Tag Archives: Republicans

Tax Cuts, Wages, and Promises, Promises, Promises

GD income wages salaries tax cuts 1980 2017

That Blue Line on the chart is FRED’s report of gross domestic income, in terms of compensation for employees (wages and salaries) from 1980 to the present.  One of the things to notice is that it keeps rising.  We can explain part of this by taking inflation into account, and some of the bumps and blips by noting that the shaded gray sections represent recessions.  But, it just keeps going up except for the Great Recession brought to us in the wake of the Housing Bubble/Wall Street Casino Crash, compliments of the Wall Street Casino.

Indeed, notice that increase in employees wages and salaries between 1990 and 2000, when the top marginal tax rate increased from 31% to 39.6%, the blue line keeps going upward.   If nothing else, the graphic above illustrates that anyone trying to convince us that increases or decreases in the top marginal rate for income tax payers correlate to increases or decreases in wage and salary compensation trends hasn’t been paying attention.

The Corporate Tax Wrinkle 

Okay, if one can’t make the case that tax cuts for the wealthy won’t “increase” the money in the pockets of middle income Americans, then there’s the Corporate Tax Wrinkle.  Thus, the White House is trying this line:

“The Council of Economic Advisers report argues that high corporate taxes hurt workers in the form of smaller paychecks and that worker incomes rise sharply when corporate rates fall. It points to “the deteriorating relationship between wages of American workers and U.S. corporate profits” and says, essentially, that high corporate taxes have encouraged companies to shift capital abroad rather than flow profits to workers through pay increases.”

Here’s the first problem — this statement assumes that high corporate taxes cause companies to “shift capital abroad.”  This conveniently ignores some other reasons corporations seek to invest overseas.  Let’s make a quick list: (1) There’s good old fashioned market seeking.  In this case the company is looking for new customers for its goods or services, and it may be that the domestic market is fairly well saturated so looking abroad makes perfect sense.  This is especially true for technology firms which often find that the smallest market needed to drive development is larger than some of the largest national markets.  (2)  Resource seeking.  Labor costs may be cheaper in another foreign market, or there may be quicker access to natural resources in a foreign location.  (3) Strategy.  Imagine that a corporation is looking to improve its distribution network, or to take advantage of new technologies; a company might decide to partner with a foreign corporation which specializes in some specific phase of production.  And then there are (4) Efficiency elements.  We can insert some common elements into this category like trade agreements which give an advantage to plant or service locations because of tariff agreements, or there could be currency exchange rate considerations involved.

Therefore, we can quickly see that the corporate tax environment is a part of the decision making process about shifting capital overseas, but it certainly isn’t the only factor, and it may not even be the most important one.  What the White House Wrinkle demands is that we believe if Congress reduces corporate taxes this will offset all the other other reasons a corporation may want to shift some of its operations overseas.  Frankly, this really isn’t rational.

And, then there’s the second problem —  hoarding.

“The cash held overseas by US firms has continued to grow at a rapid pace, rising to almost $2.5tn in 2015. The substantial tax bill most firms would face if they attempted to bring this cash home, however, means that it is still very unlikely to ever be repatriated under the current system.”

Gee, if we could “repatriate” all this money imagine the increase in wages!  Not. So. Fast. The firms stashing the most cash overseas are Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, Alphabet (Google), and Oracle. [MW]  Right off the bat we notice that these are all tech firms, and as mentioned above tech firms are constantly market and resource seeking — while a repatriation scheme may bring some of the cash home, there’s still a reason the firms may want to keep capital available for foreign operations; it wouldn’t matter what domestic tax system was in place.

Another point that should be made more often is that this money isn’t “trapped” overseas.   Where are these “deferred profits?

“A 2010 survey of 27 large U.S. multinationals found nearly half of their “overseas” tax-deferred profits were invested in U.S. assets, including U.S. dollars deposited in U.S. banks or invested in U.S. Treasury bonds or other U.S. government securities, securities and bonds issued by U.S. corporations, and U.S. mutual funds and stocks.”

What’s “trapped” are the tax payments due on the funds — not the funds themselves, 50% of which are already happily running along in the corporate revenue streams or “reinvested” in U.S. assets.   And if we could “bring home”  (or get out of the bank) the other half would this mean higher wages?  Remember, we tried this once before:

“In 2004, lawmakers allowed multinationals to repatriate more than $300 billion in profits at a greatly reduced tax rate. But independent studies largely conclude that firms used those profits to pay cash to shareholders, not to invest or create U.S. jobs. In fact, many firms laid off large numbers of U.S. workers even while reaping multi-billion-dollar tax cuts. Today, offshore profits are concentrated in a few large multinationals that have recently made record cash payouts to shareholders by buying back stock, showing that they already have enough cash on hand to make whatever investments they project would be profitable. Repatriated profits would likely similarly be paid out to shareholders, not invested.”

Who are those “buyback monsters” who’ve been demonstrating they already have enough cash on hand to make any investments they think might create even more profits?   Apple is one, then there’s Exxon Mobil, IBM, General Electric, Pfizer, and McDonald’s. [CNBC]  If Apple is one of the ‘monsters,’ then why would anyone believe that allowing the tech giant to “repatriate” more money at reduced tax rates would make them do anything other than what they’ve been doing — using the capital to buyback stock?  McDonald’s?  If they have enough cash on hand to indulge in financial engineering to increase their stock prices, what would make anyone believe they’d change midstream and start advocating for raising the minimum wage?

Mythological Means

It’s really hard to imagine where that $4,000 pay raise is supposed to come from if corporations are given more tax breaks.  There’s a question of the provenance of that $4,000 number in the first place, and in the second place it’s a dubious estimate at best.  We should also notice that the claim isn’t being framed in context; there may be some gains for employees BUT they are long term, certainly not short-term or annual gains. [FC]

“It’s important to note that any gain to workers would only come in the long term — over several years. Furthermore, most households would not see a gain as large as the “average” or mean figure, which is pulled up by very high incomes of a relative few. In 2016, the average household income was $83,143 as we’ve already noted, but the median or midpoint for household income was $59,039, meaning that half of all households received less.”  [FC]

This is another version of the old story:  The Sultan of Brunei walks into a room with nine members of the Little Sisters of the Poor and the average (mean) wage skyrockets.  Take that $4,000 figure with a couple of boxes of Morton’s Salt.

The Bottom Line 

So, what do we know?  We know that there’s no direct correlation between low top marginal rates for individual filers and wage increases.  We know that corporations make decisions about off shore operations for a variety of reasons, taxes being only part of the equation.  We know that corporations have several options for investing cash (foreign or domestic) only one of which — seemingly the least likely — is to pay increased wages and salaries.  We know that corporations use “financial engineering” to increase their stock value, or increase dividends to their shareholders.  We know that even accepting the 20-25% labor liability for corporate taxation the returns to labor are long (not short or annual) term benefits of little value in terms of household budgeting; it’s NOT like having any useful amount of “cash in your pocket.”

In short, we probably know what we’ve suspected all along.  The current Republican version of “tax reform” is simply a gift to corporations, extremely wealthy persons, and a nice gesture from the Haves to the Have Mores.

And for this we are to accept cuts in Medicare to the tune of $472.9 billion over the next ten years, between $1 and $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, cuts to food assistance programs, cuts to low income heating assistance programs, cuts to children’s health insurance, cuts to education, small business support, and Meals on Wheels….

Advertisements

Comments Off on Tax Cuts, Wages, and Promises, Promises, Promises

Filed under Economy, income tax, Politics, tax revenue, Taxation

Translating Republican Discomfort with Racism

It’s inevitable.  Every time a racial issue highlights problems in American society and politics we can count on Republicans to reach back into their barrel of excuses and rationalizations — by now these are clearly obvious, equally transparent, and hopelessly irrelevant.

There’s the predictable from Rep. Peter King (R-NY):

“It’s not just stunning, it’s really disgraceful,” King responded. “They’re talking about somehow trying to unify the nation, and instead they’re using the most divisive type language, the most hysterical rhetoric, and that’s totally out of bounds—it’s wrong. And politically, I think it hurts them because that alienates the American people.”

Who’s alienated? The Representative surely isn’t speaking about people who have seen their DMV offices shut down in Alabama making it more difficult to get the identification necessary to vote?  Is he talking about those whose districts have been gerrymandered to prevent them from living in a Congressional district that’s competitive? Or, does raising issues such as these make white people uncomfortable?

Meanwhile back in Pennsylvania:

 “…on Thursday morning, the Pa. Dems challenged Mango and Wagner again – this time to denounce President Trump over his widely criticized “both sides” remarks. All of the party’s releases were issued after the President’s Tuesday press conference and resulting backlash.

“The Democrats are simply trying to exploit the events in Charlottesville for political gain. It’s shameful, and everyone involved should be embarrassed,” Wagner said.”

Nothing like loading the language.  I “point to specific examples,” you, on the other hand “exploit.”   I’m not in the least bit convinced that pointing to the Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists gathered in Charlottesville as the worst examples of human beings at hand is something which should embarrass anyone, any time.

So, here they go again,

“I would say this about the president’s critics as a whole: If nothing will quiet them, than they don’t have America in their sights,” Faulkner said. “They don’t care about us. They don’t care about Americans. And shame on them. They need to step aside and let justice be done. Because if there is going to be justice, it’s going to take all of us together.”

Oh, “togetherness,” how nice.  Yes, it’s going to take all of us to condemn white supremacy and institutional racism, and if this makes Republicans uncomfortable, so be it.   “They don’t care about Americans.”  White Americans?

White Americans expressed their ‘economic anxiety:’

“Obama set racial relationships in the nation back 100 years with his divisional rhetoric. Being a Southerner, the KKK was always Democrat. So to blame it on Republicans is ridiculous. Did they have the right to march? Absolutely. Did the antifa have the right to stop them? No. That’s how violence begins — the two polar opposites don’t want the other to be heard.”

Really? “Divisional rhetoric?”  What might that have been?  Something about his reaction to the murder of Trayvon Martin?

Apparently President Obama, being African American, was just too much for some Alabama Republicans:

“I think Barack Obama is to blame. I think this country is more divided than it ever has been. I think almost all racism in world history can be tied back to liberalism, socialism, the idea everyone’s supposed to have an equal outcome as opposed to equal opportunity — those are liberal ideas that have been propagated over the past eight years through the administration, with just terrible things going on and the rhetoric w’ehe had coming out of the White House during that time.”

“Speaking while Black” makes some whites nervous.  Notice how the logic doesn’t form a chain in the comment above.  There are fragments placed in a series which logically don’t make a bit of sense, but do make an emotional framework to buttress the feelings of the white apologist.  Racism bad + racism/socialist + Obama/Black + ‘rhetoric’ = I’m Okay, those other people are bad.   It’s hard to move from the Racism is good argument of the Jim Crow era to Racism is bad BUT it’s the other side making me feel uncomfortable position of contemporary politics.   It’s hard to find “divisiveness” in the President’s comment on the Trayvon Martin case:

“…finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching.  There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race.  I haven’t seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations.  They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have.  On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there’s the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can?  Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character?  That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.”

Then, there’s downright historical revision:

“I think they’re misled — I understand why they’re doing it; you can’t rewrite history, and so forth. I don’t think Gen. Lee would be disappointed in them moving the statue because I think he would want to preserve the union.  I understand that the guy who drove the car was a Democrat. … You obviously have to be a little crazy to drive a car [like] that. [He says he heard this on Facebook.] Americans need to learn how to resolve issues without violence.”

Someone went to sleep during American History — Lee wanted to ‘preserve the Union?”  That would be no, a resounding, four year NO.  The guy who drove the car was a Democrat? No, he was a Neo-Nazi.  No, you can’t rewrite history, but there seem to be lots of erasures in the history of the Confederacy going on.

Where do we go from here?  If there are people who felt stifled because having an African American president made it socially unacceptable to be an outright racist, and view having a white man in the White House as cover for re-emerging into the public, then it’s time to demonstrate — as the good citizens of Boston surely did — that this is still socially unacceptable.  It would be nice to hear Republicans replicate Bob Dole’s August 1996 speech:

“The Republican Party is broad and inclusive. It represents — The Republican Party is broad and inclusive. It represents many streams of opinion and many points of view.

But if there’s anyone who has mistakenly attached themselves to our party in the belief that we are not open to citizens of every race and religion, then let me remind you, tonight this hall belongs to the Party of Lincoln. And the exits which are clearly marked are for you to walk out of as I stand this ground without compromise.”

Denying history, rewriting it to fit one’s personal prejudices, playing “what-aboutism,” are counter productive.  The sooner the Republican Party disavows the racists and the bigots the sooner it will be free of the anchors weighing it down in the politics of prejudice.

Comments Off on Translating Republican Discomfort with Racism

Filed under Nativism, Politics, racism

Please, No More Mr. Moderate

Here’s the beltway narrative du jour:

“Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has proposed phasing out higher federal payments for people who sign up for Medicaid under the health law’s expansion in three years. Ohio Republican Rob Portman and others such as Nevada’s Dean Heller are pushing for a seven-year phaseout ending in 2027. Senators also are debating how much to reduce federal funding for Medicaid as compared to current law.”

Cutting to the chase, there’s nothing “moderate” about support for dropping federal payments for Medicaid — in three years, in seven years, or even in ten years.  It’s almost tantamount to arguing that Poison X is better than Poison Y because X won’t kill you for another 7 years.

There’s also a pattern to Senator Heller’s carefully crafted media image.  First, he expresses “great concern” about Republican legislation; then, he comes out against the legislation “in its present form.”  When the time comes for a vote on the bill Senator Heller suddenly finds his “concerns” have been addressed and he can support the measure.  There are clocks in this house that don’t function with this kind of regularity.

On May 4, 2017 Senator Heller is reported by the Reno Gazette Journal as “opposed to the Obamacare repeal in its present form.”  Notice that prescient loophole — “in its present form,” because it’s guaranteed that the “form” will change just enough for Senator Heller to announce his support when the roll is called.   McConnell is pushing for a vote before the end of the month:

“McConnell and his leadership team hope to have a preliminary framework submitted to CBO by the end of the week and a floor vote by month’s end, Republican sources said. On Tuesday, the Senate Budget Committee said the House bill cleared the Senate’s stringent reconciliation rules, allowing the House to formally send the bill to the Senate. Otherwise, the House would have had to vote again on a modified bill, further derailing the repeal effort.”

There are some ironic touches in the GOP controlled Senate — the Republicans once cried into their towels that the Affordable Care Act was jammed through the Congress, this has been thoroughly debunked:

“This is a bizarre description of a bill that spent a year working through Congress, eventually passing numerous committees, two full House majority votes, one Senate supermajority vote and, in fact, many, many, many hearings. While the law did use a budget-reconciliation bill to enact minor fiscal adjustments, a maneuver that Republicans decried as akin to a death blow to the Republic, in fact its major provisions all received 60 votes in the Senate. The bill was evaluated by the independent Congressional Budget Office, and the projected premium levels in the new exchanges turned out to be accurate, and its predictions of overall federal health spending turned out to be too pessimistic, as the federal government is now spending less on health care with Obamacare than it was projected to spend without it. The bill was enacted in a democratic, deliberate, transparent, and excruciatingly slow fashion.”

In contrast to the “excruciatingly slow” enactment of the ACA the current Senate is (1) seen to be fond of that budget reconciliation procedure; (2) holding the work sessions on the bill behind closed doors; and (3) has not scheduled any hearings on the bill to date. Not to put too fine a point to it, the Republicans are doing exactly what they falsely accused the Democrats of doing — and thus far getting away with it.

Senator Heller’s constituents can contact his office at 202-224-6244 (DC office); 702-388-6605 (Las Vegas Office), or 775-686-5729 (Reno Office)  Senator Heller’s aide assigned to health care issues is Rachel Green.

 

Comments Off on Please, No More Mr. Moderate

Filed under Health Care, health insurance, Heller, nevada health, Nevada politics, Politics

Let’s Review and Make Some Conjectures

Senator McConnell couldn’t have made himself more clear to the Republican leadership — let’s please have less drama from the White House so we can get along with our agenda.  Less tactfully phrased, McConnell and his myrmidons such as Representative Mark Amodei (NV2) and Senator Heller (R-NV) isn’t going to do anything about the dolt in the Oval Office until after they get what they want.  They want two things: (1) to return the control of the health insurance market back to the insurance companies; and (2) to dismantle the financial and consumer protections enacted in the Dodd Frank Act, and the Sarbanes Oxley Act.  Not sure about this, then please consider the current push for the Choice Act:

“At a time when too many hard-working American families are still recovering from the devastating impact of the 2008 financial crash, deregulating Wall Street’s biggest firms again makes no sense. Yet the Financial CHOICE Act threatens to do exactly that.

It would allow the biggest Wall Street banks to opt-out of significant financial protection rules, while those banks that remain in the regulatory system would be blessed with watered down versions of once-tough protections, like living wills and stress tests. Perhaps most worryingly, the CHOICE Act would cripple two of the most important post-crash reforms: the Financial Stability and Oversight Council (FSOC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).” [the Hill]

Review: The CFPB was the agency which brought to light, and then levied fines against Wells Fargo for egregious violations of their customers’ privacy and financial interests.  Little wonder the banks aren’t happy with those “bureaucrats.” Less wonder why the Republicans aren’t going to do anything about the President who had to fire his National Security Adviser — until the Choice Act is safely delivered to his desk.

We should also recall that the Republican version of the healthcare reform act is much less about health insurance reform than it is about bestowing tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, to the tune of close to $765 billion over the next ten years.  We can easily conjecture that the GOP will do nothing about the man in the office who fired the US Attorney in the Southern District of New York, and then the emissary from the Department of Justice who warned him about the dangers presented by the presence of General Flynn.  At least nothing will be done, until the Republicans can cut Medicaid to the barest of bones:

His (Trump’s) promise would be violated by House GOP bill, as it seeks to freeze Medicaid expansion money for states in 2020 by withhold funding at the enhanced match rate for any new enrollees after that point. Other beneficiaries are at risk with the more long-term transformation that program stands to undergo under the GOP bill. The legislation would overhaul the program—now an unlimited federal match rate—into a per capita cap system, meaning that states would get a fixed amount of funding per enrollee. The Congressional Budget Office, analyzing an initial version of the legislation, predicted out of the 24 million Americans who would lose coverage under the earlier GOP bill compared to current law, 14 million were due to its changes to Medicaid. [TPM]

Given there is no CBO scoring on the current edition, we can’t be certain that States like Nevada which expanded Medicaid enrollment in order to make health care access affordable, won’t be left in the lurch — Congressman Amodei’s tortured logic to the contrary.  So, nothing is likely to be done about the executive who fired the Director of the FBI who was supervising the investigation of Russian meddling in our elections (and possible Trump connections to that meddling) until Medicaid cuts are also tucked into the President’s portfolio for a signing ceremony.

When will Republicans address the Leaker-in-Chief’s discussions with the Russian visitors to the White House?  Probably not until the budget cuts to the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Medicare, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education come to fruition.  Do we have a situation in which the following is true?  If the Trumpian honeymoon isn’t over, it soon will be.

That sentiment was echoed by a prominent GOP consultant I spoke to who asked not to be named to offer a candid assessment of Trump and congressional Republicans.
“The question for Republicans is whether this is the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” said the source. “Forty percent approval is not the issue; an erratic, rudderless, leaderless White House is.” [CNN]

The camel’s back may not bend until the Republicans have seen their agenda realized, their Randian Dreams made true, and their Austerity Government imposed on the American people.   The damage of this administration and the Republicans in Congress who enable and excuse him is only starting to come to fruition.

 

Comments Off on Let’s Review and Make Some Conjectures

Filed under Amodei, Comey, conservatism, corporate taxes, financial regulation, Health Care, health insurance, Heller, income tax, McConnell, Medicaid, nevada health, Nevada politics, Politics, public health

Caveats and The Unspoken Big Lie

So, we have two sources telling us that approximately 24 to 26 million people will lose their health care insurance if the Republicans are successful in jamming through their tax shift proposal masquerading as a ‘replacement’ for the Affordable Care Act.  Therefore, it’s now time for a new ‘talking point’ from the GOP, especially since some Republicans like Rep. Mark Amodei are on record saying:

When asked what his plan for a change to Obamacare would be, Heller said, “If you like your health care, you can keep it,” a statement that echoes a promise from Obama that later ended up being false.  Amodei said he would not vote for any plan that resulted in reduced coverage for anyone.  “No, I don’t think you can say forget it, we’re going to let them be uninsured because as a practical solution, that’s not an answer and somebody ends up paying in the end anyhow,” Amodei said. [RGJ 2/22/17]

Well, now we know with some certainty that the GOP replacement bill will result in reduced coverage, and some people and families will be uninsured.  How to escape this trap? A new talking point!

“No one will lose their coverage.” 

The HHS Secretary Tom Price, whose replacement would have cost some 18 million their insurance, opined:

“Success, it’s important to look at that,” he said. “It means more people covered than are covered right now at an average cost that is less. I believe that we can firmly do that with the plan that we’ve laid out there.”  Not exactly.

Then, there was Pete Sessions, a Republican from Dallas, telling his listeners:

“Nobody is going to lose their coverage,” Sessions, chairman of the House Rules Committee, told CNN. “You’ll be able to keep your same doctor, you’ll be able to keep your same plan.”

A spokeswoman for the congressman later explained that Sessions meant Americans will have the choice whether to obtain or maintain coverage — not that the GOP bill would take coverage away. The American Health Care Act would nix the ACA mandates requiring Americans to have health insurance.” [DMN]

And, there it is, the Big Caveat, which makes taking health insurance away from working American all AOK.  You can “choose” to keep your health insurance! IF and ONLY IF you can afford it. ?

However, even IF you can afford it, the policy you can purchase may not be truly comprehensive. A young person may have to get additional insurance if he or she marries and there is a pregnancy in the plans. More cost. A plan may not cover preventative care? Or mandatory coverage for cancer screenings?  More cost.  It doesn’t take too long to add up the extras until what has been basic coverage becomes optional coverage. Then the risk pool is reduced and the premiums go up. That is how insurance works. The larger the risk pool the lower the premium costs.

Thus, “you can keep your health insurance” IF:

  • You can afford it in the first place, not likely if you are among the low wage workers in this country.
  • You can afford it and are willing to accept lower levels of coverage, and you don’t mind having to pay for additional services for additional  premiums.
  • You are willing to shop for insurance coverage every time the circumstances of your life changes; as in pregnancies, pre-natal care, caring for a special needs child, a family member needs rehabilitation or mental health care.
  • You are willing to see your local, and especially rural, hospitals see higher levels of uncompensated care.
  • You are willing to accept that your doctors and other health care professionals will see less reimbursement for services rendered.
  • You are willing to forego coverage for preventative screening and treatment for medical conditions.

Access to health insurance isn’t the same as having health care insurance.  As the now commonplace tweet has it: “I have access to a Mercedes Benz dealership — that doesn’t mean I can afford to buy something of their lot.”

Comments Off on Caveats and The Unspoken Big Lie

Filed under Amodei, Health Care, health insurance, nevada health, Nevada politics, Politics

Myths and Legends: The Medicaid Issue in Nevada

There was a Republican politician on my television screen this morning telling me, or trying to tell me, that Medicaid was “meant for mothers, children, and those who couldn’t work…” This is outdated. Then, he tried to convince me that Medicaid was being “abused” by those who work and ‘game the system,’ while spouting platitudes about the Free Market and the Joys of Competition.  Let’s start at the very beginning.

This is the explanation of Medicaid as reported by Nevada’s Division of Health Care Financing and Policy (pdf)

“Medicaid is the nation’s main public health insurance program for people with low incomes and the single largest source of health coverage in the U.S.”

The program is meant to help people with low incomes.

“The PPACA extended coverage to many of the non-elderly uninsured people nationwide. The June 2012 Supreme Court Ruling made Medicaid expansion optional for states, and Nevada elected to join the expansion and maximize federal dollars. Effective January 1, 2014, this move broadened Medicaid eligibility to nearly all adults under age 65 with income at or below 138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). At the end of SFY 2014 that meant that there were an additional 125,989 new enrollees in Nevada Medicaid, and increased expenditures of $154,816,777.00. These new expenditures are 100% federally funded.” [NV med pdf]

Medicaid expansion added those working Americans who were earning 138% of the poverty line and below, (pdf) and more specifically: (1) Those between the ages of 19 and 64 who are earning less than 138% of the FPL. (2) Pregnant women in homes earning less than 165% of the FPL. (3) Children from birth to 19 years of age in homes wherein the earnings are at or below 205% of the FPL, with a small premium required in some cases. Translated into real people with real levels of low income earned, this means a family of four would be eligible for Medicaid in Nevada if the family earnings are less than $2795 per month; for pregnant women if the earnings are at or less than $3341 per month; and families are eligible for the kids’ Check Up program if family earnings are less than $4151 per month.

If we calculate annual earnings, then monthly earnings of $2795 mean an annual income  of $33,540. At $3341 annual earnings of $40,092, and at $4151 annual income of $41,630. Nevada’s median income is $52,431 (2015). To put these numbers in perspective, the average weekly wages of a person working in a private restaurant in this state are $382, or $1528 per month ($18,336 yearly). [DETR] The average rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in Las Vegas, the obvious site for most private restaurants, is $932 per month. [RJ] In short, not only are wages not all that generous in Nevada, the benefits available for Nevada families aren’t all that generous either.

Republicans, however, strenuously oppose benefits for adults capable of working. This would make infinitely more sense IF and ONLY IF they were willing to support a living wage for all employees. One really doesn’t get to have it both ways.  Either you want a reduction in benefits that most working people can afford to purchase on their own because they have the financial resources to do so, or you want lower wages which mean that individuals and families cannot afford those things, like health insurance, and the public benefits are required to make up the difference.  However, at this point we slam into another GOP myth.

Free market competition will make health insurance affordable for everyone, even those who are working in low wage jobs.  Good luck with that. Personally, I have yet to hear anyone explain with any specificity why health insurance corporations will be flocking to Clark, Washoe, or even Esmeralda counties because there is more “free market” applied to the situation. If the insurance companies weren’t wildly excited about selling individual and family health insurance before the enaction of the ACA, why would they do so now? Unless, of course…

They could sell policies that didn’t cover all that much? That cost more for those between the ages of 50 and 64?  That didn’t cover maternity expenses? That didn’t cover preventative care? That didn’t cover drug rehabilitation and mental health services in parity with physical treatments? That only covered the items required in those states with the least consumer protections? And, even then all we have to look to is the situation in Nevada when insurance corporations were free to offer what they were pleased to call comprehensive policies.  Again, if they weren’t interested in selling a plethora of individual and family policies then why believe they would be now?

And that Free Marketeering? It doesn’t work in the health care industry:

“In a free market, goods and services are allocated through transactions based on mutual consent. No one is forced to buy from a particular supplier. No one is forced to engage in any transaction at all. In a free market, no transactions occur if a price cannot be agreed.

The medical industry exists almost entirely to serve people who have been rendered incapable of representing their own interests in an adversarial transaction. When I need health services I often need them in a way that is quite different from my desire for a good quality television or a fine automobile. As I lie unconscious under a bus, I am in no position to shop for the best provider of ambulance services at the most reasonable price. All personal volition is lost. Whatever happens next, it will not be a market transaction.” [Forbes]

The only thing I can say with any certainty is that the Republicans have little idea exactly what constitutes a Free Market, and instead are waving it like a banner crovering their underlying desire to be free from the moral requirements compelling us to be our brother’s keepers.  The range of misanthropic explications are appalling, from “we need not do anything because the poor will always be with us anyway,” to “when Jesus told us to provide for one another he only meant fellow Christians.”

The Repeal and Replace campaign is as void of humanity as it is of understanding of the reality of most family economics, and of the comprehension of what the term ‘free market’ actually means.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Economy, Health Care, health insurance, Politics

The Government Regulations They Love To Hate

The Republicans have catch phrases which have been very handy for their purposes for the last forty years, “burdensome regulations,” are among them. Rarely do they want to identify upon whom the burden rests. Often they are fond of calling the regulations “job killing.”  Nearly always the “regulations” are amorphous, and highly generalized.

Let’s get specific.  Senator Rob Portman will be introducing a bill which, in its present form, would limit the ability of federal agencies to promulgate rules until every last lawsuit against them is completely litigated. In other words, NEVER.  So, what nefarious regulations would people like to have eliminated?

How about eliminating the regulations associated with the Clean Water Act?  One regulation has already fallen — the one limiting toxic sludge emptied into freshwater.  Is this going to make drinking water any safer? Will this encourage the development of tourism based activities in coal country to diversify their economy by adding more hunting and fishing opportunities?  Will elimination of these rules make the drinking water in Flint, MI and other American cities safer for children, and adults?  Do we really want to go back to the not-so-good old days when the Cuyahoga River caught fire in Cleveland, OH?

Or perhaps people would like rules associated with the Clean Air Act eliminated?  What’s wrong with breathing a little smog — other than creating public health issues like an increase in the incidence of asthma? Respiratory diseases? Lung cancer? What’s wrong with creating a country of people walking around with face masks as they do in Beijing?

How about eliminating consumer protection regulations?  Gee, what could go wrong, other than a replication of Wells-Fargo’s egregious practice of opening accounts people didn’t know about and then charging fees on those accounts?  Other than predatory lenders charging unimaginable rates for pay day loans to working people, and even members of the US Armed Forces?  Other than mortgage servicers failing to notify customers who held their mortgages and failing to properly record documents with local governments? Other than obviously dangerous products being available for sale to unwitting customers, customers without the ability to check online to see if products for infants, children, and others are safe and free of deadly defects?  Other than allowing financial advisers being able to tell retirees to purchase financial products which benefit the adviser far more than they would benefit the retirees?  Other than making it easier for the Wolves on Wall Street to indulge in Casino play with investment funds?  Were these the “burdensome” rules of which we wish to be relieved?

It’s interesting, that Republicans are only too pleased to speak of those regulatory burdens in highly generalized terms, but when brought down to cases, they tend to sputter that “No, it’s not Those” regulations of which they speak.

Who is in favor of providing federal funds to schools that allow bullying and discriminatory behaviors in their buildings? Who is in favor of making it more difficult to determine if lending institutions are cheating their customers?  Who is in favor of dirty air and filthy streams?  Who is in favor of making it more likely that food sold to the public won’t be properly inspected? Let’s guess it’s NOT the average American member of the public at large.

Someone is in favor of removing these, and other obstacles, to free wheeling unrestrained and unregulated corporate practices, and in this Congress they are finding significant support.

Comments Off on The Government Regulations They Love To Hate

Filed under Economy, financial regulation, Politics