|
|
 Posted April 16th, 2010 at 11:59AM
The fact that “47% of Americans paid no federal income tax in 2009″ made the rounds recently as Americans geared up to pay their taxes again and rich white people picketed on the deadline to file, April 15th. My first reaction was, “Well, yeah, but seems like that burden is being shifted downward to the state and local level.” Dig a little deeper, and it turns out that more people are paying the feds than at first glance. Between payroll, medicare and social security, excise, and gas taxes, three-quarters of the population stand to pay something to the federal government this year, according to the Tax Policy Center.
And the average federal take – median of 18%, millionaires at 27% – trends toward reasonable, at least to the reasonably-inclined. The problem of course is the gap between what the government collects and what it spends. American sales tax is low compared to other nations, where a value-added tax, or VAT, is the norm. This method adds fractional tax percentages at each stage of production of a product, taxing the additional value. This taxes consumption more directly and would stand to raise a fair amount of additional revenue. Alone, a VAT can be seen as regressive, but a refundable tax credit – for lower income taxpayers who spend proportionately more of their income on necessary goods –solves that dilemma.
The overall American tax structure might not need drastic reform then, but incremental. Everyone acknowledges that cutting into the deficit will require both increased revenue and decreased spending. On the spending side, it’s popular to say that there are no easy answers, but I can think of a few right off the bat. The military budget continues to bloat, with total defense spending budgeted between $880 billion to $1 trillion in fiscal year 2010. It’s a sickening waste of money, the bulk of which stands to do nothing against the reigning terrorism bogeyman, but there’s little to no political will to start cutting the fat. Going hand in hand, the war on drugs continues to blow untold billions in federal, state, and local enforcement, lost wages and cost of imprisonment of offenders, and costs associated with failure to provide due treatment to those abusing. True reform of the tax code stands to bring in substantial additional revenue by cutting granddaddy entitlements and credits to business and special interests with no redeeming value.
But the obvious obstacle to all of this is hyperpartisanship and no one having any incentive until the plug is pulled by America’s creditors.
In summary: “wah wah wah!”
Posted March 22nd, 2010 at 3:32PM
So while things have been quiet around here, I’ve been following the healthcare debate closely. Kucinich’s change of heart mid last week coincided with mine, and so I was pleased with Representative Scott Murphy’s decision to vote in favor – and relieved when the final tallies were announced late last night.
My line of thinking is now along the lines that this legislation is (or at least, can be, optimistically assuming the best possible outcome – a great leap of faith) better than nothing. Nothing, coming after more than a year of effort on the part of the Democrats, always the consummate lesser of two evils. A failure here, pragmatically spelling the end of Hope with a capital H, and putting any future reform efforts on the back burner for another decade plus.
With two-thousand plus pages of legislation, I won’t make any claims to understanding anything beyond the easily digestible bullet points being paraded in the news. Earlier, I became hopeful that this legislation would actually affect me in the near term, with the clause allowing dependent children to stay on their parent’s plans till the age of 26. I am most definitely still dependent on my parents, and I am also under the age of 26 for another whopping three months. My eagerness to get back on the roles isn’t borne from my pre-existing condition (T2 diabetes – still very much under control), but for the recent ultimatum on my wisdom teeth – they’s gotsta go! (For years their place was secure, since apparently I have the jaw line and accompanying mouth space of one of homo sapien’s earlier ancestors. But while the top pair have come in fine, the bottoms still aren’t completely through, and the determination has been made that they need to come out. And the older I get, the less chance of my gums healing properly.)
But from what I can tell, this piece of the healthcare legislation won’t be applicable in my case. First off, although this is purportedly one of the pieces enacted immediately, I still found word that there is a six month grace period involved. Secondly, I can’t figure out whether this is applicable at all for all of the 21-26 year olds who’ve already been kicked off – can we just sign back on, or are we in a loophole? Thirdly, the wisdom teeth would most likely be deemed a “pre-existing condition” and not covered even if I was able to get insured for the next three months. (Pre-existing conditions will be a thing of the past for adults by 2014, children (real children) immediately.) Fourthly, and last, I just found out that New York has already had legislation that allows unmarried children to remain on their parent’s insurance – until the age of 30!
I don’t recall what age I was when I was kicked off of my parent’s insurance. It seemed an arbitrary age, and I remember it being before I even graduated from college. While attending, I had some very low cost plan associated with the college and assumed it would cover anything catastrophic. And I was uninsured when diagnosed with diabetes two years ago. I am not enthused at my chances of being re-enrolled, as the current for-profit healthcare system stands to gain nothing by having me insured getting proper medical treatment at an affordable cost. Therein lies the fundamental problem, an issue never at task over the past year of partisan squabbling.
Still, although I am yet another instance of an uninsured individual who will likely see nothing come from this legislation in the short term, I feel like I can only hope for the best in that the CBO estimates show some savings to be had, long term, nationally. If this effort was sunk, reform would not be attempted again, and this would undoubtedly result in a worsening of the crippled system – by the CBO’s own estimates. Further skyrocketing costs, millions more uninsured, more and more of the same.
It is hard to feel any satisfaction, or to even see this as a “victory.” Healthcare reform has been a significant issue for me for several election cycles. Watching the political process over the past year neuter the most substantial reforms has been disheartening. This legislative success looks to do nothing for the thousands still dying for lack of care. Perhaps the sense of victory will hold them over until 2014 or whenever the applicable parts of the bill come into effect. Premiums will surely increase astronomically while health insurance companies have free reign to do so.
Watching the whole debacle, I’m taken aback by the unscrupulousness of the Republicans, Waterloo-ing the issue the whole time; and by the emasculated nature of the Dems, incapable of passing substantial reform while in control of both Congress and the presidency. It’s hard to see how any progress can be made under this system.
Posted March 1st, 2010 at 12:20PM
Fatigued by the tea? Looking for a movement named after a drink popular with 21st century Americans? Look no further than the Coffee Party, a sorta-lame-at-first-glance rejoinder with a lot more going for it once you skim the surface:
Many of us had the same thought: the tactics being employed by the Tea Party movement are not likely to produce solutions to the problems that we face as a nation, and we urgently need an alternative.
It’s very hard to get people to rally around a new idea. But here I am reminding them of something that they already know: that we are all Americans. We should not divide ourselves over differences of opinion. We need to be one community. Our democracy is what unites us as a people. We must protect it, and to protect it we must engage in the political process, respecting the reality that we are diverse nation with diverse points of view.
- Annabel Park, founder of Coffee Party USA, via a live Q&A at the Washington Post
My initial reaction when getting the Facebook invite was of the “oh, that’s cute” nature. But with all the talk of participatory democracy, civic engagement, and public discourse, this nascent movement appears to be more Public Policy 201, less hysteric “Down Wit Gubment” herd mentality. And I can get behind any movement that actually addresses an issue at hand, of our fractured, tug-of-war method of governance. The schizoid two party system we have would seem amusing, but for actually living here and paying the taxes to support it.
Particularly disheartening this week was David Gregory, on Meet The Press doing his part to discredit the Mainstream Media, blithely glossing over all public opinion outside of the Tea Bagger movement, proclaiming that, “The only protests you’ve seen publicly are on the right in opposition to the [healthcare] bill.”
Truly, this would only be the case if your sole window on the world was the 6 o’clock news. Not only do I subscribe to newsletters of national movements in favor of reform (Healthcare-NOW!), but I have seen and heard of protest efforts coming from the left and center, across my local region. From demonstrations at the state Capitol, to the street corners of routes I take every day, there demonstrably are people frustrated at current national affairs, who still fall far short of the fanatical “fly a plane into an IRS building” stripe.
To say that the Right are the only ones expressing themselves is a fundamental failure of journalism, which purportedly exists to deliver news, not craft it as the NY Times has with New York’s coming gubernatorial election. I posit that perhaps 20th century news structures would not be in the dire straits they’re in if they were doing a better job at the close of the century. (Sometimes it feels like I only blog to contradict the notion of the blogosphere as a vast right-wing echo-chamber.)
The Tea Party is not an issue-based group per se, as far as limited or nonexistent government can be considered an “issue” (I consider it an ideology). It’s bizarre to think of Righties as sign-toting protesters, but then I can certainly empathize with the emotions of disconnect with government and the free press. They’re failing us all. Coffee is arguably the better direction; otherwise, politicos and big biz (I mean, the media) will continue to eagerly play us as fools. We need a fundamental redress of the systems at play, because TARP didn’t address the problems of Wall Street, and likewise with the stimulus and our economy. And while I’m not loony enough to proclaim government “the problem,” a nonfunctioning one certainly contributes to our ills.
Posted January 24th, 2010 at 1:59PM
Thursday’s decision, in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, “is going to flip the existing campaign order on its head,” said Benjamin L. Ginsberg, a Republican campaign lawyer at the law-and-lobbying firm Patton Boggs who has represented both candidates and outside groups, including Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group formed to oppose Senator John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign.
“It will put on steroids the trend that outside groups are increasingly dominating campaigns,” Mr. Ginsberg said.
Great, so expect this court decision to spur an even greater emphasis on dollars spent each election cycle, becoming ever larger the biggest determining factor in sorting winners from losers. It was always my interpretation that the bill of rights spoke for the rights of the US citizen, not institutions of any stripe. Obviously the Supreme Court has set off on a different understanding while attempting to cohere various first amendment rulings. Unfortunately the divergent result is to limit the individuals’ voice during the democratic process. From the NY Times op-ed -
The [Supreme Court] majority is deeply wrong on the law. Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money. They are given special privileges, including different tax rates, to do just that. It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate.
The majority also makes the nonsensical claim that, unlike campaign contributions, which are still prohibited, independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” If Wall Street bankers told members of Congress that they would spend millions of dollars to defeat anyone who opposed their bailout, and then did so, it would certainly look corrupt.
McCain for his part has called campaign finance reform “dead” and the majority ruling in the Supreme Court “naive.” It seems like Obama, being the constitutional law scholar he is, could chart the course toward renewed campaign finance reform, viewed constitutionally legal by this conservatively activist Court. It seems like the only hope for rational government down the line.
If payola and the exchange of money is granted a verifiable constitutional guarantee, where does that leave us? If freedom of expression extends to corporations buying elections, will it similarly extend to the individual looking to purchase crack cocaine or solicit prostitutes?
Posted January 20th, 2010 at 4:00PM
Whenever there are circumstances these days that require direction from the Oval Office, it becomes a chance to “test” Obama. During immediate coverage of the Haitian earthquake last week, Matt Lauer eagerly and repeatedly dubbed it a “test.” Or cite Biden’s flub over being tested within six months in office. Has No Child Left Behind progressed to the presidency, where we now compulsively scrutinize, dutifully grading along some cosmic POTUS curve?
Never mind the response he gives when asked to self-grade (who doesn’t give themselves an A?), but think of the ludicrous proportions that question assumes when posed to his predecessor – a man familiar only with the “gentleman’s C.” (No, I would not like to be shown to YouTube footage of aforementioned question being asked.)
No one has been pleased all of the time here, myself least of all. But Obama has arguably proven his acumen for the job by now. Can it with the ongoing tallying of job performance assessments and get to analyzing the policy already. Or dare I ask too much from broadcast news?
Posted November 12th, 2009 at 1:17PM
He told the media from his Saratoga Springs office on Monday that he believes health care reform is critical, but it’s coming at too high a cost to cornerstone businesses in the North Country. That is why he voted “no” on the bill.
Murphy says the bill makes a number of important reforms which he supported, however, such as lifetime caps on insurance benefits as well as the pre-existing condition exclusion – meaning an insurance company can refuse you if you have a preexisting medical condition.
But during Saturday’s vote in Washington, Murphy sided with 39 other Democrats who also voted with Republicans, saying the plan would put affordable health care out of reach of many small businesses and that it unfairly targets some Capital Region industries, like Finch Paper in Glens Falls.
I was surprised to see Smurphy vote against the healthcare bill in the house after being a supporter of the stimulus plan – and really the overall Dem agenda coming from Washington – since being elected. A talking head on the news the other night suggested that certain house Dems from conservative districts (Murphy included) may have very well been given the OK to dissent, political self-preservation in mind.
Was the vote orchestrated as such? If so, I feel the danger is that political calculation playing out too well. Because the real question is whether anyone interested in substantial reform should have supported the bill in the first place. In his public statement, Murphy faults the measure for affordability and putting an additional burden on area businesses.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, co-author of H.R. 676 (the single-payer bill that should have been included in this debate) was another ‘no’ Democratic vote. In part:
“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.”
“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.”
“But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care.
The final tally on H.R. 3962?
- A mandate to at least 21 million to buy into the broken system – resulting in an estimated $70 billion in new revenue to the health insurance industry
- A crippled public option, potentially enrolling only 6 million – available only to those people deemed unprofitable to insure privately
- Little to nothing in the way of cost containment or prevention
- A provision to allow states to implement their own single-payer (read: effective) systems was stripped from the final bill
- A four year period until the bill goes into effect, after the 2013 presidential elections. Seen the banking industry’s reaction to the grace period for new credit regulations? Enjoy watching healthcare costs balloon these next four years, and keep in mind the Journal of Public Health‘s recently published study estimating that 45,000 Americans die annually due to unaffordable, unobtainable treatment. What happened to the immediacy of reform?
It appears then that this is substantial reform in name only. Nader’s take:
Still Waiting for Health Care
…
During this overall debate on the bill, Republicans stood up one by one, as prevaricatory dittoheads, to often scream and howl (like coyotes) that this is “a government takeover of one sixth of the economy,” “would destroy the economy,” “put 5.5 million people out of work,” “destroy the doctor-patient relationship,” “be a steamroller of socialism,” “force millions of seniors to lose their current health coverage” (meaning, Medicare?) and, in a passionate appeal to the Almighty, Congressman John Fleming (R-LA) declared “God help us as the government takes over your day-to-day life.”
Never mind that this bill is just an expansion, however misdirected, of government health insurance designed to increase corporate profits and increase the corporate grip over the day-to-day decisions regarding who, when and how people get their health care or get their bills paid.
So whether Murphy’s vote was political calculation or not, I can hardly fault it.
UPDATE: More, from today’s Healthcare-NOW! newsletter:
So is the House bill better than nothing?
“I don’t think so,” writes Marcia Angell, M.D., former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. “It simply throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance industry. The danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we’ve tried health reform and it didn’t work. But the real problem will be that we didn’t really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right.”
Given that the bill does nothing to contain or reduce rising costs or end the private health insurance industry’s dominance, we hoped that the Progressive Caucus would stand strong. But they did not. All but two of H.R. 676′s cosponsors voted for H.R. 3962 — Rep. Eric Massa [D-NY] and Rep. Kucinich [D-OH].
Rep. Massa stated, “At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There’s really no other way to look at it.”
Posted September 6th, 2009 at 12:21PM
Looking at the main news stories of the day can make your head spin. Obama’s planned televised pep talk has been churned into a massive indoctrination plot. His adviser on green jobs, Van Jones, resigns for signing a petition, with Congressman Mike Pence saying that, “His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate.” Cheney, meanwhile, continues to pardon each new brutality revealed to have occurred during his watch. (Power drills? Condonable? Really?) And on the healthcare front, all indications are to expect major concessionary overtones the next time Obama comes on air.
As the guy on Meet The Press said today: at some point, you just look at some of the headlines of the day and think, “That’s flat out stupid.”
I’d say it’s bizarre, and we’ve been here for awhile. Recent news cycles have been on a rightward spiral since the perceived stall in healthcare reform. It’s the hard right segment of the public that’s framing every debate right now.
On healthcare, I’m feeling more and more ambivalent about said efforts. I had enough concerns about a “robust” public option. But for it to be crippled or completely axed? Expanded Medicare for people deemed unprofitable to insure, operating under the current rules of the game, will result in huge, unsustainable government bloat. So OK – go the incremental route. But make sure to drop the ‘substantial’ from before the Health Insurance Reform banners.
For certain, there would be a much smaller cost of implementing reforms absent any direct gov’t effort to insure more people. Incremental reform for incremental results. The public option fails mostly because it’s an additional cost to the taxpayer, above and beyond their current exorbitant insurance premiums. Place the burden only on the $250k+’ers? Fine, “tax the rich,” but it’s disingenuous way to fund reform. And no plan currently being floated in the mainstream ensures access to everyone. I’ll go ahead and beat the dead horse: a single-payer system paid equitably (based on ability, allowing a progressive curve) would be healthcare paid for by the people using it.
Why can’t we have an honest discussion about the way we already spend our healthcare dollars? Serious reform efforts may mean increased government spending, but hysterically delineating between private and public sidesteps the real issue of out-of-control costs.
Canada’s healthcare expenses under their single-payer system are similarly outpacing inflation – but that’s a worldwide trend, and their’s is to a lesser extent than our private insurance boondoggle. Their government is doing a better job of reigning in costs than our market system. If Americans are so lousy at self-governance that we can’t insure our own citizens, who are we to be dictating terms to Afghans? Hell, we oppose their sole source of real income, poppies. 
|
Tags: 
