A Reckless Congress
posted on
Jul 18, 2009 07:53AM
Say this about the 1,018-page health-care bill that House Democrats unveiled this week and that President Obama heartily endorsed: It finally reveals at least some of the price of the reckless ambitions of our current government. With huge majorities and a President in a rush to outrun the declining popularity of his agenda, Democrats are bidding to impose an unrepealable European-style welfare state in a matter of weeks.
Mr. Obama's February budget provided the outline, but the House bill now fills in the details. To wit, tax increases that would take U.S. rates higher even than most of Europe. Yet even those increases aren't nearly enough to finance the $1 trillion in new spending, which itself is surely a low-ball estimate. Meanwhile, the bill would create a new government health entitlement that will kill private insurance and lead to a government-run system.
Hyperbole? That's what people said when we warned about this last fall in "A Liberal Supermajority," but even we underestimated the ideological willfulness of today's national Democrats. Consider only a few of the details:
A huge new income surtax. The bill's main financing comes from another tax increase on top of the increase already scheduled for 2011 under Mr. Obama's budget. The surtax starts at one percentage point for adjusted gross income above $350,000 in 2011, rising to two points in 2013; a 1.5 point surtax at incomes above $500,000, rising to three in 2013; and a whopping 5.4 percentage points in 2011 and beyond on incomes above $1 million.
This would raise the top marginal federal tax rate back to roughly 47% or 48%, if you include the Medicare tax and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. With the current top rate at 35%, this would be the largest rate increase outside the Great Depression or world wars.
The average U.S. top combined state-federal marginal tax rate would hit about 52%. This would be higher than in all but three (Denmark, Sweden, Belgium) of the 30 countries measured by the OECD. According to the nearby table compiled by the Heritage Foundation, taxpayers in at least five U.S. states would pay higher marginal rates even than Sweden. South Korea, which Democrats worry is stealing American jobs, would be able to grab even more as its highest rate is a far more competitive 38.5%.
House Democrats say they deserve credit for being honest about the tax increases needed to fund their ambitions. But then they also claim that this surtax would raise $544 billion in new revenue over 10 years. America's millionaires aren't that stupid; far fewer of them will pay these rates for very long, if at all. They will find ways to shelter income, either by investing differently or simply working less. Small businesses that pay at the individual rate will shift to pay the 35% corporate rate. When the revenue doesn't materialize, Democrats will move to soak the middle class with a European-style value-added tax.
Phony numbers. Democrats will have to come up with something, because even the surtax puts their bill at least $300 billion short of honest financing. The public insurance "option" doesn't even begin until 2013 and the costs are heavily weighted toward the later years, but the tax hikes start in 2011. So under Congress's 10-year budget window, the House bill is able to pay for seven years of spending with nine years of taxes. Andy Laperriere of the ISI Group estimates the bill would add $95 billion to the deficit in 2019 alone.
Then there's yesterday's testimony, from Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf, that ObamaCare's cost "savings" are an illusion. Mr. Obama claims government can cover more people and pay less to do it. But Mr. Elmendorf told the Senate Finance Committee that "In the legislation that has been reported we don't see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs."
Further on the public plan: "It raises the amount of activity that is growing at this unsustainable rate."
No matter, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is whisking the bill through House committees even before CBO has had a chance to score it in detail. As Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan put it to us, "We will not have read it, and we will not have a score of it, but we will have passed it out of committee."
A new payroll tax. Unemployment is at 9.5% and rising, but Democrats will nonetheless impose a new eight percentage point payroll tax on employers who don't provide health insurance for employees. This is on top of the current 15% payroll tax, and in addition to a new 2.5-percentage point tax on individuals who don't buy health insurance. This means that any employer with more than $400,000 in payroll would have to pay at least 25% above the salary to hire someone. Result: Many fewer new jobs, with a higher structural jobless rate, much as Europe has experienced as its welfare states have expanded.
Other new taxes, including an as yet undetermined levy on private health plans. This tax, which Democrats say could raise $100 billion or so, would make it even harder for private plans to compete with the government plan, which would already benefit from government subsidies and lower capital costs. For good measure, the House bill also gets the ball rolling on tax increases on foreign-source corporate income.
We could go on, and we will in coming days. But the most remarkable quality of this health-care exercise is its reckless disregard for economic and fiscal reality. With the economy still far from a healthy recovery, and the federal fisc already nearly $2 trillion in deficit, Democrats want to ram through one of the greatest raids on private income and business in American history. The world is looking on, agog, and wondering why the United States seems intent on jumping off this cliff.
WASHINGTON -- Congress's chief budget scorekeeper cast a new cloud over Democratic efforts to overhaul the nation's health-care system, telling lawmakers Thursday that the main proposals being considered would fail to contain costs -- one of the primary goals -- and could actually worsen the problem of rapidly escalating medical spending.
"We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount," Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, told the Senate Budget Committee. "On the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs," he added.
When President Barack Obama and lawmakers set out earlier this year to revamp the health-care system, they had two main objectives: Expand access to health insurance and curb runaway costs, not just for the government but the economy as a whole.
But as House and Senate versions of the legislation have advanced, lawmakers have found it easier to embrace proposals expanding coverage than those cutting the long-term cost of care. Mr. Obama and other Democrats have made several compromises on cost savings to keep key players on board for the overall effort. For example, the White House has softened several threats to extract savings from the powerful pharmaceutical industry, despite the president's campaign pledge to take on drug makers.
Mr. Elmendorf's assessment carries significant weight in the health-care debate, since his nonpartisan organization is used to determine the official costs and impact of legislative proposals. One of his predecessors in charge of the CBO, Robert Reischauer, famously helped derail the last major push to broadly expand health care in 1994 when he testified that President Bill Clinton's proposal would cost far more than the White House had projected.
The CBO assessment quickly reverberated around Capitol Hill, where House and Senate Democratic leaders are struggling to secure votes to advance health legislation before a scheduled break in August. Some Democrats had already grown nervous about the health-care effort in recent days, after House Democrats said they would pay for their plan with a surtax on upper-income families -- a proposal that could cause trouble for some Democrats in Republican-leaning districts.
While most Democratic lawmakers embrace in principle Mr. Obama's goal of enacting sweeping changes this year, many have said they would only support a measure that clearly can contain health-care spending. In recent days, many of those lawmakers have threatened to oppose the proposals crafted by congressional leaders, saying the plans won't do enough on that front.
Mr. Elmendorf's comments gave them new ammunition to threaten opposition.
"We have to take steps to hold health-care costs to the rate of inflation, or we will never balance our federal budget again and health-insurance costs will continue to become less and less affordable for the American people," said Arkansas Democratic Rep. Mike Ross. Mr. Ross is a leading member of the Blue Dogs, a moderate faction of the party's caucus that counts more than 50 members and has a crucial say over whether health-care legislation will pass. Mr. Elmendorf's comments, he said, "only underscore what the Blue Dogs have been saying all along."
Rep. Jim Matheson, a moderate Democrat from Utah, suggested Mr. Elmendorf's assessment "is of great concern" and called for renewed focus on restraining spending. "If we don't reform the system to get costs under control, then nothing else matters," he said. "We're just putting more people into a broken system."
The testimony undercuts one of Mr. Obama's central arguments: that the initiative will control long-term costs for the government as well as ordinary Americans and businesses. Mr. Elmendorf did caution that making long-term assessments is difficult. "It is very hard to look out...and say very accurate things about growth rates," he said. But when asked whether bills moving through Congress would bring the health-care cost curve under control, he responded: "The cost curve is being raised."
The White House played down the significance of Mr. Elmendorf's remarks. Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget, said "the process is still ongoing" in terms of shaping legislation. He stressed that the Obama administration remains "confident that we will see a final bill that is both deficit-neutral and will reduce the rise in health-care cost growth in the years to come."
But it was clear that Mr. Elmendorf's remarks struck a nerve with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who jointly appointed the economist to his post after the previous CBO director, Peter Orszag, was made White House budget director.
Ms. Pelosi, a California Democrat, complained that the CBO, in calculating the impact of health legislation, doesn't give "any credit" to certain proposals designed to reduce spending, such as preventive-care measures that backers of the bill say will reduce costs throughout the system.
In his appearance, Mr. Elmendorf suggested lawmakers could take steps to control costs. Among other things, he said Congress could reduce the tax subsidy that critics say encourages employers to offer large health-insurance policies. That idea was being considered by members of the Senate Finance Committee, but dropped after Senate Democratic leaders -- including Mr. Reid -- voiced concern. The proposal has been sharply opposed by labor unions, among other groups, that have big tax-advantaged plans.
On Thursday, Mr. Reid expressed disdain when asked by reporters about Mr. Elmendorf's suggestion. "What he should do is maybe run for Congress," the Nevada Democrat said.
Republicans were quick to trumpet the Elmendorf comments in their stepped-up campaign against the health-care effort. "The director of the Congressional Budget Office today confirmed that the Democrats' government-run plan will make health care more costly than ever, making clear that one of the Democrats' chief talking points is pure fiction," said Ohio Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican leader.
Mr. Elmendorf addressed his analysis generally to the main bills moving in the House and Senate. He suggested the analysis is evolving, noting the House bill was only released "two days ago." He made clear he wasn't referring to legislation being fashioned by the Senate Finance Committee, because leaders of that panel "have not yet released" that bill.
While the CBO storm may have set back the move for rapid action on health care, the effort also got an important boost Thursday when the American Medical Association offered support for the House proposal.
In a letter delivered to House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, the doctors' group expressed "appreciation and support" for the bill. Among other things, the AMA welcomed a provision that would put in place a new formula for payments to doctors under Medicare, avoiding deep cuts scheduled to take place next year and in future years.