Things that could get me to toss confetti in 2013

There are things that could get me to toss confetti for 2013.   Not many, mind you, which would justify the consequent vacuuming, but a goodly handful.

#1. The Senate of the United States of America does something constructive with the FILIBUSTER rule.   The original rule was intended to prevent the willful trampling of minority points of view, but the abuse of the rule is now part of the clichéd “Washington Gridlock.”  There is a delicate balance between Majority Rule and Minority Rights, but Obstruction for its own sake is not a laudable occupation.

#2. The Republicans in the House of Representatives eschew the  Hastert Rule , under which a majority of the majority party caucus must agree to the passage of a bill before a vote can be taken on the House floor.  This might have been a lovely idea if the current majority party caucus weren’t the replication of that other cliché– a wheelbarrow load of frogs.  Governance requires compromise, and compromise demands the admission that we don’t always get everything we want.  Ideological posturing is not a substitute for principled discourse.

#3.  Someone in a position to do something about it finally figures out that arguments over raising the debt ceiling are academic at best and consummately silly at worst — rather like announcing that because I overspent my budget for this holiday season I’m going to chop up my credit cards and not pay the bills.  Aside from being the most fiscally irresponsible action imaginable, it’s also a manifestation of the idea that the full faith and credit of the United States is some kind of bargaining chip in ideological squabbling.

#4. The National Rifle Association (aka No Rational Argument) stops pretending to care about the right of our citizens to keep and bear arms, and honestly announces that its ultimate intention is to promote the sale of as many firearms as its manufacturing donors can create.  After that, it should be far easier to discuss comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loophole, and banning military style assault weapons.

#5. More people, perhaps even more people in the national media, stop referring to “The” government and start calling it what it is — OUR government.   “The” government calls to mind the institution which cracks down on Moonshiners, or enforces school integration, or ignores calls to make Jefferson Davis’s birthday a national holiday.  “The” government didn’t decide to integrate public schools — “our” government did. “The” government didn’t decide to enact regulations to prevent air and water pollution — “our” government did.  And, “The” government didn’t create the Food Stamp (SNAP) program — “our” government did that.  And so it goes.  Continual references to “The” government is an unfortunate holdover from the Reaganesque caricature of government designed to promote the financial health of the economic elite by appealing to the discontent with those laws “our” government enacted to promote OUR general welfare.

#6. Our representatives on Capitol Hill learn to say “____ isn’t the end of the world as we know it.”  I could do with a great deal less hysterical hyperbole.  “This is the Largest Tax Increase In The History of the Universe!”  Probably not.  “This is the worst violation of human rights ever!” Probably not that either.  “This will create the worst calamity known to man.” Probably not.  “This will destroy our ____.”  Again, probably not.  Excuse me while I chuckle at the pomposity of this meaningless prognostication.

#7.  Journalists who seek to inform me via the television set prove to be (1) knowledgeable about the subject under discussion, and (2) include fact checking as part of the “context” of which they speak so often.  If a statement made by a politician is factually inaccurate, they will tell me; and I hope they’ll be able to offer a correction.  I really don’t care if they are correcting the record in the wake of Left Wing Larry or Right Wing Richard’s pontification.  The object of the exercise should be to impart accurate information so far as it can be known — I can get my “entertainment” elsewhere.  Bluntly, the “he said, she said, and then he said” reactions from professional chatterati or elected representatives is less entertaining than a good professional wrestling match, which at least has the grace to admit it’s a scripted farce.

#8. Somebody finally declares the Culture Wars over and done with.  Our contemporary version appears to incorporate a toxic dose of good old fashioned misogyny.  Women make up about 51% of our population and telling them they cannot have an abortion (even in the cases of an ectopic pregnancy or as the result of a rape) is paternalistic to the core.  Worse still would be telling them that their employer can decide if their health insurance plan covers contraceptive medication.

#9.  On a related note, it really doesn’t do to blame God for everything.  I’d cheer the week that some blowhards weren’t showcased in the media for pronouncing God’s Wrath for … whatever.  Hurricane Katrina — God’s wrath for a Gay Pride gathering? Really?  God’s wrath because we don’t pray hard enough?  That certainly doesn’t explain the attack on congregants in the Knoxville Unitarian church.  God’s Wrath because we don’t have organized  prayer in schools? Huh?  No one at Columbine High School, Platte County High School, Northern Illinois University, Virginia Tech University, or Sandy Hook Elementary knew how to pray and practiced it regularly? Spare me the Westboro Wannabes who “know” the mind of God better than a six year old child.

#10.  The confetti will fly when we begin to have a serious discussion about global climate change without having to incorporate the phony “science” offered up by the fossil fuel industry.  No, there isn’t a “controversy” here. And, no reputable science deflects our responsibility as human beings for the contamination of which we are clearly capable.

Speaking of the Almighty, there’s an old story about the man caught in a flood which seems appropriate at the moment.  “Why, he cried out to God, am a trapped in these flood waters?”  The Almighty, sorely tired of listening to the wailing, said, “I sent you warnings.” “When?”  “When?” responded the Deity. “When indeed.” “I sent you warnings on the radio. You ignored me. I sent you warnings in television broadcasts, and you ignored me. I even sent a deputy sheriff to personally advise you to evacuate. And, you ignored him too.”  ….

We’ve been visited with major named storms, watched ice caps diminish, seen glaciers disappear… and all together too many people are ignoring the warnings.

Republican YOYO Home Economics: Medicaid Slashed, Other Support Burned

Former President Clinton advised the delegates to the 2012 Democratic Convention to listen carefully to what the Republicans were offering in regard to Medicaid, and those of us in Nevada should be “listening with both ears.”  Here’s the description of the Medicaid program as stated by the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, the program:

“Provides health care coverage for many people including low income families with children whose family income is at or below 133% percent of poverty, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients, certain Medicare beneficiaries, and recipients of adoption assistance, foster care and some children aging out of foster care. The DHCFP also operates five Home or Community-Based Services waivers offered to certain persons throughout the state. The Division of Welfare and Supportive Services (DWSS) determines eligibility for the Medicaid program.”

Listing those categories focuses on the aims of the program — it is to serve (1) low income families with children; (2) elderly Nevadans; (3) low income Nevadans over 65 years of age; (4) families receiving assistance for adopted children; (5) children in foster care.  Who was enrolled in Nevada’s Medicaid program as of fiscal year 2009:

What services were provided to those enrolled in Nevada’s Medicaid program?

During fiscal year 2010, 68.1% of the spending from the Medicaid program went for acute care, 25.6% was allocated for long term care, and 6.3% was used for “disproportionate care – hospital payments.”

The spending for long term care breaks down as illustrated in the following chart:

11.1% of the long term care funding was allocated to facilities for the intellectually disabled, 2.9% went to services for the mentally ill — and notice – 86% was used to provide home health & personal care, and nursing facility care.  In other words, 86% of Nevada’s Medicaid expenses for long term care went toward serving those least able to care for themselves.  The other 14% was used to provide intermediate and long term care for those unable to care for themselves because of intellectual limits or mental illness.

Here is exactly why President Clinton told his audience to “listen up:”

My view is get the federal government out of Medicaid, get it out of health care. Return it to the states.” – Romney, South Carolina GOP Primary Debate, Jan. 20, 2012.

In case anyone is remotely confused about what that statement from the former Massachusetts Governor means, he’s speaking about transforming the Medicaid program into Block Grants.

More specifically, the former Governor is adopting the block grant proposal for Medicaid set forth in his running mate’s “Path to Prosperity” budget plan:

“The plan also would repeal health system reform law provisions that will expand Medicaid coverage starting in 2014. Instead, states would receive block grants, which would free states “to tailor their Medicaid programs to the unique needs of their own populations,” the budget says.”  [AMA]

The tailoring is to be done with less cloth:

The Ryan budget would cut $2.4 trillion from Medicaid and other health programs. Reduced spending would increase the number of uninsured dramatically, Park* said. “Those who retain coverage will have benefits scaled back and have higher cost-sharing.” [AMA] (emphasis added)

We can drill down further into what Governor Romney and Representative Ryan have in mind for the Medicaid program by looking at the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the Ryan position:  Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)—from 2 percent of GDP in 2011 to 1¼ percent in 2030 and 1 percent in 2050.

Now is the moment to recall that 58% of those who receive Medicaid assistance for their health care needs in Nevada are children, and the AAP isn’t thrilled at cuts to that constituency:

“American Academy of Pediatrics President Robert W. Block, MD, said the proposal would undo investments in health programs for children. More than half of Medicaid recipients are children, but their care accounts for up to only one-quarter of the program’s costs.

“Whether considering fiscal year 2013 federal spending bills or reviewing long-term budget proposals, Congress must seize this opportunity to invest in the future of our country by protecting children’s health,” Dr. Block said.” [AMA]

Dr. Block has reason to be concerned, if we return to the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis we can see why.  In two paragraphs from their analysis of the Ryan “Path” the non-partisan office explains why the proposal would make deep cuts, and place greater burdens on the states:

“The specified path (Ryan Plan) would cause federal spending on Medicaid and CHIP to decline relative to GDP in coming decades, rather than to rise sharply as in the other policy scenarios that CBO has analyzed, and would include no exchange subsidies (see Figure 3). As a result, by 2050, such spending would be 76 percent below what would occur for Medicaid, CHIP, and exchange subsidies under the baseline scenario and 78 percent below what would occur under the alternative fiscal scenario. Because spending on CHIP and exchange subsidies represents a relatively small share of the amounts in the baseline and alternative fiscal scenarios, most of the reduction would have to come from the Medicaid program.” [CBO] (emphasis added)

The Republicans do, indeed seem serious about eliminating Medicaid as a federal program and shifting the expenses for health care access to low income elderly, the disabled, the intellectually disabled, elders in nursing facilities, and children in poverty to the states.  The CBO explains the nature of this shift:

The responses of the states would be of particular importance. If states were given additional flexibility to allocate federal funds for Medicaid and CHIP according to their own priorities, they might be able to improve the efficiency of those programs in delivering health care to low-income populations. Nevertheless, even with significant efficiency gains, the magnitude of the reduction in spending relative to such spending in the other scenarios means that states would need to increase their spending on these programs, make considerable cutbacks in them, or both. Cutbacks might involve reduced eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP, coverage of fewer services, lower payments to providers, or increased cost-sharing by beneficiaries—all of which would reduce access to care. (emphasis added)

Translation: Even if the states were able to achieve all the vaunted efficiencies a “flexible” plan might provide — the cuts proposed are so deep and so drastic that citizens in the United States who are lower income elderly or the disabled in nursing homes, and those who are low income and living in foster care, or families in poverty — would have reduced access to care. Period.

These aren’t generic numbers and pie in the sky statistics we’re talking about, we’re speaking of 25,841 elderly Nevadans, 40,898 disabled Nevadans, 55,626 adult Nevadans – mostly women, and 168,070 Nevada children.

So, here’s a question for Governor Romney and Representative Ryan — If no matter how much efficiency the state of Nevada squeezes from your block grants for Medicaid, Nevada and the other states will still have to either appropriate significantly more revenue, or drastically reduce services — how is your plan anything other than a proposal to shift the burden of health care costs, for the least able among us, from the federal treasury to the state treasuries and the pockets of low income Americans?

Where, Governor Romney and Representative Ryan, does the Nevada Legislature start cutting? From the acute care services for adopted or foster children? From the acute care for pregnant women? From acute care for children in poverty who have asthma, autism, broken arms, or sprained ligaments?  From the long term care for the elderly who need home health care services and personal care to avoid institutional living?  From the long term care for the indigent mentally ill?  From elderly residents of nursing facilities?  From disabled children who need home health care? Where?

Perhaps cuts aren’t the only option. Must the Nevada government raise the eligibility standards such that only those living at “25%” of the official federal poverty level can receive assistance?  Here are the 2012 guidelines from the Department of Health and Human Services –

How much more should a family of four living on $1,920.83 per month  have to pay for basic health care?  How much more should a young man and his pregnant wife living on $1,260.83 per month have to pay for pre-natal care, and expenses associated with the birth of their first child?  For a political party which lauds its “Pro-Life” stance — asking low income families to dig deeper to pay for health care to make up for federal and state budget issues (while proposing more tax cuts for the top 1% of American income earners), makes it sound as though the GOP is the Pro-Birth, not Pro-Life party.

How much more should a young family have to pay for health care before the cost of health care begins to impinge on the capacity to put a roof over their heads?

Or their ability to put food on the table?  It’s likely going to cost our young family with two children under the ages of 19 approximately $366.40 to $578.40 per month to keep everyone fed. [USDA] Our hypothetical family might be lucky to have $764.43 per month remaining after housing and food for utilities, clothing, transportation costs (auto payments or bus fare) — that $764.43 translates to about $25.48 per day to cover ALL the basic family needs listed previously… including Health Care.  But wait, the Romney/Ryan budget cuts nutrition assistance too, drawing fire from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

“Cuts to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment. These cuts are unjustified and wrong.” [The Hill]

And what other program do the Republicans fantasize about turning into a Block Grant Program and then cutting?  Housing subsidies. [TO.org]  There was some discussion of the Ryan proposal on this topic at the March 21, 2012 House Budget Committee hearing:

“Rep. David Price (D-NC) asked Donovan what the implication of the Ryan budget cuts would be on HUD programs such as public housing, Choice Neighborhoods, HOME and others.  Donovan responded that, under the proposed Ryan budget, approximately one million households could lose their housing.  Of the one million households at risk under the Ryan budget, Donovan estimated that 585 thousand would come from the Housing Choice Voucher Program, 425 thousand from the Project-Based Voucher Program, and 110-180 thousand from homeless assistance programs.  He also mentioned that an estimated 17 thousand jobs would be lost from CDBG, and cuts to the HOME program would mean tens of thousands of new affordable housing units would not be built.”  [CLPHA] (emphasis added)

So, no help for financially fragile families for health care, or housing, or food — or anything, but tax payers in the top 1% of all our income brackets will get more, yet more generous, tax breaks.  Little wonder the Bishops were annoyed.  Less wonder Sister Simone Campbell from Nuns on the Bus received a standing ovation at the Democratic National Convention.

A person doesn’t have to be Roman Catholic to find the Republican proposals supported by Governor Romney and created by Representative Ryan astonishing in their parsimony and appalling in their avarice.

Perhaps one has to be incited by the fact that a family in Las Vegas might have an air-conditioner, or a DVD player, or a functional motor vehicle — “Look,” cry the miserly, “They have nice stuff, and they got it by doing nothing.” Not. So. Fast.   As of 2010 not that many Nevadans were receiving public  assistance. [Census] In fact, about 3% of Nevadans were receiving public assistance. [Census pdf]

Thus much for the Miserly Myth that “They’re all sitting around collecting welfare, and learning to be dependent on Guv’mint.”  Perhaps we should add the usual follow up, “and they’re doing it on my hard earned tax dollars.”  The latter portion is correct, we do pay taxes which support assistance programs for fragile families.  However, the Grinches among us appear to believe they are the only ones chipping in.

S’cuse me Mr. Grinch, but I really don’t mind paying a fractional portion of my income to insure NO child goes to bed hungry, NO elderly person with dementia is left alone, NO foster child is left with an untreated case of pneumonia, NO pregnant woman is without pre-natal care, NO family is homeless, NO mentally ill person is abandoned, NO disabled child is without care.

This is what Democrats mean when we say, “Just Say No.”

References and Resources:  * Edwin Park, CBPP.  Congressional Budget Office, Ryan’s Specified Paths, March 2012. (pdf) “House Republican Budget Seeks to Slow Medicare, Slash Medicaid,” American Medical Association, April 2, 2012.   Kaiser Family Foundation, State Health Facts, Database.  “Public Assistance Relief,” Census, Department of Commerce, pdf.  “HUD Secretary Defends FY13 Budget Before House Appropriators,” CLHPA.   “Four Ways Romney and Ryan Would Roll Back the 20th Century ,” Jake Blumgart, AlterNet, September 5, 2012.  “What Paul Ryan’s Budget Actually Cuts,” Brad Plumer, Washington Post, August 12, 2012.  USDA, Cost of Food Plans, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, May 2011 (pdf).  ASPE, Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Poverty Guidelines 2012. Congressional Budget Office, “The Long-Term Budgetary Impact of Paths for Federal Revenues and Spending Specified by Chairman Ryan,” March 2012, pdf.   Kaiser Family Foundation, link to interactive database for state health care statistics.

Heller Stalwartly Defends Corporate Bottom…Lines

Nevada’s Senator By Appointment Only™ Dean Heller (R-NV) would have us believe we can’t afford the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. [Heller] Why? Because, evil of all evils — the act raises taxes.  Whoa, now we need to ask the same question which should be raised every time a Republican says “It (whatever IT might be) raises taxes,” — taxes on whom? The GOP controlled House Ways and Means Committee says all the taxes will “cost taxpayers over $675 billion in the next ten years.”  [HouseWM]

“Additional 0.9 percent payroll tax on wages and self-employment income and new 3.8 percent tax on dividends, capital gains, and other investment income for taxpayers earning over $200,000 (singles)/$250,000.”

“2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers/importers*”

“Annual tax on drug manufacturers/importers *

OK, are you a person earning over $200,000 in adjusted gross income annually? If so you’ll see a 0.9% increase on your payroll taxes — the money you pay into your ‘entitlements’ like Medicare and  Social Security — programs you are entitled to receive because you’ve paid for them.

Are you a person whose income is derived from dividends, capital gains, and other investments?  Assuming you haven’t stashed them behind blockers in the Cayman Islands… If most of your income comes from investments then you’ll see a 3.8% tax increase. If your income comes from your salary or wages, and precious little comes from your Wealth Management Account, then you won’t see an increase here.

Are you a manufacturer or importer of medical devices and equipment?  If so, then you’ll be liable for a 2.3% excise tax — If you aren’t an importer or manufacturer of medical devices and equipment, then this tax doesn’t apply to you.  And, before we start to fee weepy about this sector of the economy, the Department of Commerce has some nice things to say about it:

“The market was valued exceeded $100 billion in 2010, representing about 40 percent of the total medical technologies industry. U.S. exports of medical technologies in key product categories identified by the Department of Commerce (DOC) were valued at approximately $38.09 billion in 2010, exceeding imports valued at $32.73 billion. With new and innovative technologies coming to market, the U.S. medical technologies industry is highly competitive and well-positioned for future growth.”

The arguments against the imposition of this excise tax are generally NOT that the corporations can’t afford to pay it, but that the taxes might impinge on investments in R&D, and the profitability of the corporation.  [CoSpGaz]

Are you a pharmaceutical manufacturing corporation? Are you Pfizer Inc. with a return on equity of 10.66%, and a $178.74 billion market cap? Are you Merck, with an 11.86% return on equity and a $131.21 billion market cap?  If you aren’t a pharmaceutical manufacturing corporation then this tax increase doesn’t apply to you.

Let’s look at some of the other taxes involved in the Affordable Care Act legislation:

“Cadillac tax” on high-cost plans *

Annual tax on health insurance providers *

Limit deduction for compensation to officers, employees, directors, and service providers of certain health insurance providers. [HouseWM]

The taxpayers in these cases are the health insurance corporations.   The first thing requiring some explication is the “Cadillac Health Plan.”  The Kaiser Foundation offers this explanation:

“Sometimes referred to as a “Cadillac” or “gold-plated” insurance plan, a high-cost policy is usually defined by the total cost of premiums, rather than what the insurance plan covers or how much the patient has to pay for a doctor or hospital visit.”  [...] “high-cost health plan is defined as costing more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family, including worker and employer contributions to flexible spending or health savings accounts.”  (emphasis added)

What Senator Heller forgot (?) to mention is that (1) the tax doesn’t go into effect until 2018, giving the insurance companies time to make adjustments based on savings, and (2) that the thresholds for the tax are flexible in order to allow for pools of high risk policy holders like police officers or firefighters.

Are you a health insurance corporation?  Aetna, Cigna, Anthem Blue Cross? Another major health insurance corporation?  If your answer is NO, then this tax increase doesn’t apply to you.

Are you the CEO, COO, CFO or other corner-office executive with a major health insurance corporation?  Your compensation is deductible as a business expense — but under the terms of the Affordable Care Act the corporation may no longer be able to take an unlimited deduction for your compensation. This item really has nothing to do with YOUR taxes, but it has everything to do with the deductions corporations are allowed for executive compensation.

Here we go again, when Senator Heller and his Republican cohorts speak of raising YOUR taxes they are very careful to keep it generic, as if YOU includes the Top 1% of American income earners, hedge fund managers, medical device manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, health insurance corporations and the owners thereof.

But, but but but… the corporations will just pass the tax expenses along to the consumers and we’ll all have to pay!  The pass along argument is not a policy decision — it is a corporate decision.  The corporation is not required to pass along the tax — it could reduce executive compensation? It could reduce dividends?  To do so might annoy the shareholders and executives, but if the corporation thinks more of its shareholders and its executives than it does of its customers, then that in itself says much about the company.

At the risk of facetiousness — here’s the one that must have galled Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) — “Impose 10 percent tax on tanning services *”

Are you the owner of a tanning bed salon?  If yes, then after I’ve seen two friends die from skin cancer, I’d like to talk to you some other day.  If no, then this tax doesn’t apply to you either.

Protecting Their Bottom (Lines)

So, Senator Heller may say, “Seven-term Congresswoman Shelley Berkley keeps voting for ObamaCare with no regard for the devastating consequences the law has for Nevadans.”   However, unless those Nevadans are in the Top 1%, are hedge fund and other wealth managers or get most of their income from investments not wages and salaries, are health insurance corporations or their executives, are medical device manufacturers, are pharmaceutical manufacturers, or tanning salons — those “burdensome taxes” aren’t yours.

We could just as easily argue that Nevada’s Senator By Appointment Only™ Dean Heller (R-NV) stands stalwartly by the side of the 1%, the investors and wealth managers, the pharmaceutical manufacturers, the medical device manufacturers, and the salon service owners — defending their corporate bottom lines.

Not Even A Step In The Right Direction: Senate GOP Blocks Buffett Rule

Yesterday the Senate had the opportunity to break the Republican filibuster of S. 2230, enacting the “Buffett Rule,” and appointed Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) voted with 44 other Republicans in the upper house to sustain that filibuster.   Proponents gathered 51 of the required 60 votes to break the logjam. [roll call 65]

The Congressional Research Service summarized what S. 2230 would have done, or might do, if the GOP filibuster could ever be broken:

“Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012 – Amends the Internal Revenue Code to require an individual taxpayer whose adjusted gross income exceeds $1 million to pay a minimum tax rate of 30% of the excess of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income over the taxpayer’s modified charitable contribution deduction for the taxable year (tentative fair share tax). Establishes the amount of such tax as the excess (if any) of the tentative fair share tax over the excess of: (1) the sum of the taxpayer’s regular tax liability, the alternative minimum tax (AMT) amount, and the payroll tax for the taxable year; over (2) certain tax credits. Provides for a phase-in of such tax. Requires an inflation adjustment to the $1 million income threshold for taxable years beginning after 2013.

Expresses the sense of the Senate that Congress should enact tax reform that repeals unfair and unnecessary tax loopholes and expenditures, simplifies the tax system, and makes sure that the wealthiest taxpayers pay a fair share of taxes.”

OK, it wasn’t going to be a major revenue raiser for the federal treasury.  However, it is yet another example of the fundamental divide between Democratic and Republican definitions of “fairness.”

By Republican lights “fairness” comes when everyone is paying the same rate.  This is only “fair” for those who are already blessed with wealth and health.  Exacting 25% from the coffers of a person earning $1,000,000 per year would yield $250,000.  Leaving the individual with earnings of $750,000.   Not bad for an annual salary.  Exacting the same 25% from a person earning $50,000 annually yields $12,500; leaving the family with an annual income of $37,500 after federal taxes, a number well below the median income in Nevada.

The Republican schemes for a Flat Tax are also highly questionable because they conveniently avoid the discussion of other taxes the 99% do pay, especially payroll taxes.   Payments to the Social Security Trust Funds are capped at $106,800 meaning that any income earned above that level is not subject to that taxation.  Thus our millionaires and billionaires get a double dip.  They are taxed at a lesser rate for capital gains than the rate for the wages of a regular working stiff, AND they don’t have to pay SSTF taxes on any income above the cap.  Nice.

Senator Heller would evidently like to keep the current system in place, and denigrated S. 2230 as an election year “gimmick.”

“While Nevada struggles with high unemployment, the President and Senate Democrats have chosen to focus on a measure that will not create a single job.  They have ignored rising gas prices, have not passed a budget in more than three years, and shoved job-killing government health care on small businesses across the country.  Now, the best they can do is push a tax hike designed for nothing more than a campaign press release.  It’s no wonder the American people are so frustrated with Washington.  There is no question the tax code is unfair and needs an overhaul, but the so-called ‘Buffett Rule’ is nothing more than an election year campaign gimmick,” said Senator Dean Heller.”  [Heller]

What we have here really isn’t a commentary, nor any analysis of the provisions of S. 2230, it’s a campaign year focus-group talking point word salad with a light dressing of distraction politics.

The first message from Senator Heller seems to be that “we Republicans only want to vote on Jobs Bills.”    Which raises the immediate question: If you wanted to vote on a Jobs Bill why did you block the American Jobs Act in October 2011?  “The jobs package includes $250 billion in tax cuts, including reduced payroll taxes on both workers and employers; $60 billion in extended unemployment benefits; and $140 billion in spending on education, transportation projects and public workers, including police officers.”  [CBS] Oh, now we ought to recall that to help pay for the bill there was a 5.6% surtax on millionaires.  Senator Heller voted to sustain the GOP filibuster on that bill too. [roll call 160]

“They have ignored rising gas prices,  have not passed a budget in more than three years, and shoved job-killing government health care on small businesses across the country.”   Lovely sound bites these, but hardly a rationale for voting against a step in the right direction on tax policy.   First, no one’s “ignoring pump pain,” in fact our oil production has increased in the past three years:

“After declining to levels not seen since the 1940s, U.S. crude production began rising again in 2009. Drilling rigs have rushed into the nation’s oil fields, suggesting a surge in domestic crude is on the horizon.

The number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quad­rupled in the past three years to 1,272, according to the Baker Hughes rig count. Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world.

“It’s staggering,” said Marshall Adkins, who directs energy research for the financial services firm Raymond James. “If we continue growing anywhere near that pace and keep squeezing demand out of the system, that puts you in a world where we are not importing oil in 10 years.” [Houston Chronicle]

Secondly, to  quote that radical liberal Ronald Reagan, “There they go again,” this time on the rather tired ‘Gee There’s No Budget talking point.’  The Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee debunked this one in a hurry:

“But Conrad said the Budget Control Act, which the Congress passed last summer after weeks of horse-trading over raising the debt ceiling, included the budget for this year and next year and that in many ways it is “stronger” and “more extensive” than a traditional budget.

He also went on suggest that any of his GOP his colleagues who continue to repeat the 1,000-day line would be guilty of either gross ignorance or deliberate deception.

“Either they don’t know what they did or they are misrepresenting what we all did,” Conrad said.

“If I hear another assertion … I will know that somebody is not telling the truth,” he said. “[I] hope now we have laid this issue to rest.” [The Hill]

So, which was it?  Did Senator Heller mean he was grossly ignorant of the Budget Control Act or is he being deliberately deceptive?

And third, Oh that job-killing health care reform act…“  Precisely how is an act which created opportunities for training 500 new primary care physicians by 2015 a job killer? Or, support for 600 new physicians assistants, or another 600 nurse practitioners, or a program for opening 10 new nurse administered clinics, or encouraging states to augment programs for increasing their professional health care work force by 10% to 25% become a “job killer?”  Does increasing access to health care facilities in underserved areas constitute a job killing exercise?  Does a Department of Labor initiative to increase job training in health care professions classify as Job Killing?

How does expanded financial assistance to health care trainees constitute Job Kill? How does granting tax breaks to health care professionals who serve in remote or difficult locations fall into the Job Kill category?  [DHHS]

There have been several analyses of the total job impact of the Affordable Care Act and Patients Bill of Rights which show employment related statistics along a predictable range on the ideological spectrum.  Politifact may come as close as any estimate to the job creation actually in the offing under the ACA:

“In reality, the number of jobs produced per year would vary, according to the report. For instance, in 2013, the number of jobs created under the second scenario would be about 210,000. That number would climb to nearly 800,000 in 2019.”

Not only is labeling every initiative which might impinge on corporate profitability or executive compensation as “job killing” inaccurate, it’s also intellectually lazy.

OMG It’s A Tax Hike!  This generalization also ignores that the provisions of S. 2203 aren’t a tax hike on everyone, and certainly not on the 99% of the country earning less than a cool million annually.

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) issued a statement yesterday emphasizing this point:

Yesterday Senate Republicans once again rejected the idea that millionaires and billionaires should contribute their fair share to help this country prosper. Republicans sent a message to millions of honest, hard-working Americans who will file their taxes today: it’s fair for Warren Buffett to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. Republicans said it’s fair for Mitt Romney to pay a lower tax rate than his cleaning lady or his chauffer. They believe it’s fair for hedge fund managers and executives to pay a lower tax rate than school teachers and waitresses and bus drivers.

That’s just crazy. But that’s not my word for it. That’s what President Ronald Reagan called a system of “unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share.”  In 1985, Ronald Reagan knocked the web of loopholes that allowed people making hundreds of millions of dollars each year to pay lower tax rates than construction workers or janitors. President Reagan called it “crazy.”  This broken system “made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary,” Reagan said. But the same system is in place today. And, as that radical liberal Ronald Reagan said, “That’s just crazy.”

Apparently, Senator Heller has moved somewhere far to the right of that aforementioned radical liberal Ronald Reagan.  The Class Warriors seem to have all lined up somewhere well to the right of the old Morning in America Man, and Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) noted the weaponry assembled by Senator Heller and his brigade:

“Yesterday my Republican colleagues used some strong words to oppose Democrats’ plan to right that inequality. Republicans called our common-sense proposal to ensure no one making more than a $1 million a year pays a lower tax rate than a truck driver, a secretary or a police officer “class warfare.” Republicans are pushing a budget that would end Medicare as we know it, slash nursing home coverage for the elderly, decimate Pell Grant funding and kick 200,000 kids out of the Head Start Program.

And they’re calling our proposal class warfare? I wish that were the most ridiculous thing Republicans have said about our proposal to bring a measure of fairness to America’s tax system. Far from it. One member of Senate Republican Leadership equated this measure to “shooting ourselves in the head.”

Shooting themselves in the foot during an election year may be more like it.  Senator Reid continued:

“The Paying a Fair Share Act – also called the Buffettt Rule – would have ensured millionaires and billionaires paid at least as much as their secretaries, assistants and nannies. Yet Republicans think asking those lucky millionaires and billionaires to contribute their fair share is just like shooting the country in the head. Our legislation would have protected 99 percent of small business owners, and maintained deductions for charitable giving. And it would have been a small but meaningful step to reduce our deficit at a time when every penny – or in this case, every billion – counts.

It doesn’t seem radical to me to ask Warren Buffett – who made almost $63 million in 2010 – to pay a higher tax rate than his secretary. It didn’t seem radical to Ronald Reagan, either. And it doesn’t seem radical to the three-quarters of Americans who support our legislation.

The wealthiest Americans take home a greater percentage of the nation’s income than at any time in nearly a century. Yet they enjoy the lowest tax rate in more than 50 years. So it’s no surprise Americans believe millionaires should shoulder their fair share. Even two-thirds of millionaires – and a majority of Republicans around the country – agree it’s time to fix a system rigged to favor of the richest of the rich.

Republicans in Congress are the only ones who aren’t on board. If you need evidence that millionaires and billionaires can afford to contribute a little more, consider this fact: last year there were 7,000 people who made more than $1 million but didn’t pay a single penny in federal income taxes. Not one thin dime.  Thanks to Republicans, those lucky millionaires and billionaires can keep gaming the system, while middle-class workers keep picking up the tab.”

It will take more than highly generalized talking point word salad with a dressing of political distraction to dig GOP candidates out of this particular hole in 2012.

Heller Earns His Campaign Ribbons in GOP War On Women

As of July 2006 he was For IT, but by July 2011 he’s Against IT — that would be appointed Nevada Senator Dean Heller and his stance on the abortion issue.  [RGJ]  Heller goes on to explain that he was more “libertarian” at home in Nevada, and that “It wasn’t an issue that was in the forefront when I was in the state of Nevada. Obviously, it’s come to the forefront when I’ve been here in Washington D.C.” [RGJ] (Via Politico)

Senator Heller, it appears, has signed up for and been mustered in to the Great Republican War On Women, and he’s earning his service ribbons.

The Campaign to Redefine Rape:   During the debates on the passage of H.R. 3 (Anti-Abortion Bill) Republicans sought to change the definition of statutory rape such that it did not include a rape perpetrated upon a minor child, an insane person, a mentally challenged individual, or one who is comatose (features of Nevada statutes). [DB May 7, 2011] When the verbiage submitted for the bill was questioned, the GOP sidestepped and inserted the language in the Committee Report thus creating a legislative record of the bill’s intent. [MoJo]

From an earlier post, the Committee Report said: “Reverting to the original Hyde Amendment language should not change longstanding policy. H.R. 3, with the Hyde Amendment language, will still appropriately not allow the Federal Government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape. The Hyde Amendment has not been construed to permit Federal funding of abortion based solely on the youth of the mother, nor has the Federal funding of abortions in such cases ever been the practice.” { Section 309} (emphasis added)  “Mother” (Jones) was right on target — the Committee Report does, in fact, differ significantly from the public verbiage in H.R. 3.”

Then Representative Dean Heller earned his service ribbon on May 4, 2011 during Roll Call vote 292.

The Campaign to De-fund Programs for Women and Children:  In February 2011 the House Appropriations Committee voted in favor of a bill which would cut $758 million from nutrition programs for low income women and children.  Another $210 million was cut from programs concerning Maternal and Child Health Block Grants. Family Planning  services were to be cut by $327 million.  [NatJournal]

On February 9, 2011 at 4:40 AM, Representative Heller earned his service ribbon in this campaign by voting in favor of H.R. 1 [roll call 147]the Republican version of a budget bill for the U.S. which incorporated cuts for programs designed to assist women and children.   The bill also put a crimp in funding for Head Start.

The Campaign to Cut Head Start: During the Capitol Hill discussions on budget cutting in March 2011 the popular Head Start Program earned The Axe from Republicans who pounced on a GAO report which cited ways in which Head Start could improve its administration and program offerings as “proof” the program should be cut.  [NYT] Republicans shrugged off criticism of the cuts say, “It, (Head Start) was “just one of those things.” [TP]

Since the Republicans didn’t provide any substantial reasons for cutting some 22% from the Head Start budget a person might assume that the comments made by one LTE might be correct: “The real motive among many who voted to cut Head Start is social engineering: namely, an attempt to reestablish a reactionary vision of society, where the man is the breadwinning head of the family and the woman is charged with taking care of him and the kids.”  [NYT]  Under the GOP version of the budget Head Start pre-schools would be forced to cut back services to approximately 200,000 children nationwide.

The Campaign to Eliminate Planned Parenthood:  This campaign began with a Lie and ended with a Tragedy.  [HuffPo]  As of February 18, 2011 the House had made it plain it would not support funding of Planned Parenthood, even though the vast majority of the medical services offered by their clinics involve screenings for breast, cervical, and ovarian cancer, or for medical issues concerning menopause, and services for testing for sexually transmitted diseases. [PP]

What makes the attack on Planned Parenthood so egregious is that the focus is on eliminating services for low income women.  Those women fortunate enough to be included in the upper income brackets will still be able to secure “the best medical services in the world” because they can afford comprehensive medical insurance (or in the case of elected representatives insurance exchanges with comprehensive policies), but low income women who need family planning, reproductive health, or cancer screening are on their own.   Another element, often unmentioned, but always somewhere in the picture is that PP does assist families with birth control advice and medication.  In some radical religious circles “birth control” equates to “abortion,” and the calculated and devious attack on Planned Parenthood serves these ends.

Representative Dean Heller earned his campaign ribbon for his service in this attack on Roll Call 93, in the U.S. House of Representatives when he voted in favor of the Pence Amendment to H.R. 1.

>Heller Votes No on Concurrence to H.R. 1256 Tobacco Control Legislation

>

Congressman Dean Heller (R-NV2) was one of 97 members of Congress to vote against concurring with the Senate’s version of H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. [roll call 335] The final version of the bill passed on a 307-97 vote. Congressman Heller was also among the 112 members of Congress who voted against the bill when it initially passed the House on April 2, 2009. [roll call 187]

>Ensign votes against tobacco regulation

>

Senator John Ensign (R-NV) was perfectly happy to tout the benefits of his Safeway, Inc. inspired personal health program for his staff…and then on June 10, 2009 voted to sustain the filibuster of H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. [roll call 206] The filibusterers were defeated 67-30. Today, Senator Ensign could have voted for the bill, but chose not to – voting against the bill that would allow the FDA to more closely regulate tobacco products. The bill passed 79-17. [roll call 207]
Those voting against the bill:
Alexander (R-TN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Roberts (R-KS)

>While Pigs Flew?

>

Food for thought as we await the first case of Swine Flu in Nevada: [LVSun] Smithfield Foods has a factory farm in Perote Municipality, Veracruz, Mexico that has been the target of local complaints about pollution and contamination; a municipal health official concluded the “disease vector was a type of fly that reproduces in pig waste and that the outbreak was linked to the pig farms.” [Grist] There was some confusion back on April 6 about whether or not local illnesses were related to the contamination, however Veracruz state officials began a flu vaccination campaign, and a spraying and cleaning operation to eradicate the flies. [BioSurv] We shall see. (Information from the Mexican press here, and factory farms here. For those who read Spanish, one of the original articles is here.)

While everyone’s focused on what the federal government is doing about pigs and flu, most of the actual efforts to address disease outbreaks come from state and local agencies. Nevada isn’t too well armed for this battle. The Trust for America’s Health reported that as of 2007 we were First in the Nation – in the number of un-immunized children aged 19 to 35 months. [TAH] If we can’t seem to get toddlers vaccinated for the “basics” – precisely how do we think we’re going to get everyone else protected? The state has purchased 50% or more of its share of federally subsidized anti-viral medications to prepare for a potential epidemic, and has a distribution plan. However, it probably isn’t helpful that Nevada uses a disease surveillance system that as of 2007 was incompatible with the CDC’s National Electronic Disease Surveillance System. [TAH] Price Waterhouse Coopers reported in 2008 there were 12 states with NEDSS incompatible reporting systems, with Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Nevada having the worst scores, achieving marks for just 6 out of 10 of the reporting indicators. [PWC]

So, given Nevada’s current tax/revenue situation we’ll see the IT necessary to catch up with the rest of the country when pigs fly?

Cross posted at Blue Sage Views.

desertbeacon.blogspot.com

>Health Care Reform – Getting the Frame Adjusted

>One of the things that’s bothering me about the current public health system debate is the potential for confusion concerning health care reform discussions, and the way this misunderstanding could be used to blunt the drive for repairing our badly broken system.

There is a significant difference between health care access, health care services, and health care insurance. However, of late it seems generalized discourse is using these three terms as if they were synonymous – which, course, they are not.

We are worried about health care access because too many people are forced to delay health care services because they can’t afford health care insurance.

If we are talking about the extension of health care affordability to working families, under the SCHIP program, then the appropriate category is “health care insurance” reform. If we are talking about extending the benefits of the health care insurance plan enjoyed by members of the House and Senate to the rest of our citizens, then (again) we are speaking of reforming our system of “health care insurance.”

If we are speaking about initiatives to improve health care records management, or to improve information systems, then the category shifts to “health care services” improvement. Likewise, when the issue is the research conducted and compiled by the Centers for Disease Control, then this, too, falls in the category of “health care services.”

Panic attacks over “nationalized,” or “socialized” medicine seem to most often occur when programs to renovate health care insurance are confused with programs to provide health care services. If a health care program, like Medicare, offers the participant a choice of physicians, then it is NOT socialized medicine on the (fill in the blank with the foreign nation of choice) model. (Unless, of course, the disputant is an adherent of ultra-conservative, reactionary, views hold that all public health care plans are by definition “socialism.”)

Now that “Harry and Louise” of the Clinton years have shifted to support health care insurance reform, the reactions to the possibility of health care insurance reform under the Obama Administration may be expected to obfuscate the profound differences between the meanings of “health care services” reform and “health care insurance” reform. The more we confuse these terms, the more slack is created which can be utilized to cloud the discussion and open doors to the opposition. Language does matter.

desertbeacon.blogspot.com

>Nevada and its Children: The Silver State can do better

>

The Children’s Advocacy Alliance gives Nevada a D+ for its care and treatment of children in the state. A recalcitrant child might argue, “But, gee Mom, it’s better than last year!” (When the state got a D-.) There were some good grades in the report, an A- for infant and child mortality, and a B+ because our children generally manage to avoid tobacco and alcohol use. However, the rest of the card isn’t so complimentary, a 50^th ranking for child immunizations, and a 49^th rating for children without health insurance. [LVRJ]

Desert Beacon will continue to harp on the subject of children’s health care, insurance, and related matters because Other People’s Children Matter. On a purely selfish plane: One of them could grow up to be my auto mechanic, or my surgeon. My accountant or my local deputy sheriff. The carpenter or plumber I hire, or the lawyer I retain. The kid might even turn out to be a local miner or stock brokerage representative. If the little critter doesn’t stay in Nevada she or he may well be a member of someone else’s community; living in someone else’s town, or perhaps stationed on some military base far from here.

Whether the offspring stay in the state or become ‘ambassadors’ elsewhere, I want them to be healthy, well educated, and positive examples of how Nevadans feel about children and their welfare. I want their parents to get them immunized from common childhood diseases; I want their guardians to get involved in their education; and, I want their families to have decently paying jobs to adequately support them. I want them to have adequate, safe, and affordable housing. I want them to be safe going to and from school. I want them protected by fire and police services to the best of our ability. I want them to be the object of the utmost concern by those who are charged with caring for them if for some reason their families cannot.

I don’t want them to receive their medical treatment in an emergency room for anything other than the breaks, bruising, and sprains they get learning to ride their bicycles or adventuring too high up the neighbor’s tree. I don’t want to hear about a family so bereft of means that the fever which should have been attended to by a family physician became a cause for alarm in the ER.

I don’t want for them merely to be able to pass basic learning skills examinations at the expense of being taught to comprehend, synthesize, and analyze the information they’ll be getting the rest of their lives. I don’t want them to go through their formal educations without art, music, and physical education. I want them playing on sports teams, taking field trips, going to public events, and putting on plays. I want them taught by the best teachers we can recruit, and advised by the best counselors and administrators we can retain. I want a licensed health care professional on the premises, and a school safety officer nearby.

I want them washing my already fairly clean vehicle to accumulate pocket funds to attend a state student council convention, and I want them to entertain me on a Saturday afternoon playing in the very best football helmets we can buy. I want their basketball uniforms fresh, sharp, and stylish. I want to be entertained during a long winter at the very least by their effort to put on an evening of drama or debate, even if Broadway or the American Bar Association might not be singularly impressed.

Instead of people complaining that their education is too expensive, I’d like to hear someone say that educating the kids is the most important investment we can make. Instead of people complaining that we can’t afford adequate health care services for children, I rather hear that we can’t afford not to. Instead of listening to their elders speak in generalizations about the cost of health, education, and welfare expenses for children, I’d much prefer to hear them declare their support of specific programs for their benefit.

We’ll be a civilized state the day that we are spending more educating our children than incarcerating them; when we are investing more in preventative health care for them than on our emergency room services. We’ll be civilized when there are no more than 25 youngsters in any secondary school classroom, and no more than 15 in their primary grades. We’ll be a civilized state when we stop speaking of our children’s expense to us in our present circumstances, and start referring to them as our investment in our own future.

desertbeacon.blogspot.com