By Sam Baker 

Republicans hammered Democrats for allegedly seeking to carve themselves out of a requirement in the healthcare law.
Democratic leaders said Thursday they're not seeking an exemption from a central requirement of ObamaCare — that members of Congress and their staff purchase healthcare coverage through insurance exchanges.
Republicans spent the day hammering Democrats for allegedly seeking to carve themselves out of a requirement in the healthcare law.

But Democratic leaders said they have not sought an exemption — and would not support one if it were proposed.
"Nobody is exempting anybody from anything," one Democratic aide said.
The healthcare law requires lawmakers and congressional staff to buy their healthcare coverage through the newly created insurance exchanges.
Democrats have raised questions about the mechanics of that requirement, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) both said Thursday they do not believe the mandate should be lifted.
Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson flatly denied a report that the majority leader had sought an exemption for lawmakers and their staffers.
"There are not now, have never been, nor will there ever be any discussions about exempting members of Congress or Congressional staff from Affordable Care Act provisions that apply to any employees of any other public or private employer offering health care," Jentleson said.
More from The Hill
• Republicans: Boston bombings reveal intel system still broken
• Top Intelligence panel lawmaker blasts Justice Dept. over Miranda rights
• Senate passes measure to end airport delays

Seizing on the same report of a possible "exemption," published Thursday by Politico, Republicans accused Democrats of trying to give themselves and their staffers a different set of rules than Americans who will purchase coverage through exchanges.
Republicans condemned the idea of an exemption and said it showed Democrats were acknowledging that the law is unworkable.
Democrats rejected that characterization; they said lawmakers and their staff members should still be required to purchase through the exchanges.
The controversy over an exemption is "completely made up," the Democratic aide said.
The issue some Democrats want to address relates to the mechanics of moving lawmakers and staff into the exchanges.
Normally, lawmakers and staff get their health coverage through the system for federal employees.
The federal government, like most large employers, makes a sizeable contribution to cover the cost of its employees' healthcare plans. In some cases, the federal government pays up to 75 percent of workers' healthcare costs.
It's not clear, though, whether lawmakers and staff could keep receiving an employer contribution once they buy coverage through an exchange.
The healthcare law doesn't speak to that question, and the agency that manages federal benefits hasn't yet made a determination.
If members and staff can't keep their employer contribution, many would be forced to cover the entire cost of their healthcare plans.
Staffers whose total household income is less than about $45,000 per year by themselves — or $94,000 for a family of four — would be eligible for subsidies to help pay for their policies, just like anyone else who uses the exchanges.
Staffers and members with higher incomes would have to foot the entire bill for their coverage.
There has been some discussion, aides said, of whether Congress should step in to ensure that federal employees who buy through the exchanges get the same employer contribution as the rest of the federal workforce.
That's not an exemption, but it's still controversial.
Michael Steel, a spokesman for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Democrats shouldn't look for any bipartisan support if the federal human-resources agency says staffers and members are on their own.
"The Speaker would like to see resolution of this problem, along with the other nightmares created by Washington Democrats' health law, which is why he supports full repeal," Steel said in a statement.
"In the meantime, it is Democrats' problem to solve. He will not sneak any language into bills to solve it for them — and the Democratic leadership knows that."
Reid's spokesman said Congress does not need to step in to ensure that lawmakers have the same experience as the general public.
"Senator Reid is committed to ensuring that all members of Congress and Congressional staff experience the benefits of the Affordable Care Act in exactly the same way as every other American," he said.
"He believes that this is the effect of the legislation as written, and that therefore no legislative fix is necessary."
Pelosi said she believes the law allows lawmakers and staff to remain inside the system for federal employees, thus keeping their employer contributions — they just have to buy policies that are also offered on an exchange.
Pelosi noted that some congressional staff, such as aides who work for a committee instead of an individual lawmaker, wouldn't be covered by the healthcare reform law's requirement to use the exchanges.
Congress should level the playing field by moving all staffers and members into the exchanges, she said.
"The bill has been written, it's a question of interpretation, and we want everybody to be treated the same," she said at a news conference Thursday.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/296333-dem-leaders-wont-seek-exemption#ixzz2Rn33Gai0
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

The fact that race in America is socially constructed (not biologically-based) is a settled debate – at least in the halls of academia.  But for those who remain unconvinced of this important sociological idea about race, you need look no further than the media (and social media) coverage of (the identities of) theBoston Marathon bombing suspects.

Joan Walsh’s recent essay: “Are the Tsarnaev brothers white?” poses a rhetorical question that is impossible to answer without considering the arbitrary manner in which racial categorization is deployed in America.

This fact has become all the more complicated in the context of our post-911 malaise, the second term of our first bi-racial president and more so again in this – the immediate run-up to another much-needed round of immigration policy reform.

‘Dark-skinned’ double standard

Last week, in the frenetic coverage of the well-publicized “manhunt” for the suspects, CNN’s John King “leaked” information from a “high-ranking” federal official that law enforcement was pursuing a “dark-skinned” male suspect.  The National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) and others have taken King to task so I won’t rehearse their justifiable outrage here, but as Walsh points out and as it turns out, the suspects in last week’s horrific acts of terror are white according to the U.S. Census’ own racial categorization system.  For all of this nation’s racialized islamaphobia, the fact of the matter is that white folks practice Islam too.

If only this realization could affect some of our right-leaning politicos in the same manner it did the late, great Malcolm X – for him, this fact was an awakening that lead to an exorcism of some of his racial demons.  For another King – Rep. Peter King (R- New York), and too many in the media, the whiteness of the alleged perpetrators is literally unremarkable.

This week, Rep. King is suggesting that we enhance our surveillance of Muslim communities in America. One has to wonder if white American practitioners of the faith will be subjected to the same kind of surveillance that their “dark-skinned” counterparts will.

Immigration reform hangs in the balance

The Boston Marathon bombing is reportedly making some politicians skittish about immigration reform – so much so that the process will likely be delayed and it is becoming clearer that it will lose some support.  If this sounds counter-intuitive to you, that’s because it is.

By all accounts, it seems as if the immigration system worked in this case – the jury is still out on the FBI.

I can’t help but wonder that if the Tsarnaev brothers were black, particularly the elder, Tamerlane, could he have eluded detection, surveillance, and suspicion for as long as he did?  Too bad listening to hip-hop doesn’t have the same kind of racialization powers as practicing Islam.

It is a cruel fact of our American reality that people of color carry an extraordinary burden of representation as individuals.  It is an equally powerful fact that one vestige of white privilege is to be free from this burden.

Profiling is not based on facts

Stereotypes thrive on our nations historical penchant for super imposing negative characteristics on entire groups of people.

For black Americans, that has manifested itself in a brutal legacy of institutionalized discrimination. It should not come as a surprise then, that many Americans can actually identify with those communities – in this case the Arab-American and Middle Eastern American Islamic communities – who suffer the anguish of persistent racial profiling and harassment.

This profiling is based, not on biological facts or some recently-discovered strain of DNA that codes violent behavior with race and acts of terror.  It derives from a collectively socialized and historical way of defining race and over-determining its meaning.

Many have applauded the uncle, Ruslan Tsarni, of the Boston Marathon bombers because of his candor and passion in distancing himself from the perpetrators and his full throttle acceptance of the shame that, according to him, they have brought upon the entire Chechen ethnicity.  I don’t recall the McVeigh family or the Lanza family making statements comparable to these.

In fact, in these cases, the perpetrators of these acts of terror are not looked at as representatives of their racial, ethnic, or religious communities; they are viewed as individuals, committing heinous crimes.

It is a strange and psychologically debilitating experience to be considered guilty, violent, or anti-American because of the color and/or complexion of one’s skin; stranger still to breath sighs of relief when, in the midst of the media frenzies that accompany ultra-violent crimes, you learn that the suspects are not of your racial, ethnic, or racialized religious group.  I don’t begrudge anyone the right to exist as an individual who is judged largely on his/her own merits.

I do however hope for (and fight for) these same rights to be afforded to all – regardless of color or creed.

James Braxton Peterson is the Director of Africana Studies and Associate Professor of English at Lehigh University. He is also the founder of Hip Hop Scholars LLC, an association of hip-hop generation scholars dedicated to researching and developing the cultural and educational potential of hip-hop, urban and youth cultures. You can follow him on Twitter @DrJamesPeterson

Detroit City Council to Appeal Emergency Manager

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder announced recently that he plans to appoint an emergency manager for Detroit. The city has a $327 million deficit and owes $14 billion, says the Associated Press. Detroit entered into a consent agreement with the state after treasurer reports found soaring deficits and debts. Detroit's City Council had the option to appeal the governor's decision, which they decided to take. Detroit Mayor Dave Bing said on Wednesday that he won't join in the appeal, reports the Detroit News. The mayor had the choice to join the City Council appeal or file his own. Bing said though he opposes emergency management, he sees no way to circumvent it. City Council members say that won't affect their decision...Click Here to Read Complete Story