced state and local governments across the country to make cuts in much needed services and programs. The nation’s public schools have been hit particularly hard by these cuts. First, some districts reduced or completely eliminated physical education classes and arts programming – programming that has been proven to enhance student academic performance. Then, others began to eliminate teachers, slowly growing classrooms sizes. Now, it seems even more school districts are looking to reduce the number of teachers on the payroll and combine classrooms … all in an effort to save money.

A recent article in the New York Times shed light on this disturbing movement toward larger class sizes. According to the article, the size of 11th and 12th grade classes in Los Angeles has increased by more than 40 students. Detroit is considering increasing the size of its high school classes to 60 students. Though school officials there say its unlikely classes will grow that large, it’s disturbing the conversation has even turned in that direction. It doesn’t end there. Georgia, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin have all relaxed their restrictions on class size. Idaho and Texas are deciding whether or not they are going to grow their classrooms.

Those who see cutting back on teachers and increasing class sizes as a solution to budget woes are the same people who don’t believe class size matters when it comes to student achievement. However, multiple studies have shown us that class size does matter. Research shows that, overall, students perform better in smaller classes. Poor and minority children seem to do best in smaller classes and improve at twice the rate of the average student when the student-teacher ratio is low. But who needs research? Common sense tells us that more students mean more distractions for the teacher and less individual attention for the students.

During his State of the Union address, President Obama called on America to invest in education. By putting our resources toward our children, we will, in effect, be putting a down payment on a more prosperous future for America. School districts should not sacrifice student performance during a time of education crisis. America has fallen behind other countries when it comes to producing skilled workers; our nation is no longer a nation of innovators. To jeopardize our children’s future is to jeopardize our nation’s future.

Filed Under: Feature Story Tagged With: , , , ,

Wikileaks – Proceed with Caution

December 9, 2010 By No Comments

By Rev. Al Sharpton

(NNPA) Taken at face value, the latest Wikileaks release is in one word – disturbing.   Leaked confidential information regarding international relations and sensitive global issues, these 250,000 documents have reshaped the dynamic of diplomacy perhaps like never before.  The diplomatic cables touch on everything like Guantanamo Bay, predator drone attacks in Yemen, officials in Afghanistan, Russian, and Italian relations, Pakistani nuclear fuel, North Korea, Iran, Zimbabwe and much much more.  But although we’d like to believe all of this classified information without question, we must take a moment and dig a little deeper.

Diplomatic relations are never an easy task for any government to manage.   There are areas of key interest, volatile regions, and shifting nuances in an ever-changing world.  But when private conversations and classified cables are released to the public in such a manner, the task of managing these difficult international relationships takes on an entirely new meaning.   For not only is our President and our government exposed here, but leaders and strategic partners around the planet now find their private exchanges with the U.S. available for the world to view with a simple click of the mouse.   And, we must ask ourselves, why now?

Every administration in the history of this nation has had to withhold information from the public for a multitude of reasons; to believe otherwise would simply be foolish.   But we cannot blindly accept these quarter of a million leaks as 100% factual and true, for that would be just as foolish.   Because we do not instantaneously believe everything we watch on TV or read in the paper, we cannot unequivocally accept everything in these leaked documents.   Much of this information is incomplete and could be dangerous for us, and our strategic allies and informed resources in the field. 

Whenever there is any sort of leak, we must proceed with caution and with a keen focus on why these events are transpiring now.   During the previous administration, there was more than a fair share of international dilemmas and challenges that faced the United States.   With the start of two wars, an escalating threat of terrorism, and increasingly controversial mechanisms for securing intelligence, the Bush administration undoubtedly had countless classified documents, conversations, and cables that never managed to reach the waves of the World Wide Web. 

As people sift through the hundreds of thousands of Wikileaks files during the course of the next few days, weeks, months and perhaps longer, we must remain open to the idea that this may in fact have all transpired because of some sort of hidden agenda.   Is this leak released with partial information?   Is someone or something maybe working to discredit our President and this nation?   Would people have the same reaction if these sorts of leaks were done under George Bush?

The White House, Secretary Hillary Clinton, and other officials are now in damage control mode.   Diligently reaching out to world leaders, they are warning and preparing everyone for the reality that some of their most confidential and trusted information is about to go public.   Containing the names of informants, journalists, and others who provide necessary information to various governments, the Wikileaks cables will have ramifications for years to come.   

Normally, we would have to wait decades to learn of the secrets and intricacies of some of our governmental workings.   Thanks to these leaked documents, that opportunity is available in real time and no longer reserved just for historians.   

But, remember – proceed with caution – for there could be a hidden agenda in even this, the seemingly transparent one.  And who will blow the whistle on that

Filed Under: Feature Story, National, Op Ed Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

IRS helps small employers claim new health care tax credit

December 6, 2010 By No Comments

(NDG Wire) The Internal Revenue Service released final guidance for small employers eligible to claim the new small business health care tax credit for the 2010 tax year.   

New Form 8941, Credit for Small Employer Health Insurance Premiums, and newly revised Form 990-T are now available on IRS.gov. The IRS also posted on its website the instructions to Form 8941 and Notice 2010-82 , both of which are designed to help small employers correctly figure and claim the credit.

Included in the Affordable Care Act enacted in March, the small business health care tax credit is designed to encourage both small businesses and small tax-exempt organizations to offer health insurance coverage to their employees for the first time or maintain coverage they already have.

The new guidance addresses small business questions about which firms qualify for the credit by clarifying that a broad range of employers meet the eligibility requirements, including religious institutions that provide coverage through denominational organizations, small employers that cover their workers through insured multiemployer health and welfare plans, and employers that subsidize their employees’ health care costs through a broad range of contribution arrangements.

In general, the credit is available to small employers that pay at least half of the premiums for single health insurance coverage for their employees. It is specifically targeted to help small businesses and tax-exempt organizations that primarily employ moderate- and lower-income workers.

Small businesses can claim the credit for 2010 through 2013 and for any two years after that. For tax years 2010 to 2013, the maximum credit is 35 percent of premiums paid by eligible small businesses and 25 percent of premiums paid by eligible tax-exempt organizations. Beginning in 2014, the maximum tax credit will increase to 50 percent of premiums paid by eligible small business employers and 35 percent of premiums paid by eligible tax-exempt organizations.

The maximum credit goes to smaller employers –– those with 10 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) employees –– paying annual average wages of $25,000 or less. The credit is completely phased out for employers that have 25 or more FTEs or that pay average wages of $50,000 or more per year. Because the eligibility rules are based in part on the number of FTEs, not the number of employees, employers that use part-time workers may qualify even if they employ more than 25 individuals.

Eligible small businesses will first use Form 8941 to figure the credit and then include the amount of the credit as part of the general business credit on its income tax return.

Filed Under: Business, Health, Latest News, National Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,
« Older Posts