Tag Archives: taxes

Another Non-Existent Idea for Health Care Reform

Posted on by
Reply

The Republican Study Committee has offered yet another Obamacare alternative in a long line of Obamacare alternatives Republicans have offered in the past two-three years.  The gist of the latest alternative is this:

Title I – Repeal of Obamacare

Title II – Increasing Access to Portable, Affordable Health Insurance

  • levels the playing field between those who receive insurance from an employer and those purchasing it in the individual market: replacesthose with qualifying health plan receive an SDHI of $7,500 (individuals) or $20,000 (families) which will apply to income and payroll taxes, and will increase at CPI-U
    • 1) the current uncapped tax benefit for employer-sponsored health insurance
    • 2) the self-employed tax deduction with an above-the-line standard deduction for health insurance (SDHI)
  • full SDHI goes to the individual or family regardless of the cost of the policy bought—the SDHI above the cost goes right into the individual’s or family’s pocketbook
  • expand access to and allowable expenses for health savings accounts (HSAs), increase the maximum allowable contribution into HSAs, and allow employers to offer a larger benefit for successful completion of a wellness program

Title III – Improving Access to Insurance for Vulnerable Americans

  • expand federal support for state high risk pools to $25 billion over 10 years
  • guarantees that individuals with pre-existing conditions can move between the large group, small group, and individual health insurance markets, so long as they maintain continuous coverage

Title IV – Encouraging a More Competitive Health Care Market

  • allows Americans to purchase health insurance products across state lines
  • permits small businesses to pool together to negotiate better rates

Title V – Reforming Medical Liability Law

  • caps non-economic damages, and limits attorney fees

Title VI – Respecting Human Life

  • prohibits federal funds authorized or appropriated by this act from covering abortion, except in the case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is jeopardized
  • ensures that no state pro-life or conscience protection laws will be preempted

But this doesn’t exist; Democrats say Republicans have offered no alternatives.

Because Stuff Happens

Posted on by
Reply

Another seemingly mendacious defense of Obamacare.  Congressman Jackie Speier (D, CA) decries objections to unqualified or even unvetted Obamacare “Navigators” having access to individual Americans’ health and financial data.  Speier dismisses the concerns as just a

systematic effort by some Republican state officials to obstruct implementation of the Affordable Care Act[.]

She’s joined by HHS spokesman Brian Cook, who insists,

The navigator program is similar to Medicare counselors, which have existed for years and never faced this kind of criticism from Congress.  The shameful and unprecedented attempt by some in Congress to bully and intimidate these private organizations is clearly an ideologically driven attempt to prevent uninsured Americans from gaining health coverage.

Never mind that personal medical and financial data weren’t so easily hacked into when Medicare was being gutsed up.  Hey, stuff happens, and we should just live with it.

Wrong.  These people know stuff happens, and they should be getting in the way of it, not excusing it.

Now That’s Just Dumb

Posted on by
Reply

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan and others are quietly floating the idea of accepting a slightly higher tax on capital income in order to win support from Democrats on tax reform.

“Capital income” includes both capital gain and dividend income.  But if you raise the taxes on investment, you’ll get less of it.  Any high school student of economics knows this.

[C]ommittee insiders in the House tell us that Republicans have been weighing the trade-off between higher taxes on capital in exchange for lower rates on wages and salaries and small businesses.

To what end?  This tax policy just distorts the market and our economy, even more than the existing tax-code-as-social-engineering-tool already does.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, a Democrat, wants to equalize the rates for capital gains and taxes on wages and salaries.  For Democrats, he has said, this is a matter “of basic fairness.”

Fair or not, I agree with the idea of equalizing “the rates for capital gains and taxes on wages and salaries.”  A flat tax of 10% on all income, regardless of source, does the trick.  And a low, flat tax won’t distort our economy.  Although, it will take away a vote buying tool that members of both parties use for personal political gain: promising “lower taxes” by Republicans and selling tax credits and subsidies by Democrats.  That’s not dumb.

The Coming Budget Debacle

Posted on by
Reply

House Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) has figured out—or is finally willing to say out loud—that attempts to negotiate with President Barack Obama or with Senate Democrats over the content of the next budget, or on the debt ceiling, are wastes of bandwidth.

Obama already has announced that he won’t discuss the debt ceiling—he simply demands that it be raised commensurate with his spending increase demands.  The rest of the Democrats demand tax increases—or else.

In line with this, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D, WS) is demanding a balanced approach to “deficit reduction.”

Actually, there’s much with which to agree in Murray’s demand.  We should have a balanced approach: to debt reduction, though (which, of necessity, includes deficit reduction, to the point of its elimination).  That balance is eminently well achieved by reducing taxes and then cutting spending to pay for that.

But this is a thing utterly inconceivable to Democrats, hence the coming debacle.  Or, Republicans will fold, again, creating an even bigger debacle.

The Recovery that Isn’t

Posted on by
Reply

In a recent piece in The Wall Street Journal about post-Panic borrowing increases, James Sterngold and Matt Wirz had an interesting graphic showing the evolution of the US economy from just prior to that Panic to today.  Excerpted below is the part of that graphic indicating the jobs market evolution.

The graph is hard to read; here are some highlights:

  • More than 21 million Americans wanting a job at the 2010 peak, over 18 million still in that strait today.
  • Just under 16 million Americans out of work for at least 27 weeks (over 6 months), still nearly 12 million in that strait today.
  • Dropping out of the market due to discouragement in finding work—of any sort—peaking at over 1 million per year and still nearly that today.
  • Labor force participation rate near a 35 year low.

And there’s this, which takes a longer look at that last bullet:

Notice that bit on the right: after the Panic’s official end, participation rate continued to plummet.

As the WSJ points out,

If the participation rate merely returned to what it was at the end of the recession, nearly four million more Americans would be collecting a paycheck.

Had our recovery progressed as a normal one does, we’d be here:

A normal recovery coming out of a downturn as deep and steep as the Panic of 2009 typically sees growth rates of 5%-6% per year, or more.  This Obama recovery has been 6.7% over the entirety of his term in office—nearly five years.  Had we seen a normal recovery (and using a pessimistic 5%/year growth rate), we would have reached today’s unemployment rate after a bit over one year—late 2010—and we would have been back to full employment (in the range of 4.8%-5.5%) in just under 2 years—two years ago.

Had our recovery progressed as President Barack Obama promised it would when he was stumping for and signing the massive 2009 Stimulus Bill, we’d be here:

He promised in 2009 a 5.5% unemployment rate by a couple of years ago.  How many new jobs would have been created had we actually reached his promised number?  In December 2009 (some six months after the nominal end of the Panic of 2009), the civilian labor force was 153 million, of which 137.8 million Americans were employed, a 10% unemployment rate, according to BLS statistics, and using round numbers.

In August 2013, again using BLS numbers, the civilian labor force was larger, at 155.5 million (and it had a smaller participation rate than in 2009, but we’ll gloss over that for now).  There were some 144.2 million Americans actually employed.

However, a 5.5% unemployment rate corresponds, if my 1st grade arithmetic serves me well, to 94.5% of the civilian labor force actually employed: 146.5 million Americans.  Again consulting my 1st grade arithmetic book, there are some 2.3 million Americans that should be employed but aren’t—because Obama’s proudly proclaimed policies have come up short, and we aren’t anywhere near 5.5% unemployment.

Finally, there’s this:

Current population: 313.9 million
Current civilian labor force: 155.5 million
Current labor force participation rate: 63.2
Current unemployment rate: 7.3%
Employed Americans: 144.2 million
Unemployed Americans: 11.3 million of those looking for work

2007 population: 301.1 million
2007 civilian labor force (last full year before the Panic): 153.1 million
2007 labor force participation rate: 65.8%
2007 unemployment rate: 4.6%
2007 Employed Americans: 146 million
2007 unemployed Americans: 7.1 million

Over the last six years, our population grew by 4.3%; our labor force population grew less than that, at 1.6%; our employed population shrank by 1.2%; and our unemployed population grew, a lot.  We’re not even keeping up.

Yet despite these obvious failures of Progressive policies, Obama and his Senate counterparts threaten to shut down our government and blow up our national credit rating and with it our economy, if he’s not allowed to have more spending increases, yet higher taxes, and a yet higher debt ceiling so he can borrow to pay for his spending (because he knows higher taxes won’t cover it; he just wants the higher taxes because…well, just because).