City Pensions

They’re in trouble. You knew that, though, as city budgets have long favored spending more than revenue, especially spending on public union pensions and other retirement benefits, and so debts piled up—and continue to amass.

One particular arena where that’s having potentially deleterious effect is in pensions with benefits like paid (or mostly paid) health plans.

Cities and states can’t afford to keep the same medical benefits they promised government retirees.
For all 50 states combined, revenue declines for 2020 and 2021 could reach 13% cumulatively, according to Moody’s Analytics projections, while the average cost of an employer health-care plan for an individual increased 4% in 2020 to $7,470, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation nonprofit.

The current excuse is the Wuhan Virus situation having crushed sales-tax income and tourism dollars. In the end, though, the specific crisis du jour isn’t important: there always will be a crisis that will crush city revenues. An example of the reach of any crisis is this:

The Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund sponsored a self-insured health-care plan for its retirees from 1975 to 2018, said fund spokesman David Graham.
“With no dedicated funding source for this plan, it eventually became unsustainable,” Mr Graham said in a written statement, adding that retirees would have had to increase their contributions to keep the health-care fund solvent.

There’s a hint, in that “dedicated funding source.” There needn’t be one could retiree pension health “benefits” be structured differently.

That brings me to the “potentially deleterious” bit. Deleteriosity is only potential because the overall situation presents opportunity: privatizing health plan provision, returning the provisioning to true health insurance—premiums based on the risks being transferred to the coverage provider—and using the free market and its intrinsically competitive nature to govern both customer costs—those premiums—and product quality.  Quality especially would include the breadth of insurance products offered: single or a very few health matters insured; suites of preventive health care insurance for standard items like colds and flu, annual checkups; a broad range of other coverage offerings that might be relatively specific or relatively broad.

That opportunity often will be beyond an individual city’s capability to implement, but aggregations of cities might approach the capacity, and certainly at the national level, the health coverage industry can be privatized and included in the nation’s free market economy. At that point, cities would be able to step out of the health coverage business altogether beyond—perhaps—providing a cafeteria of market plans purchased on the open, free market for their city employee retirees.

More opportunity: with retirees responsible for choosing their own plans with which to satisfy their own needs and desires and paying for those plans with their own money—as grown adults, they really are capable of that without Big Brother Government or overreaching unions “helping”—they’ll take both their health and their insurance costs seriously.

The Biden Tax Plan

…will be a disaster for our economy.  Here are some examples of the damage Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s tax plan will inflict.

Earnings reductions are directly translatable into jobs reductions—higher unemployment.

And this bit of cynicism from “a campaign employee” that’s all too typical of Biden himself:

There is no reason that an economic plan that asks everyone to pay their fair share while doing more to reach full-employment quicker with more jobs and stronger growth should not help everyone from essential workers to investors.

Notice that: the campaign, along with Biden and his—I am the Democratic Party—Party, steadfastly refuse to say what their fair share is, besides more.

Raising Taxes on Day One

That’s what Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden has said he intends to do; his latest iteration of that intent was last Thursday in a CNN interview.

I’d make the changes on the corporate taxes on day one[.]

Leaving aside the…foolishness…of implementing such an attack on our economy’s health, there has been pushback on the Day One timing—no President, not even a Progressive-Democratic one, can raise taxes by fiat; such a move can only come from the Congress (and subsequently signed by a President or his veto overridden).

That brings up the scenario by which such a raise could, in fact, be implemented on the first day of a President’s term.

Recall that the new Congress always is seated roughly two-and-a-half weeks before the President is inaugurated. (That’s useful, since in the event a Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate doesn’t achieve an outright majority in the Electoral College, it’s the relevant house of Congress that selects the President or Vice President.) If the new Congress has Progressive-Democrat majorities in both the House and the Senate, it easily can pass the relevant tax increases and have the bill ready for the new President to sign into law in the hour after his swearing-in on 20 January 2021—Day One.

That adds to the premium on voting Republican all up and down the ticket in a bit under two months.

The Size of the Drift

ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos is the latest member of the media to portray Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA) as a moderate choice for Joe Biden’s running mate.

Stephanopoulos went on to add

Kamala Harris comes from the middle of the road, moderate wing of the Democratic party….

Harris’ positions include

  • supporting vastly raising tax rates, beginning with—but not ending there, rescinding the 2017 tax rate cuts
  • eliminating private insurance altogether and replacing it with Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I, VT) Medicare for All
  • limiting, in contravention of the 2nd Amendment, Americans’ access to weapons of which she personally disapproves
  • legalizing marijuana, never minding the damage marijuana chemicals do to developing brains
  • pushing for the Green New Deal
  • supporting far more open borders than currently exist—no more wall
  • canceling outright up to $20,000 in student loans for selected groups of students
  • heavily limiting the ability of oil and gas companies to produce the energy our economy needs
  • raising the minimum wage to $15/hr
  • “studying” reparations
  • eliminating the Electoral College
  • removing most of the existing limits on abortion.

She’s likened police departments to the KKK.

She’s also the most liberal and least inclined to bipartisanship of all the Progressive-Democrats in the Senate according to GovTrack.

It’s a strong measure of how far left the Progressive-Democratic Party has gone that a person with those positions is considered a member of the moderate, middle of the road wing of the party.

Pen and Phone

The editors at The Wall Street Journal expressed worry about President Donald Trump’s use of his “pen and phone” over the weekend to render the Congressional Progressive-Democrats’ obstructionism regarding Wuhan Virus relief for Americans irrelevant. They think he’s aping too closely ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) pen and phone.

It’s true that Trump is using his pen and phone. The differences between his actions and Obama’s, though, are two: Trump is undoing Obama’s pen and phone actions, not creating new things—with this exception, which is the other critical difference: Obama’s actions were largely illegal, struck down on legal challenge; Trump’s have proven legal, in the main, upheld on legal challenge.

The editors are worried about this use in particular:

Mr Trump’s FEMA order is a bad legal precedent that a President Kamala Harris could cite if a GOP Congress blocked her agenda on, say, climate change.

This is mistaken. For one thing, not doing a useful thing because a bad person (of either party) might misuse it later is simply foolish. If the thing is useful, it’s usefully done. Full stop.

For another thing, Obama already set the general precedent—Congress not performing to his satisfaction was his rationale for his own pen and phone use.

Finally, the question of precedent enabling a President Harris to use FEMA funds on her global warming agenda—to take a particular example—is plain wrong. Harris needs no precedent to use FEMA funds for her agenda; she’d do that anyway. And set her own precedent, without a care.

RTWT, though. Aside from this last item, it’s a generally soundly reasoned piece.