Sorry. The Money Is All Gone.

In floor debate in late November, Senate Finance Committee chairperson Orrin Hatch, who worked with the late Senator Edward Kennedy to create the Children's Health Insurance Program, assured Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown "We're going to get CHIP throught. There's no question about that. I'm going to see that it gets through."

Politico's Haberkorn reported Friday that the Utah Republican stated “We’re going to take good care of CHIP. I can’t tell you exactly when, but we’ll get it done.”

With Republicans in favor of the program and Democrats completely committeed to it, CHIP will sometime in the near future be reauthorized.

Still, Haberkorn added

House Republicans on Wednesday released a spending bill that would fund CHIP for five years but pay for it with cuts to Obamacare and other programs that Senate Democrats would not support. The bill would need Democrats' help to get through the Senate.

Nice little program you got there- it would be a shame if something happened to it.  The GOP is quite willing to fund children's health care- provided that it can chip away at the social safety net elsewhere.

The hostage may be released, but the GOP is bound and determined that a heavy price is paid. It is, after all, the secondary motive for a disastrous tax bill, the primary motive being to please the Party's donors.  Hatch himself gave it away when in the largely empty chamber with Brown, he contended

We're going to do CHIP. There's no question about it in my mind. And it's gotta be done the right way. But- the reason CHIP's having trouble is that we don't have any money anymore. We just add more and more spending and more and more spending and you can look at the  rest of the bill for more and more spending.





"It has to be done the right way... we don't have any money anymore," remarked the Senator who unreservedly voted for the GOP tax plan, targeted to increase the debt by something north of $1 trillion. Excited at the pospect of slashing Medicaid, Speaker Paul Ryan at a conservative event in March bragged to the editor of the National Review "Sending it back to the states, capping its growth rate. We have been dreaming of this since I have been around, since you and I were drinking at a keg.”

Shortly before triumphantly pushing through his chamber the Corporate Tax Cut Sham of 2017, Ryan maintained at a town hall meeting "You cannot get the national debt under control, you cannot get that deficit under control, if you don’t do both — grow the economy, cut spending."  Ryan had commented in a radio interview . "Frankly, it's the health care entitlements that are the big drivers of our debt, so we spend more time on the health care entitlements — because that's really where the problem lies, fiscally speaking."

Frankly, the Speaker dares not utter the words "Medicaid" or "Medicare," and while more detached than Hatch, he's a little more subtle, or at least wonkier. So carrying water for Ryan, Politico's Alberta and Bade characterize the Speaker's goal as "entitlement reform," in which he "tackles what he sees as the systemic problems with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid." Charlie Pierce recognizes “'what he sees as being systemic problems' with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are that those programs exist at all."

Senator Marco Rubio echoes Ryan's call that Congress "structurally reform" earned benefits. More candid than the Speaker or Hatch, the Florida Republican stated

The only way you are going to deal with the debt is you have to do two things. ... You have got to generate economic growth because growth generates revenue. But you also have to bring spending under control. And not discretionary spending. That isn’t the driver of our debt... The driver of our debt is the structure of Social Security and Medicare for future beneficiaries.

The good news is that individuals currently elderly probably will be left somewhat, relatively, unharmed. Perhaps Hatch and his merry band of oligarchs with a daddy complex will "take care" of people now in retirement age or close to it because elderly people vote. Health care for children also- to whatever extent- will be provided. But all those people in between better hold onto their wallets. The Republican Senate and Republican Senate are coming for you- unless, of course, your parents leave their $11 million estate to you when they die.




Share |

Ask Trump, And Everybody

Donald Trump wouldn't like Robert Reich's suggestion.  Among the reforms former President Clinton's labor secretary advocates for reducing income and wealth inequality is lowering the threshold for estate taxation (video below).  He explains

Today the estate tax reaches only the richest two-tenths of one percent, and applies only to dollars in excess of $10.86 million for married couples or $5.43 million for individuals. 

That means if a couple leaves to their heirs $10,860,001, they now pay the estate tax on $1. The current estate tax rate is 40%, so that would be 40 cents.

Yet according to these members of Congress, that’s still too much. 

Abolishing the estate tax would give each of the wealthiest two-tenths of 1 percent of American households an average tax cut of $3 million, and the 318 largest estates would get an average tax cut of $20 million.

It would also reduce tax revenues by $269 billion over ten years. The result would be either larger federal deficits or higher taxes on the rest of us to fill the gap.

This is nuts. The richest 1 percent of Americans now have 42 percent of the nation’s entire wealth, while the bottom 90 percent has just 23 percent. ...

Adjusted for inflation, the estate tax restored to its level in 1998 would begin to touch estates valued at $1,748,000 per couple.

That would yield approximately $448 billion over the next ten years – way more than enough to finance ten years of universal preschool and two free years of community college for all eligible students.









Yesterday, Donald Trump essentially invited questions about his position on the estate tax, given that he emphasized

And I have assets -- big accounting firm, one of the most highly respected -- 9 billion 240 million dollars....

And I have liabilities of about $500 million (ph). That's long-term debt, very low interest rates.

In fact, one of the big banks came to me and said, "Donald, you don't have enough borrowings. Could we loan you $4 billion"? I said, "I don't need it. I don't want it. And I've been there. I don't want it."

But in two seconds, they give me whatever I wanted. So I have a total net worth, and now with the increase, it'll be well-over $10 billion. But here, a total net worth of -- net worth, not assets, not -- a net worth, after all debt, after all expenses, the greatest assets -- Trump Tower, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, Bank of America building in San Francisco, 40 Wall Street, sometimes referred to as the Trump building right opposite the New York -- many other places all over the world.

So the total is $8,737,540,00.

He wasn't bragging, please understand, because he added "Now I'm not doing that... I'm not doing that to brag, because you know what? I don't have to brag. I don't have to, believe it or not."

Each candidate, Democratic or Republican, should be asked about the estate tax and (in one form or another) the other nine ideas Reich has.  No Repub genuinely interested in being nominated would support raising the estate tax, which would be instructive, as it would be if any Democrat were to oppose increasing the levy.





Share |

Make 'Em Disprove It


On Mitt Romney's website, geared to elicit donations, we learn he wants to "make permanent, across the board 20 percent cut in marginal rates," "eliminate the Death Tax," and "cut the corporate tax rate to 20 percent."   As a share of the economy, income taxes are lower than they have been at any time since 1950:  the estate tax already applies only to estates worth over $1million; on balance, the effective GDP tax weighted average is slightly lower in the U.S.A. than in the other nations of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation (OECD)

No matter, because in the debate Wednesday night Etch-A-Sketch was freed to connect with independent voters.    He thus somersaulted into  "First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don't have a tax cut of a scale that you're talking about. My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high- income people."

Having already denied that he is for cutting the taxes he tells conservative audiences everywhere he wants to slash, the born-again for-now liberal claimed "I want to bring down the rates down (sic), at the same time lower deductions and exemptions and credits and so forth so we keep getting the revenue we need."  At least twice he returned to the theme, claiming "what I do is I bring down the tax rates, lower deductions and exemptions... getting us to a balanced budget" and "my plan is to bring down rates but also bring down deductions and exemptions and credits at the same time so the revenue stays in."

Sure, sure it is.   E.J. Dionne notes "Obama did return repeatedly to a central point: Romney's vagueness in his proposals on taxes and health care.  He charged that Romney was hiding the details of those plans because they would prove unpopular with and harmful to the middle class."   President Obama hinted at the deductions Romney is thinking of when the President pointed out (emphasis mine)

Well, for 18 months he's been running on this tax plan. And now, five weeks before the election, he's saying that his big, bold idea is "never mind." And the fact is that if you are lowering the rates the way you describe, Governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class. It's — it's math. It's arithmetic.

The President went in a slightly different direction when in the same response he argued

The only way to pay for it without either burdening the middle class or blowing up our deficit is to make drastic cuts in things like education, making sure that we are continuing to invest in basic science and research, all the things that are helping America grow. And I think that would be a mistake.

Getting revenue out of eliminating loopholes sufficient to lower deficits significantly can come only by goring the ox of the middle class, as Romney won't admit.   And if he maintains the deductions/exemptions, either the deficit will balloon or spending for popular items, such as research, education, and law enforcement will be dropped.

Most likely a Republican presidency will do what all Republican presidencies do- lower rates and avoid closing loopholes.   There will be fewer revenues, deficits will expand exponentially, and that president will leave the mess to the next Democratic president to clean up. But we don't know that- and, according to Romney's own testimony, preferences in the tax code will be reduced.

Why not take Mitt Romney at his own word?    The strategy ought to be:  no more Obama hinting-around.  No more Mr. Responsibility.  Or as one Republican performer once put it, No More Mr. Nice Guy.   Start asserting:  we've run the numbers and discovered that Mitt Romney plans to eliminate the home mortgage interest deduction.  When the media stars start squealing, tell them our experts are better than your experts.  If history is any guide, they will write it off as "he said, she said."

When fact-checkers come a knockin', tell them, as Romney told the Des Moines Register, "Fact-checkers on both sides of the aisle will look in the way they think is most consistent with their own views."   When Romney denies he wants to eliminate the popular break for homeowners, respond  "see, we told you he'll change his story back-and-forth so he doesn't have to tell the truth."

It won't happen that way, of course.    The corporate wing of the Democratic Party, currently led by Obama-Clinton (but including Ed Rendell, Mark Warner, and others), is loathe to offend the media, notwithstanding the lust of the GOP for the task.  (Romney's confrontation with Jim Lehrer was passive compared to Newt Gingrich's tactics in the primary debates.)  Additionally, the President wants to be seen as the responsible and congenial deficit-reducing moderate soaring above partisan bickering, all the better (he believes) to gain media support and Republican acquiescence in the bold, transformative center-right policies he plans for a second term.



Share |

Limbaugh's Take On The Health Care Tax

It can't be! A tax that Rush Limbaugh supports.

No, it's not the progressive income tax. Or the estate tax, dubbed the "death tax" by propagandistsRepublicans who, Digby notes, long for an aristocracy in which any individual owning property over $3.5 million dollars can pass it on unencumbered.

No, it's the regressive excise tax in the Senate health care bill. Limbaugh on January 13 crowed

This is just out now from the National Journal's Congress Daily: "Unions tentatively struck a deal Tuesday to exempt collectively bargained healthcare plans from a tax on high-cost plans expected to be used to help raise revenue for the healthcare overhaul." I knew this was going to happen! The only people... Ahem! The only people who are going to be exempted from paying the Cadillac tax are people who make Cadillacs, the union workers who make them and make other things -- and a little piece of Nebraska as well. I knew this was going to happen.
(For what it's worth, the AFL-CIO has denied that a deal has been struck.)

Many unions have negotiated favorable health care plans for their members, most of them middle class, hardly the kind of American Rush speaks for. Often, these benefits are in lieu of higher wages. Still (or maybe because), Limbaugh is aghast- after all, they are "union workers who make them and make other things!" In Rush's world, CEOs and CFOs should never be discouraged from making as much money as possible, including million dollar bonuses with taxpayer money- but for the middle class, their health care must be taxed.

As Firedoglake's Jon Walker has noted, the burden of the tax may fall not only only on the middle class but also on the elderly because

The excise tax in the Senate bill is not structured to tax generous health care plans — just expensive ones. The problem is that relatively generous health care plans are not necessarily expensive and expensive plans are not necessarily generous. Age, region, and health status of the employee pool are primary determinants of the cost of a group insurance plan.

For example, a snowboard company with all young athletic employees could have an extremely generous insurance policy that costs relatively little, while a bakery with many older employees with health problems could have a very bare bones policy that still costs a lot. The limit should be based on the cost of the insurance if applied to the average demographic makeup of a group plan in the area. This will prevent the excise tax from simply being a tax on older Americans.

The excise tax is a flat tax assessed at 40% on all employer-provided benefit plans above a set dollar amount. This is a very regressive way to cap the tax-exempt status of health insurance.

One can imagine Limbaugh's reaction if President Obama had discouraged, rather than apparently encouraged, such a tax. Candidate Obama wisely- in both a policy and a strategic sense- criticized Senator McCain for proposing such a levy. Accusations of hypocrisy and worse would have flowed from the mouths of the right-wing talkosphere if the Administration had actively backed the wiser, more progressive surtax on the wealthy included in the House bill.

But give Rush credit! If consistency is the hobglobin of little minds, Limbaugh has a big mind- one that supports a tax if, and only if, it harms the middle class rather than asking the wealthy to bear its fair share. On that point, though, Rush Limbaugh is consistent- if it widens the gap between the wealthy and the middle class, he's all for it.

Of Biden And McCain

It's a difficult choice- get mad or laugh hysterically.

I found myself reading online this article from Kirsten Powers, a columnist with the conservative Repub tabloid The New York Post. Powers criticizes Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden for various gaffes, the most recent in warning donors of a foreign policy crisis he believes will follow election of Barack Obama as president. Powers claims

Part of the problem is their "Obama love," but we're also seeing the media elite's belief - prejudice - that anyone with an R behind their name is dumb. So, if they say something dumb, they must be dumb. A Democrat, like Biden, can make wildly inaccurate or outrageous comments and they are ignored because the TV and press insiders feel they "know who he really is."

No need here to remind Powers that the media's fondness for Barack Obama is exceeded, "wildly," by its fondness for John McCain. No need, therefore, to ask why no one (as far as I know) has asked John McCain why he apparently is opposed to Social Security or the graduated income tax. (A reasonable interpretation of "After all, before government can redistribute wealth, it has to confiscate wealth from those who earned it," a pretty good description of the progressive income tax.) No need to ask why John McCain has rarely, if ever, been confronted, with his reversals of position (not a comprehensive list) on likelihood of easy success in Iraq, Bush tax cuts, Roe v. Wade, privatization of Social Security, right-wing televangelists, ethanol, gay marriage, reasonable gun control, repeal of the estate tax, torture, surveillance of overseas communications, offshore drilling, trials of Guantanamo detainees, increasing the minimal wage, and comprehensive immigration reform (supportive, then against his own bill, then supportive). Yet, when Democrat John Kerry (merely) appeared to have changed his mind on funding of the Iraq War, the mainstream media joined the Repub propagandists in ridiculing his as a "flip-flopper."

The real problem is that Barack Obama is one in a long line of Democrats suspected of being "weak" simply because there is a (D) after his name. Russia invades Georgia, Obama reacts rationally and cautiously, and is thought of as vacillating; McCain rattles his saber- only to reverse course a few days later- and is considered strong. Barack Obama asserts that with "actionable intelligence" about "high-value terrorist targets," he would act decisively; John McCain boasts of bin Laden that he will "follow him to the gates of hell" but is not asked why he refuses to follow him to northwestern Pakistan. (Nor is he asked how he will "get him.")

More significant than the inattention to Senator Biden has been the inattention to the gaffes of John McCain, who has seduced so many in the media the years by the "Straight Talk Express." Enough has emerged during this campaign to render clear the conclusion that the Democratic vice-presidential nominee knows more about foreign policy than the Republican presidential nominee- or the empty ($150,000) suit that is his running mate.

There was, I think, a revealing statement made today by Newt Gingrich on GOP News Sunday, hosted by Chris Wallace. The former House Speaker remarked "I think the Republicans have three major choices in Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson (but) I think Senator McCain has taken positions so deeply at odds with his party's base that I don't see how he can get the nomination."

I'll grant you immigration (illegal immigration). But would this be the same John McCain who, according to ontheissues.org, has received a 0% rating by the American Civil Liberties Union (12/02); a 0% rating by the National Abortion Rights Action League (12/03); and an 83% rating by the Christian Coalition (12/03)? And the same John McCain who has been the most ardent and visible Republican supporter in the United States Congress of Gulf War II? Why, yes, it would be.

And would this be the same Rudy Giuliani, who, before his recent conversion of convenience, was supportive of gay rights, gun control, and abortion rights(including partial birth abortion)? And who, according to right-wing firebrand Ann Coulter, opposed welfare reform and the nomination of Bill Clinton? Why, yes, it would be. But it is the same Rudy Giuliani who is running against the estate tax, paid on estates worth over $2,000,000, affecting the wealthiest 2% of Americans. One might be cynical enough to conclude, if Gingrich is correct, that cultural issues (or Iraq) really aren't that important anymore to the movers-and-shakers of the Republican Party.

Giuliani- Betting On The Rich

Although it was posted a little over three weeks ago, this report by Greg Sargent about the Rudy campaign snubbing a farmer is well worth reading- for several reasons:


1- The Giuliani campaign is urging elimination of the "death tax"- which is actually a tax on the few households with huge assets. Its emphasis on this suggests that Rudy is hedging his bet on modifying the candidate's view of abortion and/or gay rights- that flip-flopping on these cultural issues may not sell. Or perhaps he wants to reassure Republicans that he is, after all, a true Republican- committed to exacerbating the gap between the rich and the rest of us.

2- If by some chance Giuliani is nominated and the Democrats can't paint Giuliani as stoking the fires of class warfare, the Party may never find a way to regain the support of the middle-class and the working-class it has lost over the last forty years.

3- Liberal media? We haven't heard much about the Von Sprecken family, but we know how much John Edwards has paid for a haircut.