Tag: senate democrats

$61 Billion in Cuts in Perspective

Talk of a government shutdown is heating up. The current continuing resolution funding the government is set to expire on March 4th. Last week, House Republicans passed a bill that would fund the remainder of fiscal 2011 at $61 billion below fiscal 2010 levels. Senate Democrats are balking at the $61 billion in cuts and the president has issued a veto threat.

The following chart measures $61 billion in cuts against the president’s fiscal 2011 estimates for total federal spending, the deficit, and interest on the debt:

As the chart shows, the proposed cuts amount to less than a third of what taxpayers will pay in interest on the debt alone this year.

The $61 billion in cuts, which are woefully insufficient, would come from a relatively small category of government spending (non-defense, discretionary spending). However, that merely indicates the need to tackle defense spending and budget-busting “mandatory” programs. Unfortunately, the president’s latest budget proposal punted on these critical areas, and the Republicans have yet to put forth a plan let alone a coherent message.

Dear Poor People: Please Remain Poor. Sincerely, ObamaCare

In a new study titled, “Obama’s Prescription for Low-Wage Workers: High Implicit Taxes, Higher Premiums,” I show that the House and Senate health care bills would impose implicit tax rates on low-wage workers that exceed 100 percent.  Here’s the executive summary:

House and Senate Democrats have produced health care legislation whose mandates, subsidies, tax penalties, and health insurance regulations would penalize work and reward Americans who refuse to purchase health insurance. As a result, the legislation could trap many Americans in low-wage jobs and cause even higher health-insurance premiums, government spending, and taxes than are envisioned in the legislation.

Those mandates and subsidies would impose effective marginal tax rates on low-wage workers that would average between 53 and 74 percent— and even reach as high as 82 percent—over broad ranges of earned income. By comparison, the wealthiest Americans would face tax rates no higher than 47.9 percent.

Over smaller ranges of earned income, the legislation would impose effective marginal tax rates that exceed 100 percent. Families of four would see effective marginal tax rates as high as 174 percent under the Senate bill and 159 percent under the House bill. Under the Senate bill, adults starting at $14,560 who earn an additional $560 would see their total income fall by $200 due to higher taxes and reduced subsidies. Under the House bill, families of four starting at $43,670 who earn an additional $1,100 would see their total income fall by $870.

In addition, middle-income workers could save as much as $8,000 per year by dropping coverage and purchasing health insurance only when sick. Indeed, the legislation effectively removes any penalty on such behavior by forcing insurers to sell health insurance to the uninsured at standard premiums when they fall ill. The legislation would thus encourage “adverse selection”—an unstable situation that would drive insurance premiums, government spending, and taxes even higher.

See also my Kaiser Health News oped, “Individual Mandate Would Impose High Implicit Taxes on Low-Wage Workers.”

And be sure to pre-register for our January 28 policy forum, “ObamaCare’s High Implicit Tax Rates for Low-Wage Workers,” where the Urban Institute’s Gene Steuerle and I will discuss these obnoxious implicit tax rates.

(Cross-posted at Politico’s Health Care Arena.)

Curtain Call for the ‘Public Option’ Sideshow

Senate Democrats now appear to be jettisoning the idea of creating a new government program to snuff out compete with private insurance companies.  It was an audacious proposal from the start, as it made their health care plan even more left-wing than the Clinton plan, which voters soundly rejected for being too statist.

Yet it was always a sideshow that helpfully distracted the Left, the Right, and the mainstream from what shrewd Democrats and their allies at AHIP have really wanted all along: an individual mandate forcing all Americans to purchase health insurance under penalty of law.

As I argue in this Cato study, an individual mandate gives government more (and more immediate) control over Americans’ health care than even the so-called “public option” would.  As it has in Massachusetts, an individual mandate will allow government to control what kind of insurance you buy, how much you pay, how insurers pay doctors, where doctors report to work, how doctors practice medicine, and what kind of medical care you get.

The question now is whether the Left, the Right, and the mainstream will recognize the Senate health care bill for what it is: a massive $450 billion bailout for private insurance companies that will drive health insurance premiums and taxes higher while reducing quality, all for the benefit of a small cadre of Democrats with a preternatural need to control other people’s health care.

(Cross-posted at Politico’s Health Care Arena.)

House Democrats Choose Dishonesty

I’m not a fan of the House Democrats’ proposed takeover of the health care sector.  (If there’s one thing that legislation is not, it’s “reform.”)  But at least House Democrats were honest enough to include the cost of the $245 billion bump in Medicare physician payments in their legislation, unlike some committee chairmen I could mention.

Unfortunately, House Democrats have since decided that dishonesty is the better strategy.  They, like Senate Democrats, now plan to strip that additional Medicare spending out of health “reform” and enact it separately.  (Democrats are already trying to exempt that spending from pay-as-you-go rules, making it easier for them to expand our record federal deficits.)  Why enact it separately?  Because excising that spending from the “reform” legislation reduces the cost of health “reform”!

But why stop there?  Heck, enact all the new spending separately, and the cost of “reform” would plummet!  Enact the new Medicaid spending separately, and the cost of “reform” would fall by $438 billion! Do it with the subsidies to private health insurance companies, and the cost of “reform” would plunge by $773 billion!  All that would be left of “reform” would be tax increases and Medicare payment cuts.  Health “reform” would dramatically reduce federal deficits!  Huzzah!

Except it wouldn’t, because at the end of the day Congress would be spending the same amount of money.

The only good news may be this.  If this dishonest budget gimmick succeeds, then Congress will have “fixed” Medicare’s physician payments.  Absent that “must pass” legislation, the Democrats health care takeover would lose momentum, and would have to stand on its own merit.  That would be good for the Republic, though not for the legislation.

(Cross-posted at Politico’s Health Care Arena.)

Beginning of the End for Bernanke

Fed Chairman Bernanke’s term as Chair ends in January 2010. So far President Obama has offered Bernanke praise for his performance, but little else. After last week’s House Oversight Committee hearing focusing on Bernanke’s role in Bank of America’s purchase of Merrill Lynch, it is now readily apparent that the Chairman has few supporters on Capitol Hill. While his nomination will not be subject to the approval of the House of Representatives, or any of its Committees, the Senate Banking Committee’s reaction to Treasury Secretary Geithner’s plan to extend the Fed’s power serves as a useful proxy in gauging that Committee’s view of the Fed’s recent performance.

Several recent polls show President Obama to be broadly popular with the American public, while the public holds some concern over the scope and cost of his policies. His policy that garners the least support has been his bailout and support for the auto industry. It is no secret that the American public was not enthusiastic about the bailouts at the time, and is even less so now. With Hank Paulson having left the stage, Bernanke is now the public face of corporate bailouts. While having Bernanke around may offer President Obama a convenient target for the public’s anger over bailouts, re-appointing Bernanke would finally force Obama’s hand – so far he’s managed to support the bailouts with little fallout, as Bush and others have taken the blame. Re-appointing Bernanke makes him Obama’s pick.

In addition to political risk to President Obama, one can assume that many Senate Democrats are not looking forward to having to vote for the man who bailed out AIG. It is a fair bet that many Republican Senators would not vote for Bernanke’s re-appointment, leaving it up to the Democrats to secure his re-appointment.

Whatever the merits, or flaws, in his performance as Federal Reserve Chair, support for Bernanke’s re-appointment is becoming a proxy for one’s support, or opposition, to corporate bailouts.