"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying
to lift himself up by the handle." -- Winston Churchill
The Obama campaign has spent a lot of time pushing the idea that Romney’s tax plan will:
• Only benefit the wealthy
• Result in more burden being placed on the middle class and will do nothing to help the poor
• Add $5-8 trillion in additional deficits
• Is a return to the policies of Bush that “created the financial mess”
I find that most of the “studies” (or in many cases, there is even a lack of a study being used) or views pushed by the mainstream media are just thinly disguised regurgitations of campaign news releases that use studies that are funded by partisan research tanks or where the methodology used is at least questionable. I prefer to use non-partisan research or reading actual government research/papers (and reading the footnotes and doing my own work) to make up my mind on where I stand on an issue. One of my favorite sites is www.taxfoundation.org. They have been around forever and do non-partisan research on taxation. They are not funded by a political PAC.
Here is a link to a summary of their recent analysis of Romney’s tax plan:
http://taxfoundation.org/article/simulating-economic-effects-romneys-tax-plan
I highly encourage you to read it. Some of the highlights:
• Romney’s tax plan would grow GDP by 7.4% over the next 5-10 years
• Private business would grow by 7.8% and the reduction in corporate tax rates (the US has among the HIGHEST in the world contrary to popular opinion) would pay for itself
• Two-thirds of the growth in GDP would go to labor income – increased work hours and work wages across the board
• Every income group experiences at least a 7% increase in income. Yes, that means wealthy people make more too. I really don’t understand why wealthy people(folks whose combined household incomes are $200K or more) are so demonized by the Obama campaign, especially since so many of his donors (like Beyonce and Jay Z, Barbara Steisand, etc.) are extremely wealthy people. Like many wealthy people, Obama’s wealthy friends create jobs, often donate more to charitable works, start and invest in corporations/businesses, and ironically most of them also hire tax consultants/advisors to help them reduce their tax liability. (I have never understood that – if they think that the wealthy should pay more in taxes…than shouldn’t they not have a consultant or advisor tell them how to pay less?) Shouldn’t we have a system where people want to and aspire to be wealthy and prosperous?
• The Romney plan would recover nearly 60% of the static cost of the tax reduction.
• “People need to be aware that each dollar of federal spending costs them several dollars in lost wages and income from saving due to the economic damage from the taxes imposed. In the case of the Romney tax plan, each $1 of lost government revenue would raise incomes by nearly $8. Would the public be willing to trade a $1 reduction in government spending for an additional $8 in personal income? Some elements of the Romney plan yield even higher benefits to the public, raising incomes and employment with no cost, and some benefit, to the federal budget, and actually help to pay for the other tax reductions.”
• “The Romney tax plan is very nearly as powerful as the Kennedy tax cuts that were phased in between 1962 and 1965. The Romney plan is as strong in lowering the service price of capital, mainly due to its 10 percentage point cut in the corporate tax rate. The Kennedy cuts included a four point reduction in the corporate tax rate, a 7 percent investment tax credit, and faster depreciation write-offs. The Romney plan’s 20 percent across-the-board individual cuts are of the same pattern as the roughly 20 percent across-the-board Kennedy individual income tax rate cuts. The Kennedy tax cuts were not paid for with tax offsets (base broadeners) but were accompanied by some spending reductions. The economy surged following the Kennedy cuts, “broadening” the tax base through economic growth and employment gains, which is the best kind of base broadener there is. The federal deficit was significantly lower in 1965 ($1.4 billion) than in 1961 ($3.3 billion) before the tax cuts began to take effect.”
• “By contrast, the Johnson 10 percent Vietnam War surtax on individual and corporate income between 1968 and 1970 helped to trigger the 1969-1970 recession. The deficit fell but at a steep price in lost jobs and falling incomes.”
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The US Employment Situation -- Are We Better Off Than We Were 4 Years Ago?
As some of you know, I was a political science major. This has made me a lifelong skeptic of the numbers and statistics that politicians spout off and the thinly disguised regurgitated press releases that most of the mainstream media calls “objective journalistic reporting” during an election year. The only way to get any relatively unbiased information is to look at what the nonpartisan (or somewhat nonpartisan) number crunchers say and to read the footnotes and tables that follow.
The President is claiming that unemployment is going down and that he's created jobs. But a closer look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics report from September provides details that show Obama's claims that things on the employment front are getting better is far from accurate.
Points to consider:
• The number of people who are considered "not part of the labor force" (which includes a group labeled “people who want a job”) is increasing (however they are classified as not being part of the unemployed – why I don’t know) - in fact since Sept 2008 the total # of people considered “not part of the labor force” has grown by more than 10% (and yes, it is also up from Sept 2011).
• Comparing just the number of people who want jobs (but who are not considered part of the labor force according to the BLS) in September 2012 with September 2008 -- the number of people who want jobs but who are included by BLS in the “not part of the labor force” numbers has grown by more than 30% (that's more than 1.5 million more people who are not considered as part of what is used to calculate the "published" unemployment rate). As someone who has studied research methods and statistics, I do not understand how someone who wants a job but doesn’t have one cannot be considered part of the unemployment calculation.
• It doesn’t matter if you are white, Asian, black, Hispanic/Latino, male or female, young or old – in every single category, the number of people who are categorized by BLS as “not in the labor force” has increased (Sept 2008 vs Sept 2012, Sept 2011 vs Sept 2012).
• The real unemployment rate (which includes folks who have given up) is 14.7% (seasonally adjusted), not 7.8%. This compares with September 2008 when the real unemployment rate was 10.6% (part of what is called the “Great Recession”).
• Now some might argue that every president/administration does this playing with numbers, especially during election cycles. But note that the % increase in this group grew less than 4% between the September 2004 and September 2008 reports…September 2008 was another election season. In fact, when I looked through what reports were available that used this statistic, the jump in the % growth of people put into the “want a job” but “not part of the labor force” between election cycles from 2008 to 2012 is by far the highest ever and more than twice that of the second highest jump (Sept 1996 to Sept 2000).
Sources: US Bureau of Labor Statistics (September 2008 and September 2012 reports)
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf (Sept 2012 BLS Employment Situation Report Summary)
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_10032008.pdf (Sept 2008 BLS Employment Situation Report Summary)
The President is claiming that unemployment is going down and that he's created jobs. But a closer look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics report from September provides details that show Obama's claims that things on the employment front are getting better is far from accurate.
Points to consider:
• The number of people who are considered "not part of the labor force" (which includes a group labeled “people who want a job”) is increasing (however they are classified as not being part of the unemployed – why I don’t know) - in fact since Sept 2008 the total # of people considered “not part of the labor force” has grown by more than 10% (and yes, it is also up from Sept 2011).
• Comparing just the number of people who want jobs (but who are not considered part of the labor force according to the BLS) in September 2012 with September 2008 -- the number of people who want jobs but who are included by BLS in the “not part of the labor force” numbers has grown by more than 30% (that's more than 1.5 million more people who are not considered as part of what is used to calculate the "published" unemployment rate). As someone who has studied research methods and statistics, I do not understand how someone who wants a job but doesn’t have one cannot be considered part of the unemployment calculation.
• It doesn’t matter if you are white, Asian, black, Hispanic/Latino, male or female, young or old – in every single category, the number of people who are categorized by BLS as “not in the labor force” has increased (Sept 2008 vs Sept 2012, Sept 2011 vs Sept 2012).
• The real unemployment rate (which includes folks who have given up) is 14.7% (seasonally adjusted), not 7.8%. This compares with September 2008 when the real unemployment rate was 10.6% (part of what is called the “Great Recession”).
• Now some might argue that every president/administration does this playing with numbers, especially during election cycles. But note that the % increase in this group grew less than 4% between the September 2004 and September 2008 reports…September 2008 was another election season. In fact, when I looked through what reports were available that used this statistic, the jump in the % growth of people put into the “want a job” but “not part of the labor force” between election cycles from 2008 to 2012 is by far the highest ever and more than twice that of the second highest jump (Sept 1996 to Sept 2000).
Sources: US Bureau of Labor Statistics (September 2008 and September 2012 reports)
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf (Sept 2012 BLS Employment Situation Report Summary)
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_10032008.pdf (Sept 2008 BLS Employment Situation Report Summary)
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Government Fuzzy Math....
No, this isn't a blog about the budget...although there's plenty of fuzzy math in those numbers (but that's a story for another day).
Today, I'm thinking about a simple issue: jobs. To hear our government tell it, things are on the upswing and unemployment is WAYYYYY down. But as we know, Uncle Sam has a funny way of calculating the numbers.
The Bureau of Labor only includes those who are without full time employment in its estimates of the unemployment rate. Seems simple enough, right? Problem is that the BLS numbers don't give the full story. As any student or professor of economics will tell you, a nation's lack of productivity is not simply defined as "people who aren't working full time"...but is more aptly defined as "who can be productive but isn't."
What the numbers don't include are people who have given up looking for a job -- but still would want one and folks who want to and are able to work full time but have been forced to take a part-time job. According to a recent Washington Post article, most economists believe that this population of able-bodied -- but unemployed or underemployed -- workers has grown by nearly 30% in the last three years.
Let's not forget the many able bodied but non-tax paying adults who are multigenerational recipients of welfare. Yup, they don't count either....but in my opinion, they should be part of those we count as unemployed as well (because frankly they are).
When people are working, they are not only being productive members of society but they will also become active consumers of products and services as well. People who are employed both add value and consume value -- and that is what is needed for our economy to recover. No fuzzy government math needed : ).
Today, I'm thinking about a simple issue: jobs. To hear our government tell it, things are on the upswing and unemployment is WAYYYYY down. But as we know, Uncle Sam has a funny way of calculating the numbers.
The Bureau of Labor only includes those who are without full time employment in its estimates of the unemployment rate. Seems simple enough, right? Problem is that the BLS numbers don't give the full story. As any student or professor of economics will tell you, a nation's lack of productivity is not simply defined as "people who aren't working full time"...but is more aptly defined as "who can be productive but isn't."
What the numbers don't include are people who have given up looking for a job -- but still would want one and folks who want to and are able to work full time but have been forced to take a part-time job. According to a recent Washington Post article, most economists believe that this population of able-bodied -- but unemployed or underemployed -- workers has grown by nearly 30% in the last three years.
Let's not forget the many able bodied but non-tax paying adults who are multigenerational recipients of welfare. Yup, they don't count either....but in my opinion, they should be part of those we count as unemployed as well (because frankly they are).
When people are working, they are not only being productive members of society but they will also become active consumers of products and services as well. People who are employed both add value and consume value -- and that is what is needed for our economy to recover. No fuzzy government math needed : ).
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Lessons from Milton Friedman....
A friend recently sent me this video from a 1979 interview of Milton Friedman. Good stuff!
Friday, October 29, 2010
RIP TARP? Not quite...well actually, not really at all
A latest article from the Associated Press indicates that despite Treasury Secretary Geithner's super spin that the "bailouts are completely behind us", reality is that the bank bailout program (TARP) is far from over and that it will likely take many, many years to recoup the funds.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101029/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bailouts_rising_costs
By its own admission, Treasury officials have contracted for services -- with TARP funds -- without being able to describe what exactly the funds will be used for because it's not needed yet. That's sort of like me paying for car insurance for a car I don't own or drive yet...huh?
Just four more days...let's hope some common sense gets voted into office!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101029/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bailouts_rising_costs
By its own admission, Treasury officials have contracted for services -- with TARP funds -- without being able to describe what exactly the funds will be used for because it's not needed yet. That's sort of like me paying for car insurance for a car I don't own or drive yet...huh?
Just four more days...let's hope some common sense gets voted into office!
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Just 9 more days...
Yes, it's been a long time since I've written anything on this blog -- work, school, more work and just general life got in the way. Fortunately, others have taken up the banner -- and the fury over what is going on in our government is not fading.
Today, our economy is weaker, the value of the US dollar (as both a currency and symbol of the US's status as an economic superpower) is declining, our real estate market is in the tank, foreclosures are rising, and the affordabiilty of the American dream is fading. Small businesses -- the backbone and catalyst of a growing economy -- cannot gain access to credit. Personal responsibility has become a less attractive choice than taking the easy way out. People can collect unemployment for nearly two years.
Is it just me...or is something seriously wrong with this picture? What are we teaching future generations when we tell our children that we can't be held accountable for our mistakes?
An old camp counselor of mine used to say "Camp is not fair. Life is not fair."...and it's true. Life is not always fair...sometimes, we make a choice (like I did with the stock market) and we lose. That is the cost of true freedom -- the freedom to choose both wisely and foolishly. But without learning the lesson of the consequences of bad choices, one cannot become wise. When we let someone else take the blame -- whether it is the banks, lawyers, politicians, teachers, our parents, etc. -- we give up our personal power. We become pawns for someone else to control.
On November 2, 2010, Americans all over this country will have the ability to exercise their right to vote. Some will do so blindly, others will do so intelligently and still others will not do so at all. Each person will have their justifications and reasons for doing so. We have only ourselves to hold accountable for what we end up with after that day, just as We the People are responsible for how we got to this point today.
Maybe you did or you didn't vote for Obama in 2008 -- but either way, you are part of the collective whole who are responsible for where we are today. Maybe you were at a dinner and rather than speak your mind, you chose to remain silent. Maybe you just voted how you always did -- checking down the boxes on one side of the column without much thought as to the people behind the names. Or maybe you didn't show up at all -- maybe you figured "my one vote is not going to make much of a difference."
They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again -- and expecting a different outcome. So this fall, maybe instead of doing the same thing -- whatever your "same thing" may be -- try something different. Speak up. Read. Listen. Dialogue with that person you'd never speak with. Vote. Be an example of the change you want in our government.
Now, for some more lighthearted (but educational) entertainment...check out this video from RightChange.com!
If You Give a Democrat a Cookie from RightChange on Vimeo.
They have some other great videos on the website...be sure to check them out.
Today, our economy is weaker, the value of the US dollar (as both a currency and symbol of the US's status as an economic superpower) is declining, our real estate market is in the tank, foreclosures are rising, and the affordabiilty of the American dream is fading. Small businesses -- the backbone and catalyst of a growing economy -- cannot gain access to credit. Personal responsibility has become a less attractive choice than taking the easy way out. People can collect unemployment for nearly two years.
Is it just me...or is something seriously wrong with this picture? What are we teaching future generations when we tell our children that we can't be held accountable for our mistakes?
An old camp counselor of mine used to say "Camp is not fair. Life is not fair."...and it's true. Life is not always fair...sometimes, we make a choice (like I did with the stock market) and we lose. That is the cost of true freedom -- the freedom to choose both wisely and foolishly. But without learning the lesson of the consequences of bad choices, one cannot become wise. When we let someone else take the blame -- whether it is the banks, lawyers, politicians, teachers, our parents, etc. -- we give up our personal power. We become pawns for someone else to control.
On November 2, 2010, Americans all over this country will have the ability to exercise their right to vote. Some will do so blindly, others will do so intelligently and still others will not do so at all. Each person will have their justifications and reasons for doing so. We have only ourselves to hold accountable for what we end up with after that day, just as We the People are responsible for how we got to this point today.
Maybe you did or you didn't vote for Obama in 2008 -- but either way, you are part of the collective whole who are responsible for where we are today. Maybe you were at a dinner and rather than speak your mind, you chose to remain silent. Maybe you just voted how you always did -- checking down the boxes on one side of the column without much thought as to the people behind the names. Or maybe you didn't show up at all -- maybe you figured "my one vote is not going to make much of a difference."
They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again -- and expecting a different outcome. So this fall, maybe instead of doing the same thing -- whatever your "same thing" may be -- try something different. Speak up. Read. Listen. Dialogue with that person you'd never speak with. Vote. Be an example of the change you want in our government.
Now, for some more lighthearted (but educational) entertainment...check out this video from RightChange.com!
If You Give a Democrat a Cookie from RightChange on Vimeo.
They have some other great videos on the website...be sure to check them out.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Just how accurate is the CBO?
Supporters of the healthcare bill have been dancing in the streets since yesterday's report indicated that the Congressional Budget Office projects a $132 billion savings over 10 years on a bill that will cost $940 billion.
Notwithstanding the fact that the CBO numbers:
Here's a quote from a Newsweek article last fall about how accurate the CBO numbers will be on healthcare:
While the CBO puts together its most comprehensive prediction possible, it often gets it wrong with big health legislation. It's not a lack of expertise or bias that causes the predictions to miss the mark, says Stuart Altman, a Brandeis University economist: "The problem is what we're asking them to do is impossible." Health-care legislation is the toughest to score accurately, says Robert Reischauer, former CBO director, because unlike laws that change the tax code or budget new building projects, there are often no data to examine. -- Newsweek, October 8, 2009.
Another article examining the accuracy of the CBO in the past, says that the CBO projections are less accurate than an astrology horoscope.
Notwithstanding the fact that the CBO numbers:
- Are preliminary;
- Don't take into account the impact of the House reconciliation bill; and
- Have an overly optimistic assumption that government bureaucrats will figure out how to cut costs of Medicare and Medicaid without cutting services....
Here's a quote from a Newsweek article last fall about how accurate the CBO numbers will be on healthcare:
While the CBO puts together its most comprehensive prediction possible, it often gets it wrong with big health legislation. It's not a lack of expertise or bias that causes the predictions to miss the mark, says Stuart Altman, a Brandeis University economist: "The problem is what we're asking them to do is impossible." Health-care legislation is the toughest to score accurately, says Robert Reischauer, former CBO director, because unlike laws that change the tax code or budget new building projects, there are often no data to examine. -- Newsweek, October 8, 2009.
Another article examining the accuracy of the CBO in the past, says that the CBO projections are less accurate than an astrology horoscope.
Congressional Math and the Healthcare "Reconciliation" Bill
Only in Washington DC does spending $940 billion add up to a $100 billion savings.
By now many of you have seen the headlines discussing how the CBO has estimated that HR 3590 will "save" $100 billion off the deficit over the next 10 years. There has been a lot of dancing in the streets that somehow this is a wonderful thing.
Don't get me wrong -- I would very much like our federal deficit to be reduced....but there are just a few things that are bugging me about why this latest proclamation should be the reason our lawmakers should vote "yes"....
First, the CBO numbers are not final. They are preliminary...and based on a very optimistic assumption that the government will be able to gain greater cost savings and efficiencies on Medicare costs...More importantly, the CBO numbers do not take into account the House reconciliation bill which amends the original Senate bill -- which adds additional costs and increased taxes (some of the additional costs and taxes are mentioned in today's Reuters article.)
Second, last time I checked, if you spent more than you saved...well then you haven't really saved. At least that's how it works with regards to my finances. HR 3590 will cost $940 billion (that's nearly a trillion folks) over the next 10 years -- and those are the Democrats estimates. That doesn't include the fact that the bill is expected to do NOTHING to reduce healthcare costs (check out my earlier blog post on this yesterday). Yup, all of this government regulation and we will still have escalating health care premiums, costs, etc.
Third, listen carefully to what the supporters of this legislation are saying now versus what they (and our President) said before. Initially, this legislation was supposed to be about reducing escalating healthcare costs. Reducing the deficit by $100 billion (while spending $940 billion - can anyone tell me the math on this one?) -- does not have anything to do with fixing what's wrong with our healthcare system. Passing this bill will not create increased competition (that would reduce health insurance premiums), it will not create job growth (outside of DC where we will have even more bureaucracy), and it will not reduce healthcare costs. In fact, it will have the exact opposite effect when you consider that the large taxes, fees and fines that will be imposed on health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, large health insurance plans, and companies (who do not provide insurance coverage) will ultimately trickle down to you and me in terms of higher costs and less jobs.
Fourth, lets not forget the additional costs that will be added onto the American taxpayer to "pass" this legislation...what I'm talking about is all the pork and "favors" that have been included in this bill to garner votes. The Democrats have made a big deal out of the fact that the reconciliation bill nixes the "Nebraska" provision -- but that was only one of many "provisions" that were added by the Senate to win votes.
That said, some people would have you believe that the reason to support this bill is that there is no other option. Nothing could be further from the truth. Several Republicans have proposed legislation that would not impose new taxes (thereby hindering economic growth) and would create market and tax incentives to encourage greater health care savings for individuals and families, as well as encouraging companies to provide health insurance coverage to their employees. HR 3400 creates a safety net for individuals with pre-existing conditions, allows for individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines (which would encourage more competitive pricing of plans) and allows for individuals and small businesses to pool resources together to achieve greater discounts on health insurance plans. Ironically this bill was introduced last summer (yup, before HR 3590). The reason you've probably never heard of it is because there was virtually NO MEDIA COVERAGE of the bill. I encourage you to check it out.
I urge you to call your congressman, congresswoman and Senators TODAY, TOMORROW and SUNDAY to tell them to vote NO, absolutely NO on HR 3590 and HR 4872. And please urge your friends and family to call as well!
Respectfully,
E.E. Wang Lukowski
By now many of you have seen the headlines discussing how the CBO has estimated that HR 3590 will "save" $100 billion off the deficit over the next 10 years. There has been a lot of dancing in the streets that somehow this is a wonderful thing.
Don't get me wrong -- I would very much like our federal deficit to be reduced....but there are just a few things that are bugging me about why this latest proclamation should be the reason our lawmakers should vote "yes"....
First, the CBO numbers are not final. They are preliminary...and based on a very optimistic assumption that the government will be able to gain greater cost savings and efficiencies on Medicare costs...More importantly, the CBO numbers do not take into account the House reconciliation bill which amends the original Senate bill -- which adds additional costs and increased taxes (some of the additional costs and taxes are mentioned in today's Reuters article.)
Second, last time I checked, if you spent more than you saved...well then you haven't really saved. At least that's how it works with regards to my finances. HR 3590 will cost $940 billion (that's nearly a trillion folks) over the next 10 years -- and those are the Democrats estimates. That doesn't include the fact that the bill is expected to do NOTHING to reduce healthcare costs (check out my earlier blog post on this yesterday). Yup, all of this government regulation and we will still have escalating health care premiums, costs, etc.
Third, listen carefully to what the supporters of this legislation are saying now versus what they (and our President) said before. Initially, this legislation was supposed to be about reducing escalating healthcare costs. Reducing the deficit by $100 billion (while spending $940 billion - can anyone tell me the math on this one?) -- does not have anything to do with fixing what's wrong with our healthcare system. Passing this bill will not create increased competition (that would reduce health insurance premiums), it will not create job growth (outside of DC where we will have even more bureaucracy), and it will not reduce healthcare costs. In fact, it will have the exact opposite effect when you consider that the large taxes, fees and fines that will be imposed on health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, large health insurance plans, and companies (who do not provide insurance coverage) will ultimately trickle down to you and me in terms of higher costs and less jobs.
Fourth, lets not forget the additional costs that will be added onto the American taxpayer to "pass" this legislation...what I'm talking about is all the pork and "favors" that have been included in this bill to garner votes. The Democrats have made a big deal out of the fact that the reconciliation bill nixes the "Nebraska" provision -- but that was only one of many "provisions" that were added by the Senate to win votes.
That said, some people would have you believe that the reason to support this bill is that there is no other option. Nothing could be further from the truth. Several Republicans have proposed legislation that would not impose new taxes (thereby hindering economic growth) and would create market and tax incentives to encourage greater health care savings for individuals and families, as well as encouraging companies to provide health insurance coverage to their employees. HR 3400 creates a safety net for individuals with pre-existing conditions, allows for individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines (which would encourage more competitive pricing of plans) and allows for individuals and small businesses to pool resources together to achieve greater discounts on health insurance plans. Ironically this bill was introduced last summer (yup, before HR 3590). The reason you've probably never heard of it is because there was virtually NO MEDIA COVERAGE of the bill. I encourage you to check it out.
I urge you to call your congressman, congresswoman and Senators TODAY, TOMORROW and SUNDAY to tell them to vote NO, absolutely NO on HR 3590 and HR 4872. And please urge your friends and family to call as well!
Respectfully,
E.E. Wang Lukowski
Thursday, March 18, 2010
A Tale of Two Bills
This is a tale of two bills -- two healthcare bills. One was 2,409 pages long HR 3590 (introduced November 2009)
One was 268 pages long HR 3400 (introduced July 2009)
HR 3590 proposed:
- Tax credits would be eligible for families and individuals whose household income was up to $40,000-$80,000 (for a family of four) who could not afford health insurance.
- Would tax large health insurance plans 40%, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical and medical supply companies
- Relies on as yet undertermined "cost savings" on Medicare to pay for costs of the plan.
- Would fine individuals who do not have insurance starting in 2014 ($750 or up to 2% of their income whatever is greater).
- Would have the federal government regulate any new plans and any changes to existing plans.
- Would provide a safety net for individuals with pre existing conditions
- Would require all states to have a health insurance exchange and would require all state plans to meet federal requirements.
- Would require all businesses with 50 or more employees to have health insurance or face a fine per employee.
- Included many other "pork" provisions to incentivize politicians to vote for the legislation.
- Does not spell out any details for actually reducing health care costs.
- Does not allow small businesses or individuals to pool their resources to reduce health program costs.
- Does not allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines which would increase competition.
- Providing tax incentives and credits to all individuals, families and small businesses for acquiring health coverage. This included allowing individuals and families to apply the tax credits directly to premium payments.
- Does not reduce Medicare benefits.
- Does not try to get the biggest and most wasteful organization in the US (the US government) to run another wasteful industry (health insurance companies).
- Small businesses would be financially incentivized through tax credits and breaks to provide group health coverage and auto-enrollment to their employees. HR 3400 also would allow individuals and small businesses to pool with other small businesses/groups to achieve greater discounts. Individuals could also join group associations that provide health insurance.
- Providing a safety net and coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions.
- Allowing individuals to shop for coverage across state lines, thereby increasing competition in health insurance premiums.
- Providing financial incentives for wellness.
- Increasing liability protections for health practitioners and those volunteering to provide health care to reduce the number of frivilous lawsuits that lead to increasing the cost of health care.
- Increasing transparency on health coverage options and health care providers through public information portals.
- Financial incentives to reduce physician shortages through loan forgiveness and other tax incentives.
Let's not forget also the costs to the American people that the Democrat leadership -- in their desperate bid to get votes -- will have given away in the form of "pork" and other favors included in the HR 3590 legislation.
This bill is wrong for many reasons but here are just a few:
- It does not reduce healthcare costs and may likely lead to increased health care costs. Check out: Christian Science Monitor's article on this issue. Keep in mind that what the Democrats are saying is that this health care bill will reduce the government deficit (projected -- and based on what reality and what assumptions?)...nothing has been said about actually reducing healthcare costs - a significant change from what our President said was his goal before.
- It will dis-incentivize the formation or growth of new businesses/job growth at a time when Americans need jobs (so we can pay for healthcare and all the other pork Congress is passing).
- It does nothing to stop frivilous medical malpractice lawsuits.
- The process by which it is being "passed." Check out this article from Open Congress. This little used parliamentary procedure would allow Democrats to say they didn't actually "vote" for a bill that nearly 2/3 of the country is opposed to but still pass it.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
President Obama's Budget Proposal and the Truth About GDP and TARP...
"But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year." -- President Obama, State of the Union Speech, January 27, 2010
Nice words. But where's the beef? In less than a week, President Obama has forgotten his promise of having the federal government control its spending. Instead he has proposed a $3.8 trillion budget that will create a more than $8 trilllion deficit over the next ten years (that's after we save $1 trillion -- a savings that will only be achieved after ten years).
I don't know where you come from, but last time I checked an $8 trillion deficit does not add up to "saving money" or "controlling spending." For more budget analysis, check out the following:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-01-budget-analysis_N.htm?csp=hf
http://moneymorning.com/2010/02/02/obama-budget-deficit/
In other (virtually unreported by mainstream media) news, despite all the hype regarding our fourth quarter GDP growth, many economists are saying the numbers just don't add up...and warning that more tough times could be ahead.
http://moneymorning.com/2010/01/30/us-gdp-3/
Finally, is TARP working? According to the Special Inspector General of the TARP program...uh maybe not.
http://www.housingwire.com/2010/02/01/sigtarp-warns-of-second-housing-bubble/
Nice words. But where's the beef? In less than a week, President Obama has forgotten his promise of having the federal government control its spending. Instead he has proposed a $3.8 trillion budget that will create a more than $8 trilllion deficit over the next ten years (that's after we save $1 trillion -- a savings that will only be achieved after ten years).
I don't know where you come from, but last time I checked an $8 trillion deficit does not add up to "saving money" or "controlling spending." For more budget analysis, check out the following:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-01-budget-analysis_N.htm?csp=hf
http://moneymorning.com/2010/02/02/obama-budget-deficit/
In other (virtually unreported by mainstream media) news, despite all the hype regarding our fourth quarter GDP growth, many economists are saying the numbers just don't add up...and warning that more tough times could be ahead.
http://moneymorning.com/2010/01/30/us-gdp-3/
Finally, is TARP working? According to the Special Inspector General of the TARP program...uh maybe not.
http://www.housingwire.com/2010/02/01/sigtarp-warns-of-second-housing-bubble/
From September 25, 2009: More Facts vs. Fiction on Healthcare
Here is another article from the LA Times this week about the accounting “sleight of hands” being done with regards to the healthcare legislation.
Is it only ironic to me that the same government who has under-projected costs and overspent on just about EVERYTHING…is now saying that they know how to control and solve the issue of healthcare spending?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-costs22-2009sep22,0,1852429.story
Is it only ironic to me that the same government who has under-projected costs and overspent on just about EVERYTHING…is now saying that they know how to control and solve the issue of healthcare spending?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-costs22-2009sep22,0,1852429.story
From September 10, 2009: Healthcare or Health Cost?
Dear friends,
As I’m sure you’re aware, there is considerable debate right now on healthcare reform and Congress is currently debating over more than 1000 pages of proposed legislation (HR 3200).
Considering that our nation’s political leaders are contemplating spending at least $4 trillion of our (and probably at least 2 future generations worth of) taxpayer money to fund their reform, I thought it might be worthwhile to consider some of the facts (and not the rhetoric) around this debate. Below are some links you might find helpful:
Fact checks on Obama’s speech:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/10/obama-speech-fact-check/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_fact_check
Rand Corporation’s thoughts on Senator Baucus’ proposed “coops” (for those of you who don’t know, Rand is a think tank that studies everything from healthcare to war game theory):
http://www.rand.org/commentary/2009/08/19/WP.html
As one of my friends put it (she works at Rand and voted for Obama) – if Obama really wants to reduce healthcare costs, he would encourage everyone to smoke or eat at McDonalds everyday – because unhealthy people are actually cheaper in the long run than healthy people (since healthy people live longer).
Links to the actual text of the bills being proposed (which most of our elected representatives have admitted to not having fully read):
www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show (you can actually vote here on whether you support or oppose the bill)
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf
There is no link yet for Senator Baucus’ bill – it will not be introduced until next week.
My thoughts
First, I should probably say that I believe that everyone should have access to healthcare. And in our country, it is a misnomer to say that NOT everyone has access to healthcare. In fact, we all – and everyone in this country, citizen or not – have access to healthcare already; if you can be transported to an emergency room, you can get healthcare regardless of your finances. In fact, we have the best and leading healthcare facilities in the world – which is why a lot of people from outside the US come here).
The problem, as our president has pointed out, is how to solve the issue of rising healthcare costs. The problem is that most politicians (and the news media) confuse the ideas of healthcare access and costs with health insurance. What’s worse is the fact that these same politicians seem to think that all our current problems will be solved by creating a solution to health insurance (which they call healthcare reform).
Now don’t get me wrong…I am no great (or even a small) lover of insurance companies; I love them about as much as I love politicians. But I do not think they are the only bad guys here and I have yet to see any empirical evidence that supports the idea that if we introduce a government option or a coop option that this will in fact reduce healthcare costs or insurance premiums. In fact, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that any of the programs being proposed will in fact do what the politicians say they will. (I mean, let’s consider how incredibly successful Medicare has been. It is a government-run health care option that has done nothing to reduce rising/escalating health care costs – but it has reduced the quality of care many seniors receive and it has resulted in over-testing.)
I do not profess to have a be-all solution to rising healthcare costs and how we can get everyone an insurance card (because apparently once you have one, it will make you healthy and if everyone has one, we will create economic growth…. if you believe the pundits. ;-p) But I do believe the following:
· Increased competition and public disclosure on pricing and performance would result in more competitively priced and better products/services – whether its hospitals, insurers, etc. For example, many states require that an insurer maintain an office(s) in the state in which they provide coverage – limiting the number of providers consumers have access to. What would happen if…. consumers knew how much it would cost them to get a service at a hospital or from a doctor before they went there or if we knew how effective the hospital or doctor was (# of complaints, average experience of providers at a location)? Or if when looking at healthcare insurance coverage, we could see what % of claims an insurer denied?
· Reforming tort law would reduce the number of ridiculous medical malpractice lawsuits that are filed every year – and reduce health providers’ overhead and malpractice insurance costs.
· We should not get rid of health savings plans nor should we require that people have health insurance. In some cases, it just doesn’t make sense. For example, when I was 30, I was told that to continue the coverage I had with my former employer, I would need to pay $430+ a month (Yes that is more than $5000 a year; under my employer, I paid ~$1300 a year of the cost). Yet, my annual healthcare costs were less than $1500 (that’s including dental) had I paid out of pocket. The reality is that health insurance is not really insurance in many cases – it is a managed care program – one in which you likely overpay for services in your youth and may or may not underpay as you get older. (I mean, your auto insurance doesn’t have a co-pay for oil changes and smog checks does it?) (I won’t go into detail on this…but if you ever want to have a glass of wine with me and talk about it, let me know!)
· Health insurance, health care costs and health savings plans should be tax deductible or not counted as part of your taxable income. (That would be one way to encourage people to get health insurance!)
· I also believe that if you have health insurance that your health insurer should cover everything that they promised to cover at the start of your relationship. I’m not sure that spending $4 trillion in taxpayer money to develop ANOTHER insurance option is the way to do that. Maybe having better oversight and more accountability and transparency would.
· Finally, I think that reforming health care will do very little to solve the much bigger problems we have right now. Healthcare reform means very little (and actually will be a further TAX on our resources) if our economy is in the tank/is not growing and people are out of work; it will not solve the auto industry or banking industry crisis; it will not make our education system better; it will not better prepare us for a green economy or solve climate change; and it will definitely not make government more efficient, less intrusive and less wasteful.
As I’m sure you’re aware, there is considerable debate right now on healthcare reform and Congress is currently debating over more than 1000 pages of proposed legislation (HR 3200).
Considering that our nation’s political leaders are contemplating spending at least $4 trillion of our (and probably at least 2 future generations worth of) taxpayer money to fund their reform, I thought it might be worthwhile to consider some of the facts (and not the rhetoric) around this debate. Below are some links you might find helpful:
Fact checks on Obama’s speech:
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/10/obama-speech-fact-check/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_fact_check
Rand Corporation’s thoughts on Senator Baucus’ proposed “coops” (for those of you who don’t know, Rand is a think tank that studies everything from healthcare to war game theory):
http://www.rand.org/commentary/2009/08/19/WP.html
As one of my friends put it (she works at Rand and voted for Obama) – if Obama really wants to reduce healthcare costs, he would encourage everyone to smoke or eat at McDonalds everyday – because unhealthy people are actually cheaper in the long run than healthy people (since healthy people live longer).
Links to the actual text of the bills being proposed (which most of our elected representatives have admitted to not having fully read):
www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/show (you can actually vote here on whether you support or oppose the bill)
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf
There is no link yet for Senator Baucus’ bill – it will not be introduced until next week.
My thoughts
First, I should probably say that I believe that everyone should have access to healthcare. And in our country, it is a misnomer to say that NOT everyone has access to healthcare. In fact, we all – and everyone in this country, citizen or not – have access to healthcare already; if you can be transported to an emergency room, you can get healthcare regardless of your finances. In fact, we have the best and leading healthcare facilities in the world – which is why a lot of people from outside the US come here).
The problem, as our president has pointed out, is how to solve the issue of rising healthcare costs. The problem is that most politicians (and the news media) confuse the ideas of healthcare access and costs with health insurance. What’s worse is the fact that these same politicians seem to think that all our current problems will be solved by creating a solution to health insurance (which they call healthcare reform).
Now don’t get me wrong…I am no great (or even a small) lover of insurance companies; I love them about as much as I love politicians. But I do not think they are the only bad guys here and I have yet to see any empirical evidence that supports the idea that if we introduce a government option or a coop option that this will in fact reduce healthcare costs or insurance premiums. In fact, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever that any of the programs being proposed will in fact do what the politicians say they will. (I mean, let’s consider how incredibly successful Medicare has been. It is a government-run health care option that has done nothing to reduce rising/escalating health care costs – but it has reduced the quality of care many seniors receive and it has resulted in over-testing.)
I do not profess to have a be-all solution to rising healthcare costs and how we can get everyone an insurance card (because apparently once you have one, it will make you healthy and if everyone has one, we will create economic growth…. if you believe the pundits. ;-p) But I do believe the following:
· Increased competition and public disclosure on pricing and performance would result in more competitively priced and better products/services – whether its hospitals, insurers, etc. For example, many states require that an insurer maintain an office(s) in the state in which they provide coverage – limiting the number of providers consumers have access to. What would happen if…. consumers knew how much it would cost them to get a service at a hospital or from a doctor before they went there or if we knew how effective the hospital or doctor was (# of complaints, average experience of providers at a location)? Or if when looking at healthcare insurance coverage, we could see what % of claims an insurer denied?
· Reforming tort law would reduce the number of ridiculous medical malpractice lawsuits that are filed every year – and reduce health providers’ overhead and malpractice insurance costs.
· We should not get rid of health savings plans nor should we require that people have health insurance. In some cases, it just doesn’t make sense. For example, when I was 30, I was told that to continue the coverage I had with my former employer, I would need to pay $430+ a month (Yes that is more than $5000 a year; under my employer, I paid ~$1300 a year of the cost). Yet, my annual healthcare costs were less than $1500 (that’s including dental) had I paid out of pocket. The reality is that health insurance is not really insurance in many cases – it is a managed care program – one in which you likely overpay for services in your youth and may or may not underpay as you get older. (I mean, your auto insurance doesn’t have a co-pay for oil changes and smog checks does it?) (I won’t go into detail on this…but if you ever want to have a glass of wine with me and talk about it, let me know!)
· Health insurance, health care costs and health savings plans should be tax deductible or not counted as part of your taxable income. (That would be one way to encourage people to get health insurance!)
· I also believe that if you have health insurance that your health insurer should cover everything that they promised to cover at the start of your relationship. I’m not sure that spending $4 trillion in taxpayer money to develop ANOTHER insurance option is the way to do that. Maybe having better oversight and more accountability and transparency would.
· Finally, I think that reforming health care will do very little to solve the much bigger problems we have right now. Healthcare reform means very little (and actually will be a further TAX on our resources) if our economy is in the tank/is not growing and people are out of work; it will not solve the auto industry or banking industry crisis; it will not make our education system better; it will not better prepare us for a green economy or solve climate change; and it will definitely not make government more efficient, less intrusive and less wasteful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)