Tag Archives: spending

Medicare Funding

Posted on by
2

The fund Medicare uses to pay hospitals will run out in the next 15 years, and experts say there are no easy answers to solve it.

Certainly not politically easy answers, and that does matter. However, the practical answer is quite simple, if expensive in the transition.

Keep everyone 55 and older in the current Medicare system, with the individual option to leave that system in favor of the one I’ve proposed many times and summarize here. It’s important to note also that the “experts” are referring only to Medicare Part A, the hospitalization part. My reform is broader and applies to Medicare Parts B, payments to physicians, and D, drug coverage.

Rescind the payroll taxes from both the employer and younger-than-55 employee, while requiring the employee to put his payroll tax equivalent into what would be essentially a Health Savings Account. This New Model HSA would contain investment vehicles of the account owner’s choosing—including stocks, bonds, mutual funds for the same, bank savings accounts, etc—and be held for the benefit of the account holder. Unlike the Old Model HSA, with its shameful limits, the NMHSA would have no income limits on contributions, no annual limits on contributions, no requirement to have a High Deductible Health Coverage Policy, none of those government-mandated limits.

Of course, this can’t happen in a vacuum. In conjunction with this, the bankrupt* Social Security system needs to be similarly privatized, also, and the overly expensive Medicare system blocked granted, on a declining-to-zero schedule, to the States. These need to be done, too, with significant tax rate reductions and Federal spending cuts (and not just one-time gimmicks or reductions in spending growth).

Most, if not all of the cost of the transition can be covered by that spending and taxing reform.

 

*Bankrupt: not strictly so because in a few short years, while the Social Security Trust Fund will be emptied of money, current payroll taxes still will be available to make the payouts, requiring the payouts to drop to 75% of their presently scheduled values.

Update: Corrected an empty reference to Part C to the correct reference to Part D.

Democrats and Unions

Posted on by
Reply

Illinois’ Democrat-controlled legislature—both houses—passed a budget earlier this year that spent $4 billion more than it intended to collect in revenue: a $36 billion spending bill against a $32 billion revenue bill. Never mind the rank dishonesty of this—bankrupt Illinois has no hope of raising those $4 billion except by borrowing, and these Democrat legislaturists know that. They have no intention, then, of repaying the borrowing, and that’s the dishonesty.

But leave that aside for a moment, and consider the following.

Governor Bruce Rauner (R) vetoed the bill because of that deficit, so the State is operating without a budget. Nevertheless, Rauner said the State would keep paying its government employees; as AFSCME said in support of Rauner’s decision,

public service workers in state government are on the job despite the lack of a state budget…and they should be paid for their work on time and in full.

Well, not so fast. Illinois’ Democrat Attorney General Lisa Madigan (just by happenstance, she’s also the daughter of the State’s Democrat Speaker of the House, Michael Madigan, whose own father was a New Deal pusher), with the full backing of her Democrat legislaturists, went into Illinois’ courts to block payment for those same “public service workers.”

Strictly to make a political point for their own benefit, these legislaturist Democrats are trying to prevent their employees from being paid, and they’re using their (erstwhile?) union allies as speed cushions for their bus. The Democratic Party of Illinois is typical of the national Democratic Party.

Some Economics Numbers

Posted on by
Reply

…from the Tax Foundation, via AEIdeas. First this graph (right-click on it to get a bigger, more readable version):TaxMap_100-Map

The figures are regional price parities of $100 for each of the 50 states, where the national average price is taken as 100. In other words, whereas on average across the whole country, $100 would buy $100 worth of goods, in California those $100 would buy only $89 and change, in Arkansas those $100 would buy a bit over $114 worth of the same goods. The bulk of the differences across the US was driven by relative housing costs: California’s housing, for instance, costs one-third more than the national average while Arkansas’ housing is one-third cheaper.

Mark Perry expanded on these data in his article at the AEIdeas link above, and adjusted per-capita personal income for differences in personal taxes and those price levels. California, based solely on income, ranked 12th in the nation at $48.5k per person. After adjusting for California’s tax bite and pricing, though, the value of a California’s average citizen fell to just $34.8k, dropping California to 37th in the nation the value of that nominal income.

Arkansas, on the other hand, started out 43rd in unadjusted income, with a citizen getting $36.7k. After tax and price level adjustment, though, the state rose to 31st, with that income becoming $35.5k.

There’s something to be said for cost of living and taxes in determining where actual prosperity resides.

Another Government Has Shut Down

Posted on by
Reply

…at least partially, and again over Democrats’ intransigence with fiscal responsibility. Tom Corfman, of Crain’s Chicago Business:

The financial situation in Illinois has been dire for a number of year. What brings it to a head is the election of Governor Bruce Rauner, a Republican with a strong agenda to change the state. At the same time, he faces opposition from the Democratic legislature and their constituents.

Indeed. Rauner won’t agree to any tax increases unless the Democrats agree to making the state more friendly to business: which means reducing Illinois’ regulatory environment, reducing spending (including on the Teachers Union’s schools), and reducing taxes generally, especially on businesses.

But those Democrats have to have their spending. Never mind that the state has the nation’s lowest credit rating, the nation’s most underfunded state pension system, and the nation’s largest deficit at the state level.

It’s only money.

A Reason

Posted on by
Reply

…to decertify public “service” unions. And to terminate for cause the government’s “negotiators” for agreeing to such a thing.

Under the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, “official time” was named, and it allows public service union members to use company time—that is, time they’re formally working for the government in a government job as a government employee—to do union administrative things. Doing union-specific work on the government’s clock also means they’re being paid by the government—by us taxpayers—to do union, and not government, work.

The thinking behind this little fillip was the premise that the union bargains in the name of all government employees, whether they’re union members or not, and this was a way to compensate the union for those alleged extra costs.

Like all sweetheart deals, this one has gotten out of hand.

According to the Office of Personnel Management, in 2012 (the most recent year there are statistics for) federal workers spent 3.4 million man-hours on union issues and not the work they were hired for. OPM estimates the cost to taxpayers was more than $157 million.

What’s more, at two government agencies that would seem least able to afford a loss of manpower—the Veterans Affairs Department and IRS—hundreds of workers spent 100% of their time doing union work. At the VA, 259 employees worked solely on union issues. At the IRS—which only disclosed their statistics when the National Review sent them a Freedom of Information Act request—the number was 201.

But wait—there’s more:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 939,000 federal workers belonged to a union in 2014. Another 139,000 were covered by collective bargaining agreements, but weren’t in a union. That brings the total number of employees covered by the unions to 31.6% of the total federal workforce.

However, there’s no requirement for any union to bargain for non-union employees, nor is there any requirement for any employer—even the government—to apply union contract terms to non-union members. Indeed, there’s no requirement for non-union employees to accept union contract terms as their own employment terms.

And so there are no costs for bargaining for the benefit of non-union employees. There never has been, requirement or cost; those are just fictions peddled by self-serving union leadership in order to get more money for union coffers.

Hence my call for decertification and termination.