For some reason I have been unable to embed these two figures, but these links should work.
Category Archives: Politics
Joe Stiglitz Essay on Martin Luther King and inequality
My colleague Michael Manove forwarded this article which is worth reading and pondering.
It is available directly at the New York Times at the link below. Two pages.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/how-dr-king-shaped-my-work-in-economics/?_r=0
The Great Divide August 27, 2013, 8:58 pm 167 Comments
How Dr. King Shaped My Work in Economics
By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ
"I had the good fortune to be in the crowd in Washington when the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
gave his thrilling “I Have a Dream” speech on Aug. 28, 1963. I was 20 years old, and had just finished
college. It was just a couple of weeks before I began my graduate studies in economics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology..."
Our Daily US Gun Killings
This repost is from the Daily Kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/01/1198534/-Another-day-in-the-Gun-Crazy-U-S-A
While Sandy Hook murders and the Marathon Bombing get a lot national attention, it is the daily tragedy of gun shootings and killings that should be of greatest concern. The Daily Kos simply compiled lists of all of the daily reports of murders for a week ending April 1 on the above web site. Here is the April 1 media summary, the Monday after Easter.
April 1, 2013 edition (Monday)
Northwest Miami-Dade, Fla. -- A 4-year-old girl died after being struck by a bullet while sitting in a parked car at a residence along with several other children about 6:10 p.m. Saturday. Police believe one of the children might have accidentally fired the gun.
Kansas City, Mo. -- A 14-year-old boy, a middle school student, was shot and killed on a street when someone fired at him from a passing car about 3 p.m. Saturday. A 15-year-old boy who was with the victim was not injured.
Indianapolis, Ind. -- A man cleaning his gun was killed about 3:30 p.m. Saturday when the weapon accidentally discharged.
Philadelphia, Penn. -- A 27-year-old woman was accidentally shot and killed by her 28-year-old boyfriend about 7:45 p.m. Saturday. The boyfriend says he was arguing with a neighbor, possibly an uncle, when the neighbor threatened him with a hammer. Fearing for his safety, the boyfriend took out a gun, but then tripped and accidentally pulled the trigger, shooting the woman in the neck.
Cleveland Heights, Calif. -- A 25-year-old woman was apparently accidentally shot and killed outside a restaurant by a security guard about 3 a.m. Saturday. Police say the victim and three other women were involved in an altercation with the guard inside the restaurant. As he was escorting them off the property, he was knocked to the ground and his weapon discharged, hitting the victim.
Harrisburg, N.C. -- A 50-year-old man shot and killed two of his neighbors -- a 64-year-old man and a 42-year-old man -- in the backyard of one of their homes on a cul-de-sac. He then used the gun to kill himself after a several-hours-long standoff with police. The shooting was related to a dispute of some sort.
Ashtabula, Ohio -- A 52-year-old man was shot and killed outside a church by his 25-year-old son shortly after Easter services ended about 1:15 p.m. Sunday.
Hartford, Conn. -- A 22-year-old man was shot to death behind a building about 9:20 p.m. Sunday. He was hit once in the head.
Forney, Tex. -- A 63-year-old man and his 65-year-old wife were found shot to death at their home Saturday night. The man was the district attorney for the county and police believe the victims were targeted.
North Harris County, Tex. -- A 25-year-old man was fatally shot outside a house about 11:30 p.m. Saturday night.
Los Angeles, Calif. -- About 11:10 p.m. yesterday, a man and woman encountered two gunmen after they went outside their home to investigate a car-alarm that was going off. A confrontation resulted and it ended up in the house where the man, 50 years old, was shot twice in the chest. He died a short time later. Police report that the gunmen and the victim might have known each other.
Washington, D.C. -- A 33-year-old man was shot and killed about 2:10 a.m. Saturday outside an apartment complex. He had been shot in the chest.
Melbourne, Fla. -- A sales manager at an auto dealership was shot and killed during an apparent road-rage incident while test-driving a vehicle for a trade-in. During the test drive, the manager stopped to make a right-hand turn and was rear-ended by another car. The driver of that car, a 64-year-old man, then shot the victim, killing him.
Oakland, Calif. -- A 31-year-old man was fatally shot while sitting inside a car around 10 a.m. yesterday. The gunman fled in a vehicle.
Oakland, Calif. -- A man was fatally shot while on a street about 4:10 p.m. yesterday.
Oakland, Calif. -- A man was fatally shot while on a street about 8:10 p.m. yesterday.
Jacksonville, Fla. -- A 32-year-old man was fatally shot Sunday morning after getting into a disagreement with a 20-year-old man. Police are looking for the suspect.
Brooklyn, N.Y. -- A 37-year-old livery-cab driver on his way to pick up a fare was killed about 12:45 a.m. today after being shot in the face and crashing his minivan.
Bronx, N.Y. -- A 28-year-old man was shot in the throat and killed about 12:15 a.m. yesterday inside an apartment building.
Las Vegas, Nev. -- A 43-year-old man is a suspect in the shooting deaths of his mother and father. The son claimed he found the couple fatally shot inside their home about 9 p.m. Friday. Police initially thought it was a case of murder-suicide, but now believe the son killed them.
St. Louis, Mo. -- When someone in a passing car shot at a group of people, one of the bullets struck a 4-year-old girl in the shoulder as she walked with her mother up the steps of a home. Police arrested a 23-year-old man in connection with the incident.
South Pittsburgh, Tenn. -- About 6:30 p.m. Thursday, a 13-year-old was struck in the shoulder by a bullet when his father tested his gun by firing it from his back porch into thick woods. The father didn’t know his son was in the woods; he thought the boy was inside the house. The victim was listed in good condition.
Madison County, Ga. -- A 17-year old boy watching TV in a living room accidentally shot himself in the hand while trying to unload a pistol on Saturday.
Port Deposit, Md. -- A 20-year-old man accidentally shot himself in the torso when he tripped and fell while walking back to his house after target shooting Saturday about 2:30 p.m. No word on his condition.
Chicago, Ill. -- Someone in a moving car opened fire on a 21-year-old man sitting on a porch about 7:30 p.m. yesterday. The victim was struck in the abdomen and was listed in serious condition.
Chicago, Ill. -- A 26-year-old man was shot in the hip and knee while leaving a store about 9:15 p.m. yesterday. He was listed in critical condition.
Chicago, Ill. -- A 29-year-old man walking down a street was shot in the leg about 9:50 p.m. when someone fired shots at him from a passing car. He was listed in stable condition.
Stamford, Conn. --About 7 p.m. Thursday, a 26-year-old man accidentally shot himself in the leg at his residence while cleaning his semi-automatic gun after returning from a firing range. No word on his condition.
Milwaukee, Wis. -- About 9:15 p.m. Saturday, a 17-year-old male was shot by someone during an altercation over a female acquaintance. No word on his condition.
New Orleans, La. -- A man was shot in the foot about 7 p.m. yesterday. No word on his condition.
Oakland, Calif. -- Someone was shot about 7 p.m. yesterday. No word on the victim’s condition.
Jacksonville, Fla. -- A man was shot in the upper torso about 9 p.m. yesterday. He was expected to survive.
Washington, D.C. -- A 16-year-old boy was shot and wounded while on a street about 12:40 a.m. today when someone in a car fired at him. His injuries were reported as non life-threatening.
Jacksonville, Fla. -- A man sitting in front of a house with two or three friends was shot twice in the leg about 5 p.m. Saturday when a car pulled up and someone in the car opened fire. The victim was reported to have non life-threatening injuries.
Oregon City, Ore. -- After a 22-year-old woman parked her car about 10:20 p.m. Sunday, a male stranger approached from behind and grabbed her hair and then began dragging her backward. The assailant fled when she pulled out a handgun and pointed it at him.
Today’s sources: Akron Beacon Journal, cecildaily.com, Chicago Tribune, Denver Post, Hartford Courant, Houston Chronicle, KABC-TV Los Angeles, KCTV-TV Kansas City, madisonjournaltoday.com, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Oakland Tribune, The Oregonian, Orlando Sentinel, stamfordpatch.com, Times-Picayune, Washington Post, WCAU-TV Philadelphia, WISH-TV Indianapolis, WRCB-TV Chattanooga, WSOC-TV Charlotte, WTLV-TV Jacksonville
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/01/1198534/-Another-day-in-the-Gun-Crazy-U-S-A
Early Exchange Bids from NY are VERY LOW
This news is sufficiently important that I am posting sections of several articles and summaries.
From July 16, 2013 New York Times:
Health Plan Cost for New Yorkers
Set to Fall 50%
By RONI CARYN RABIN and REED ABELSON
Published: July 16, 2013
Individuals buying health insurance on their own will see their premiums tumble next year in New York State as changes under the federal health care law take effect, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced on Wednesday.
Read Full article here. Particularly view the graphic.
Comments from today:
New York Times
9) Obamacare is the Right's Worst Nightmare
from New York Times by Paul Krugman
News from New York: it looks as if insurance premiums on the individual market are going to plunge thanks to Obamacare. This shouldn't come as a surprise; in fact, the New York experience perfectly illustrates why Obamacare had to look the way it does. And it also illustrates why conservatives should be terrified about this legislation, as it takes effect. Americans may have had a lot of misgivings in advance, thanks to vast, deliberately spread misinformation. But I agree with Matt Yglesias - unless the GOP finds even more ways to sabotage the plan, this thing is going to work, it's going to be extremely popular, and it's going to wreak havoc with conservative ideology.
Wall Street Journal
10) Big Labor Wakes Up to ObamaCare
from Wall Street Journal by Editorial Board
Every revolution devours its children, but it's still surprising to see some of ObamaCare's keenest boosters deny paternity so soon after the birth. Witness the emotional volte-face from three top union leaders, warning that the program will "shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the American middle class."
11) ObamaCare's Coalition Begins to Fracture
from Wall Street Journal by Karl Rove
The three union leaders also complained their nonprofit insurance plans are still subject to ObamaCare's new 2%-3% tax on each insurance policy. They want their members exempted from the tax every other family with health insurance must pay. Who knew labor leaders were such staunch tax opponents? It will not help Democratic enthusiasm in the 2014 midterm elections if ObamaCare causes (a) more workers to lose their union-provided insurance and (b) their hours and paychecks to be cut. In addition, Democratic candidates could be seriously damaged if the three labor bosses follow through on their letter's threat to stop helping elect Democrats if the law isn't changed.
2) Obama to Tout Americans Already Benefiting from Health Law
from USA Today by Aamer Madhani
President Obama will use a speech at the White House on Thursday to tout how a provision in his signature health care law is forcing health insurance providers to return money to consumers. With his administration facing deadlines to establish health care exchanges in all 50 states by Oct. 1 and GOP lawmakers continuing to call for a repeal of the law, the president is looking to trumpet the law by highlighting one of the most tangible ways Americans are benefiting from it even as his administration struggles to fully implement it. With that objective in mind, Obama will hone in on what is known as the medical loss ratio provision of the health care law in his speech. The provision requires insurers to refund customers when they spend less than 80% of premiums they collect on medical care. This year the provision will result in 8.5 million Americans receiving $500 million in rebates later this summer, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The agency estimates that the average rebate is about $100 per family.
Washington Post
8) Obama's Last Campaign: Inside the White House Plan to Sell Obamacare
from Washington Post by Ezra Klein and Sarah Kliff
The focus on young, minority voters. The heavy reliance on microtargeting. The enthusiasm about nontraditional communications channels. The analytics-rich modeling. It sounds like the Obama campaign. And administration officials don't shy away from the comparison. But the effort will have to go far beyond engineering turnout among key demographics. The administration needs to build more insurance marketplaces than they ever expected, and create an unprecedented IT infrastructure that lets the federal government's computers seamlessly talk to the (often ancient) systems used in state Medicaid offices. They need to fend off repeal efforts from congressional Republicans - like Wednesday's vote to delay the individual mandate - and somehow work with red-state bureaucracies that want to see Obamacare fail. And they can't escape the fact that the law, three years after passage, remains stubbornly unpopular.
31 charts to destroy your faith in humanity
This humorous web site from the Washington Post's WonkBlog is worth a look. It will only take a couple of minutes.
31 charts that are informative but illustrates how one can put a negative spin on anything.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/24/these-31-charts-will-destroy-your-faith-in-humanity/
Here is the original post that it is spoofing.
http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-that-will-restore-your-faith-in-humanity-2013-5
Steve Brill Interview on the Daily Show
Steve Brill, who just wrote a 36 page article for Time Magazine, conducted an informative interview on the daily show on Thursday, Feb 21, 2013. Here is the link to the unedited version. It is in three parts, and lasts about 12 minutes (including some ads). Worth watching if you have time.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-21-2013/exclusive---steven-brill-extended-interview-pt--1
#5 “Let the Children and Grandchildren Pay?”
Time to Change the Tax Discussion #5
This is the fifth and final posting in a five part series about taxes.
Every time congress passes legislation to increase public spending, they should have to specify which taxes they favor increasing to balance the budget. If not, then congress should have to openly discuss why they believe it is appropriate to LET THE CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN PAY. If every unfunded benefit increase included this selfish labeling of the congressmen who voted for it, perhaps it would make it more stigmatizing to fight unfunded wars, increase discretionary spending (e.g., disaster relief) or resist Medicare payment increases without other spending cuts or tax increases.
Case in point: as I write this blog the House is debating how large the Hurricane Sandy relief fund should be, in the neighborhood of $50 billion ($160 per American). While I favor this expenditure, but I also favor committing to how we will pay for it (even if we only start next year...) This is a large enough expense that Congress should also be committing to the tax increase that will pay for it. For example 1% more income tax on the wealthy, or eliminating one subsidy or tax subsidy would do it. Note that ObamaCare legislation was forced to do this. It is possible.
Almost every Republican in Congress has signed Grover Norquist's No Tax Pledge not to increase any taxes, ever. This pledge is highly destructive of rational discussion of taxes and deficit reduction. I would be much happier if fiscally conservatives instead signed a pledge not to increase our budget deficit ( and hence national debt) unless it is specifically part of an economic stimulus to deal with a potential or actual recession. Too often we have cut taxes even in times of a growing economy, effectively pushing onto our children and grandchildren (who do not even vote yet) the burden of paying for our overspending.
Increasing taxes will never be attractive, but why should we LET THE CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN PAY?
Here are links to my four previous blogs on Taxes
#1 All Taxes and Budgets Should be Expressed as Dollars per Person
#2. Include Social Security and Medicare taxes when discussing tax burdens
#3 Tax Bads (or at least don’t subsidize them!)
#4 State Tax Rates are Not Related to State Income or Growth
#5 "Let the Children and Grandchildren Pay?"
#4 State Tax Rates are Not Related to State Income or Growth
Time to Change the Tax Discussion #4
This is the fourth in a five part series about taxes.
It has become common in the media to argue that state income or sales taxes cannot be increased or it will dampen incentives and hurt the state or local economy. While this might be true at sufficiently high tax rates, there is no evidence that tax rates currently imposed on income or sales by states has any effect on the level or growth rates of the state economy. The following nine plots will let you decide for yourself whether there is any relation between
{Sales tax revenue, income tax revenue, or total state and local government revenue}
and
{Levels of Gross State Product per Capita, One year changes in Gross State Product (the "recovery") and Ten year changes in Gross State Product per Capita)
If there is, it is a very weak relationship, not worth worrying about. Instead we should be debating whether we want more or fewer government services relative to private goods.
All data used state-level rates as stored on the web site http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com maintained by Christopher Chantrill, self-described "writer and conservative".
I intentionally chose a strong title for this blog. My academic colleagues will reasonably argue that sales and income taxes DO have some dampening effect on a state economy. I do not disagree that there is some effect. But these graphs reveal that it is not detectable when it is realized that tax increases are used to pay for public services. For political decision-making, which of the following two statements is more nearly true? I would go with the latter.
Raising sales or income taxes by one percent in order to invest in bridges, public transit and education will have a meaningful negative effect on the state economy.
Raising sales or income taxes by one percent in order to invest in bridges, public transit and education will have a meaningful positive effect on the state economy.
Here are links to the previous three blogs on Taxes
#1 All Taxes and Budgets Should be Expressed as Dollars per Person
#2. Include Social Security and Medicare taxes when discussing tax burdens
#3 Tax Bads (or at least don’t subsidize them!)
#3 Tax Bads (or at least don’t subsidize them!)
Time to Change the Tax Discussion #3
This is the third in a five part series about taxes.
Introductory economics tells us that when the government taxes something, unless it is perfectly inelastically supplied or demanded, the tax will cause a distortion in a market and reduce the taxed activity. For most things (labor, profits, food, etc.) this reduction is considered a bad thing, and causes welfare losses. Yet taxes on BADS (i.e., goods with strong negative externalities) are welfare improving, since they reduce something that you want to reduce anyway. Almost all economists will agree with this conceptually. Yet politicians and consumers are not forced to confront this reality. Perhaps economists could do a better job holding politicians accountable to this, by speaking out more. Here are six examples from recent policy debates. Why are economists not lining up behind these?
1. Tax the Sale of Guns.
The constitution asserts the right of people to own "arms" but says nothing about them being free or cheap. Econmists should favor taxing the sale of all guns, and even taxing the annual ownership of guns (similar to what we do for cars and housing) because of their large negative externalities. Higher taxes on more dangerous weapons (e.g. assault weapons), would also be appropriate. We could raise several billion dollars a year this way, and even earmark it for the extra medical care and law enforcement made necessary by the widespread ownership of guns. (In theory, I prefer not to earmark revenues, but history shows it is much easier to pass legislation if this is done, such as taxes on cigarettes. Hence in practice I support it.)
2. Tax Carbon
We will never have unanimous agreement that our excess carbon is a major cause of global warning, but we don't need to believe this unanimously to be willing to act on it. British Columbia (Canada) implemented a carbon tax in 2008 which is raising billions of dollars while nudging people to use less fuel. Look at two recent postings here
Climate Action Through a Tax Swap Describes a currrent initiative in Washington State to implement a state carbon tax. See numerous links within it.
More on BCs carbon tax shift. Posted in 2009 this discusses the reasons for the British Columbia's tax
3. Remove US Subsidies on Corn and Sugar
It is totally bizarre that at the same that we are thinking of taxing soft drinks for their sugar content, we are still spending billions on subsidizing corn (and hence high fructose corn syrup). US Department of Agriculture numbers show that in 2011 alone we spent 4.9 billion dollars subsidizing corn, which is $16 per American. Visit the excellent website of Environmental Working Group, which tracks agricultural subsidies and focus on Corn if you wish.
Remarkably, even farmers in Massachusetts benefit from the corn subsidy:
Corn Subsidies** in Massachusetts totaled $16.8 million from 1995-2011.
That works out to $4 per Massachusetts resident over 17 years. But the Massachusetts subsidy is nothing compared to Iowa which received
14.9 billion dollars ($4,866 per resident, or $286 per Iowa resident per year) over the same period. 2011 is not a particularly large outlier.
For further discussion of the serious problems with our crop insurance program consider this quote about US crop insurance.
"The most stunning evidence of the need to overhaul the current system is Dr. Babcock’s estimate that taxpayers
send $1 dollar to insurance companies and agents for every $1 dollar that goes to farmers."
Bruce Babcock "Giving It Away free: Free Crop Insurance Can Save Money and Strengthen the Farm Safety Net"
April 2012, (Professor of Economics at Iowa State University)
http://static.ewg.org/reports/2012/farm_bill/babcock_free_crop_insurance.pdf
4. Remove subsidies on US fossil fuel production, consumption, and depletion.
This follows from point #2 above. I know it is hard to do, but so is a Carbon Tax.
The surprising reason that Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love them. Forbes, April 25, 2012.
We should not be subsidizing oil, coal and natural gas: 15.1 billion dollars in 2010 ($48 per American in 2010), according to OECD estimates.
5. Tax (more) people who do not purchase health insurance
As a health economist, I had to add at least one health related "bad".
The Affordable Care Act of 2010 includes provisions for taxing people who choose not to purchase health insurance, as it should, since they impose costs on the rest of us who do by: relying on charity care when they have emergency medical needs, relying on bankruptcy when they have high uninsured costs, and raising average premiums for insurance buyers since the people not buying insurance are on average healthier (and lower cost) than average. Hence this tax will be welfare improving, overall.
I thought about discussing/supporting taxes on obesity, smoking, or alcohol abuse, but see lots of problems with that, even those these are bads, often under the control of consumers.
6. Don't subsidize war
War is bad, and has a lot of negative externalities. (Yes, there are also some benefits.) In 2013 the US will spend $902 billion on national defense (excluding police, fire, law and prisons). That is $2863 per American in 2013 alone on "defense". (Health and Education have mostly positive externalities.)
Brown University researchers maintain a web site on the cost of wars since 9/11
Here is one sobering sentence from a recent press release.
"The war bills already paid and obligated to be paid by the U.S. federal government as of fiscal year 2012 are $3.7 trillion in constant dollars."
That is $11,746 per US citizen...
There are many more bads that should be taxed and not subsidized, but I will end here.
For related discussion see the earlier blogs
#1 All Taxes and Budgets Should be Expressed as Dollars per Person
#2. Include Social Security and Medicare taxes when discussing tax burdens
Letter calls for gun injury research
Colleague Austin Frakt forwarded to me the link to an open letter to VP Joseph Biden and members of the Gun Violence Commission.
http://crimelab.uchicago.edu/sites/crimelab.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Biden%20Commission%20letter_20130110_final.pdf
The letter is signed by over 100 well-known health professionals, policymakers and economists.
The letter addresses the fact that both teh CDC and the NIH agencies are currently prohibited from funding research on the health effects of guns.
Anyone serious about wanting to understand how to control gun violence should support the letter's two recommendations:
RECOMMENDATION ONE: We call for the removal of the current barriers to firearm-related
research, policy formation, evaluation and enforcement efforts.
RECOMMENDATION TWO: We call on the federal government to make direct investments in
unbiased scientific research and data infrastructure.
The following table in the letter tells the story clearly.
9 Branas, C., Wiebe, D., Schwab, C. & Richmond, T. (2005) Getting past the "f" word in federally funded public health research, Injury Prevention 11(3): 191.
10 http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm
11 Calculated updated numbers for 2002 -2012 for cholera and rabies using average case occurrences per year
Commonwealth Fund Report on Health Care Cost Control
The Commonwealth Fund has just come out with a new report outlining a strategy for containing health care costs in the US. It seems rather optimistic to me. Here is the opening two paragraphs and link.
Confronting Costs: Stabilizing U.S. Health Spending While Moving Toward a High Performance Health Care System, Authored by The Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System
January 10, 2013
Michael Chernew (Harvard) is the only economist on the Commission, which is mostly MDs and MBAs.
"Overview
The Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System, to hold increases in national health expenditures to no more than long-term economic growth, recommends a set of synergistic provider payment reforms, consumer incentives, and systemwide reforms to confront costs while improving health system performance. This approach could slow spending by a cumulative $2 trillion by 2023—if begun now with public and private payers acting in concert. Payment reforms would: provide incentives to innovate and participate in accountable care systems; strengthen primary care and patient-centered teams; and spread reforms across Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers. With better consumer information and incentives to choose wisely and lower provider administrative costs, incentives would be further aligned to improve population health at more affordable cost. Savings could be substantial for families, businesses, and government at all levels and would more than offset the costs of repealing scheduled Medicare cuts in physician fees." from The Commonwealth Fund Report
The heart of their analysis is in the technical report by Actuarial Research Corp.
Jim Mays, Dan Waldo, Rebecca Socarras, and Monica Brenner "Technical Report: Modeling the Impact of Health Care Payment, Financing, and System Reforms" Actuarial Research Corporation, January 10, 2013
The areas they simulate are revealed in the table of content headings. Nice recent references.
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
I. Improved Provider Payment ................................................................................................................. 4
II. Primary Care: Medical Homes ............................................................................................................... 7
III. High-Cost Care Management Teams .................................................................................................. 13
IV. Bundled Payments .............................................................................................................................. 16
V. Modified Payment Policy for Medicare Advantage ............................................................................ 22
VI. Medicare Essential Benefits Plan ........................................................................................................ 26
VII. Private Insurance: Tightened Medical Loss Ratio Rules ...................................................................... 30
VIII. Reduced Administrative Costs and Regulatory Burden ...................................................................... 32
IX. Combined Estimates ........................................................................................................................... 35
X. Setting Spending Targets .................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix A. Creating the "Current Policy" Baseline ................................................................................... 40
Be Ready for the Trillion Dollar Coin!
In case you have not been paying attention, there is growing sentiment in favor of the Platinum Coin Seigniorage (PCS) and the Trillion Dollar Coin.
Here are two solid posts on it, one by economist Paul Krugman, the other by Philip Diehl, former director of the US mint .
The crux of the issue is that the debt ceiling, created by legislation of our congress, is inconsistent with the powers enumerated in the constitution, specifically the fourteenth amendment.
Be Ready To Mint That Coin
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/be-ready-to-mint-that-coin/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto
Co-author of platinum coin law weighs in on trillion dollar coin
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/08/1177211/-Co-author-of-platinum-coin-law-weighs-in-on-trillion-dollar-coin?detail=email
Here is the relevant sentence in section 4, of the 14th amendment of the US constitution.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
This amendment was passed in July 9, 1868 and "Section 4 confirmed the legitimacy of all United States public debt appropriated by the Congress." Wikipedia.
Here is the Wikipedia discussion of the issue, somewhat dated.
The issue of what effect Section 4 has regarding the debt ceiling remains unsettled.[52] Legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen has argued that Section 4 gives the President unilateral authority to raise or ignore the national debt ceiling, and that if challenged the Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of expanded executive power or dismiss the case altogether for lack of standing.[53] Erwin Chemerinsky, professor and dean at University of California, Irvine School of Law, has argued that not even in a "dire financial emergency" could the President raise the debt ceiling as "there is no reasonable way to interpret the Constitution that [allows him to do so]".[54]
1994 assault weapons ban may have saved 6000 lives per year
Although not a statistical statement, there is a noticeable association between when the 1994-2004 assault weapon ban was in place and the observed decline in gun-related deaths. That ban also contained other provisions that will have affected availability of guns.
A decline of more than 6000 gun-related deaths per year appears to be associated with that legislation before it expired. See linked picture.
Another articles on this issue also has compelling graphs. The title of the paper could be its abstract..
S Chapman, P Alpers, K Agho, M Jones. 2006. Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm
deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings. Injury Prevention 2006;12:365–372. doi: 10.1136/ip.2006.013714
#2 Include Social Security and Medicare taxes when discussing tax burdens
Time to Change the Tax Discussion #2
This is the second in a five part series on Taxes.
Far too much of the discussion of tax burdens has focused on the federal income tax rates while the federal payroll taxes - Social Security and the Medicare tax - get minor attention. This was epitomized by Mitt Romney's reference to 47 percent of Americans as not paying any taxes, when what he meant was not paying any Federal income taxes. This line of discussion ignores the fact that low income earners pay Social Security and Medicare taxes. Almost every economist would agree that these payroll taxes affect net pay and incentives in fundamentally the same way as income taxes and hence matter greatly. While true that these are earmarked taxes, they are nonetheless important contributions to federal revenue and affect deficits. In 2012 The federal income tax contributed 32 percent of total federal revenue, while social security and medicare payroll taxes contributed 23.9 percent. Since these social insurance taxes are either proportional (Medicare tax) or regressive (SSI, since it stops after $110,000 in 2012), they substantially change the overall progressivity of the taxes. the following figure is from the Concord Coalition, based on US Treasury data.
U.S. Treasury Department, Final Monthly Treasury Statement from Sept. 2012
http://www.concordcoalition.org/learn/budget/federal-budget-pie-charts
In an earlier blog (What are current marginal tax rates?), I calculated marginal tax rates for various levels of taxable income, which show that currently people earning $70,700 to $142,700 pay the highest marginal tax rates (38.1% including federal, SSI and Medicare taxes, higher if you add in Massachusetts income taxes).Warren Buffett basically referred to this same phenomenon when he said that his secretary paid higher taxes than he does on earned income.
Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will return those earning over $388,350 to paying the highest marginal rates (43.4% including the Medicare and ACA taxes).
For related discussion see the earlier blogs
#1 All Taxes and Budgets Should be Expressed as Dollars per Person
#2. Include Social Security and Medicare taxes when discussing tax burdens
All Taxes and Budgets Should be Expressed as Dollars per Person
Time to change the discussion #1
This is the first of five posts on my blog on how discussion of taxes and budgets in the US needs to change to improve decision-making.
Recent political debate and the media throws around costs of millions, billions and trillions of dollars even though there is no easy way for an ordinary citizen to evaluate the meaning of these terms. All of these are very big numbers. Consider the following numbers, sorted from largest to smallest. Which ones should we be worrying about?
Sample of recent numbers in the news (or that should be there)
$16.4 trillion US National Debt [1]
$3.7 trillion Total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan [Reuters,2]
$1.2 trillion Size of tax increases and budget cuts in the fiscal cliff [3]
$1.1 trillion Federal deficit for 2012 [4]
$849 billion What is at stake in the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, those earning more than $250,000, over ten years. [ABC news,5]
$ 807 billion The US government’s estimate of the direct cost of the war in Iraq thru FY2012. [6]
$ 571 billion The US government’s estimate of the direct cost of the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan thru FY2012 [6]
$ 100 billion Cost of the Iraq war that was used in discussions just before attacking Iraq [7]
$ 1.4 billion Financial spending for all presidential candidates, 2011-2012. [8]
$ 446 million The FY2013 annual budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. [9]
$192 million The cost of the 2010 Newton North High School serving half of the Newton MA population [10]
$ 83 million Campaigning expenses, all candidates including outside spending, on Elizabeth Warren vs. Scott Brown Massachusetts Senate race, 2012. [11]
$ 11 million Proposed tax override for Newton MA in 2013 to pay for schools [12]
$ 54,000 Cost of running the March special election to vote on the Newton override. [13]
The relevant populations
US population: 315 million people
MA population: 6.6 million
Newton population: 86,000 (half served by Newton North High School, the other by Newton South High School.)
Costs revisited with Ellis commentary
$ 52,000 US National Debt per Person - High, but can be reduced if we try hard.
$12,000 Total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan per Person Not worthwhile to me, and 23% of our total US debt!
$ 3,800 Per person size of the 2013 fiscal cliff, in taxes and reduced spending.
$ 3,500 Extra cost per person per year to eliminate the federal deficit for 2012. Although similar to the preceding, note that this is for one year, while the above is over ten years… Even jumping over this cliff does not eliminate our deficit.
$ 2,700 Ten-year cost per person of the Bush-era tax cut on those earning more than $250,000. A lot is at stake here, not small change.
$ 270 Average per year cost per person of Bush-era tax cut on >$250k Doesn't look like such a big number, and this is how much it reduces our per person annual deficit.
$13,500 Average per year cost per wealthy person (top 2%) of Bush-era tax cuts. Recall that the average income of this group is way higher than $250k
$ 2,600 The official direct cost per person of the war in Iraq. Why isn’t there more discussion of this?
$ 1,800 Cost per person of the Afghanistan war. Maybe Afghan was worthwhile, but I doubt it.
$ 317 Initial cost per person of the Iraq war used in selling it to the public. How could we have been so wrong?
$ 4 Cost per person of the US presidential campaign. Maybe higher than I wish, but it is not going to break our budgets. Plus it is all voluntary, unlike the taxes.
$ 1 Cost per person of federal funding of public TV and radio. A small portion of their total budget. Why are we talking about this at all?
$4,500 Cost per Newton resident of the Newton North High School. High, but I bet we more than made it back in increased property values. Even ignoring that more than half was funded by the state, if there are 4 people per household, then this is only 2.6% of median property value in Newton.
$ 13 Cost per Massachussetts resident of the 2012 Senate race. Seems reasonable expense for making big decisions. Plus it only happens every six years for each senate race, so only $2 per year per person.
$ 128 Cost per Newton resident per year of proposed tax override to help pay for schools. Definitely affordable.
$ .62 Per person cost of running Newton’s March special election. Should not have even made the papers. Informed decision-making costs money.
Lessons
Big cost numbers are easier to understand when expressed as a cost per person.
Some big numbers don’t look very scary. Others look worse.
The numbers that get a lot of play in the media are not necessarily the right numbers.
Thought to Ponder: Why is it that almost no one in Newton is worried about having incurred a debt for one school in the amount of $4500 per resident, while citizens, and our Congress in particular, seems paralyzed to contemplate reducing our federal debt by a similar amount?
Citations
[1] http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
[2] Reuter. 2012. Cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629 based on estimates from “Cost of War at http://costofwar.com/ which is sponsored by the National Priorities Project.
[5] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fiscal-cliff-bush-tax-cuts-expire/story?id=17907791#.UMnzFXfgztE
[4] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageId=BUDGET-2012-BUD
[5] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fiscal-cliff-bush-tax-cuts-expire/story?id=17907791#.UMoiRnfgztE
[6] Congressional Research Service, 2011. The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf updated continually at “Cost of War at http://costofwar.com/.
[7] Tom Russert Interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney, “NBC News’ Meet the Press," Transcript for March 16, 2003.https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm
[8] Center for Responsive Politics, 2012.Most Expensive Races 2012 Overview
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/index.php and
[9] Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 2012 Fiscal Year 2013 Operating Budget. http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/budget/
[10] Newton Tab. 2012. Newton North High School final cost $6M less than expected. http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x1334618956/Newton-North-High-School-final-cost-6M-less-than-expected#ixzz2EwkW8uLrhttp://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x1334618956/Newton-North-High-School-final-cost-6M-less-than-expected#axzz2EwkHptlI
[11] Center for Responsive Politics, 2012.Most Expensive Races 2012 Overview http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topraces.php?cycle=2012&display=allcandsout
[12] http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/executive/override.asp
[13] Newton Tab, December 12, 2012. Table showing breakdown of the various costs of the special election in March, 2013 on the override.
HCC risk adjustment formulas for ACA Exchanges
HHS announced the new risk adjustment formulas proposed for the ACA Health Insurance Exchanges on December 7, 2012.
Here is the citation and direct link.
Department of Health and Human Services. HHS Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2014, and Medical Loss Ratio. 2012 [Dec 7 2012]. Available from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-07/pdf/2012-29184.pdf
Focus only on the first 33 pages for teh Risk adjustment system.
Summary:
This proposed regulations provides details on the risk adjustment formula that is proposed for the Federal and STate Health insurance exchanges. At its heart is an HCC model similar to the Medicare 100 condition HCC model. Innovations are that it has separate models for four metal levels (bronze, silver, gold, platinum), it uses a concurrent rather than prospective framework, it has separate models for infants, children and adults. It was estimated at RTI using Truven Health Analytics 2010 MarketScan® data, which we also have licensed at Boston University for research use. The rules are a painful 373 pages long. Focus on pages 1-33 for an overview of the RA approach.
Other NPRM (=Notice of Proposed Rule Making) for regulations of the ACA are the following.
EHB/AV (Essential Health Benefits/Actuarial Value) NPRM:
Summary: http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2012/11/ehb11202012a.html
Summary: http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2012/11/ehb11202012a.html
Citation: US National Archives and Records Administration. 2012. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Standards Related to Essential Health Benefits, Actuarial Value, and Accreditation; Proposed Rule. [Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CMS-2012-0142-0001]
Discussion: The rule discusses accreditation of health plans in a federally-facilitated or state-federal partnership exchange. States that plans offered inside and outside of the exchange must offer a core package of benefits including the following: Ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative services, lab services, preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management, and pediatric services.
The rule also specifies options for each state's "benchmark" plan. Plans must offer coverage greater than or equal to that offered by the benchmark plan.
The rule also specifies that HHS will provide an AV calculator to help issuers determine health plan ACs. The calculator uses a nationally representative sample. Starting in 2015, HHS will accept state-specific datasets to use with the calculator. The rule proposes a 2% AV window around the AV specified by for each metal group.
Market Reform NPRM:
Rule: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CMS-2012-0141-0001
Citation: US National Archives and Records Administration. 2012. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Health Insurance Market Rules; Rate Review; Proposed Rule. [Available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CMS-2012-0141-0001]
Discussion: This rule focuses on reforms to the health insurance market. It includes guaranteed issue, premium regulation (rate bands, rate restrictions), single statewide risk pool, etc. The rule also proposes regulation changes to streamline data collection.
MPFS (Medicare Physician Fee Schedule) Rule:
Citation: US National Archives and Records Administration. 2012. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 42. Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule, DME Face-to-Face Encounters, Elimination of the Requirement for Termination of Non- Random Prepayment Complex Medical Review and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2013. [Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-11-16/pdf/2012-26900.pdf]
More rules and regulations are presented here.
I thank without implicating Tim Layton (BU RA extraordinaire) for organizing this information for me.
US Affordable Care Act and Risk Adjustment
Although there is no accompanying paper, I thought it might be useful to post the PowerPoint slides that I have used in several recent talks about the US since there is an enormous interest in a relatively concise summary of the features of the ACA.
Since my area of particular interest is risk adjustment, there are a number of slides on that topic.
Since Massachusetts is an important early demonstration, I included three slides on Massachusetts.
There are three versions posted: the PowerPoint slides, a pdf version, and a pdf version as a handout (four slides per page).
Powerpoint pdf Handout
What are current marginal income tax rates?
A great deal of political discussion has focused on what taxes the wealthy and poor pay, and often the focus is ONLY on the Federal Income tax. It is important to recognize that that there are many other taxes, and none are as progressive as the Federal income tax, and hence fall on low to middle income people. Below is a table I generated using federal income tax rates for 2012 and 2013, to which I have added the Social Security (both individual and employer share), Medicare taxes and the state income tax for Mass (which is essentially a fixed proportional after deductions). I did not try to include the alternative minimum tax, which has a 26% marginal rate after a high deductible.
The bottom line is that in 2012 middle income households with taxable earned incomes of $70,700 to $142,700 pay higher marginal tax rates than the highest income earners, largely because the Social Security tax disappears above about $110,000. If the Bush tax cuts revert to their 2002 levels, then both the Capital gains tax will increase and the marginal rate for the highest income group will exceed that of the middle income levels.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What I Wish Obama Had Said
Alternative Debate Speech Text that President Obama Could Have Used at the First Presidential Debate on October 3, 2012[i]
Randall P. Ellis
Boston University, Department of Economics
October 6, 2012
On Taxes
We have heard a lot of talk from the Republicans about the importance of lowering taxes on people earning more than $250,000 which the Republicans like to call the "job creators." Republicans especially like to link being wealthy with being a small business owners. But let me tell you something else. Small business owners for the most part reinvest their earnings back in their own company, and earn relatively modest incomes. IRS returns show that 97 percent of small business owners earn less than $250,000 per year[ii] , and hence will not be hurt by increasing individual income taxes on the wealthy. Let me repeat that: 97 percent of small business owners earn less than $250,000 per year. It is the overpaid senior executives of large businesses who largely earn more than $250,000, not the small business owners. The Republicans are eager to protect these big guys, the ones funding the Republican campaigns, with tax cuts that favor the wealthy. Less than two percent of all households earn more than $250,000 per year[iii], and they are doing just fine. I want to focus our tax reforms and government investments on helping the other 98 percent of households.
On Social Security
I am glad you asked about Social Security, which is working well: I have no plans to make any changes to this wildly popular program. All Americans earning a paycheck are required to contribute to support this program through a social security payroll tax, which is a type of income tax. The Social Security system provides income to elderly people when they retire, even if they have not been so clever, organized or motivated to save enough for their own retirement. Social Security is a social insurance program, since people who live longer take out more money than people who are less unfortunate and die while young. Social Security also redistributes money a little bit from people who earn more to people who earn less. For example a parent who works hard raising a family still gets some social security even if their spouse dies, or they are divorced, and even if the parent never receives a pay check. Despite it being social insurance and redistribution, Social Security is wildly popular. My republican opponents think social insurance is socialism, and even call it Socialist Security because it is a form of redistribution, which they have made out to be a political no-no to mention. But there it is, a wildly popular, income redistribution program that we should all embrace.
As all of you know who have watched the revealing secret video taken of Mitt Romney speaking to a select group of large donors, Governor Romney discounts this sizable income tax as being unimportant even though it represents more than 35 percent of our federal revenue.[iv] He considers the elderly retired, students working part time while earning a degree, and anyone earning less than about $15,000 for single head of households or about $30,000 for families as being dependents, not worthy of his concern, because they pay no income taxes. I couldn’t disagree with him more. Social payroll taxes, paid by hardworking citizens generate more than four times the federal revenue as all corporate taxes.[v]
On reducing the national deficit:
I would like to respond to Governor Romney's correct statement that there are three ways of cutting the national debt: Raising taxes, cutting government expenses, and growing the economy. On the third one, growing the economy, every economist, every politician, and every citizen I have ever met will agree that the third one is the best of the three. It is American apple pie. But it doesn't mean anything for Gov. Romney to claim that he will do a better job at growing the economy. In fact, if you look back over the last fifty years, the economy, jobs and the stock market have all grown faster under Democratic presidents than Republican ones. Go check out the facts.[vi] And this is especially true under the disastrous leadership of the previous Republican president, George W. Bush who caused the greatest recession in eighty years with his tax cuts and unfunded spending policies.
The only specific, substantive policies that Gov. Romney has proposed for promoting growth is to cut taxes, particularly on the wealthiest Americans. And that is the same policy that was tried and failed by George W. Bush and the Republicans who tied or had a majority in both Houses of Congress for six of the eight years that President Bush was in office[vii], notably at the time that Congress voted for two unfunded wars and the first of the two enormous Bush tax cuts.
Former president Bill Clinton said it well when he highlighted that republicans, not democrats have a worse record of increasing our national debt. Ronald Reagan nearly tripled the national debt under his presidency, while George W. Bush nearly doubled the national debt.[viii] President Clinton was the only president in the postwar period to hand his successor a budget surplus when he left office. Democrats, not Republicans, are more effective at cutting the national debt.
I am sad that because of the two unfunded wars, the Bush tax cuts, and increased spending necessitated by this Great Recession, the National Debt has also increased greatly during my term. It is not what I wanted. But a reasonable American will agree that I was handed an economy in such serious agony by my predecessor that it would have been irresponsible not to have continued and in many cases increased government spending and tax cuts so as to get us out of this recession.
As our economy improves, I promise to work hard toward implementing elements of the bipartisan recommendations of the 2010 Bowls-Simpson commission, which reflected a balanced reduction in spending together with selective increases in taxes. In contrast to my willingness to support a balanced approach to deficit reduction that includes both tax increases and in spending reductions, Gov. Romney has stated that he will be unwilling to agree to a deficit reduction even if it involves less than $1 of tax increases for every $10 in spending reductions[ix]. That is not going to solve our budget deficit problem.
On ObamaCare
I thank the former Governor for giving me credit for creating the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, since a different candidate would perhaps take pride in something that he himself helped create in Massachusetts. Contrary to what he says, I worked hard to try to get Republican support for this health reform bill, using Romney’s own successful health reform approach from Massachusetts, and embracing concepts from the conservative Heritage Foundation and from Republicans who supported the idea of setting up private exchanges when President Clinton tried to do health reform. Unfortunately the Republicans in congress could no longer support their own approach once it was embraced by me and the Democrats, so we had to move forward without their voting support. It is dishonest to say that I did not try to reach across the aisle and try to get bipartisan support.
Even though some features of ObamaCare remain controversial, the features of ObamaCare that have already been implemented are enormously popular. Let me describe a few of its features that are already in place.
ObamaCare allows all young people to remain on their parent's health insurance policy up until age 26, which resulted in immediate coverage for over 2 million young people in 2010.[x] This feature is enormously popular.
ObamaCare prohibits health insurance plans from dropping coverage for anyone just because they became sick. This feature is enormously popular.
Obama prohibits health insurance plans from denying coverage to any family just because they have a child with a serious or expensive preexisting health condition. This feature is enormously popular.
ObamaCare helps reduce the donut hole gap in Medicare's prescription drug coverage, whereby Medicare enrollees have to pay 100 percent of their prescription drug costs once annual drug spending exceeds $2800.[xi] This reduces prescription drug costs by an average of $250 in 2012. This benefit is enormously popular among the elderly.
ObamaCare creates a reinsurance pool for uninsured retirees aged 55 to 64, which is very popular with this highly vulnerable group.
ObamaCare creates a high risk pool to help insurance companies be more willing to insure people with expensive preexisting conditions.[xii] Very few insurers have taken up this program, suggesting that insuring people with expensive preexisting conditions is less expensive than they sometimes lead us to believe.
ObamaCare forces insurance companies to give rebates to enrollees whenever claims costs are less than 80 or 85% of premium revenues. This very popular program has already forced plans to pay back more than a billion dollars to commercially insured enrollees in 2012. It is likely that even plans not paying rebates have been motivated to not raise premiums as much as they would of, and hence this is likely one reason why health insurance premiums have grown so slowly in the past two years.
So from my point of view, Obamacare is already proven to be highly popular among the Americans already benefiting, which includes most of our elderly, our young adults, people with sick children, and everyone at risk of high cost illnesses. You should ask yourself whether you think these changes I just mentioned are something you yourself support, and keep an open mind about your support for the changes yet to come in future years.
Closing remarks
We have heard a lot of new statements from Gov. Romney tonight, as he tries to “reboot” his image. But Americans should not be voting based on the marketing image that the Republican Party has chosen to broadcast in the final months of this long campaign. Instead they should base their voting on facts. The fact is that Gov. Romney has gone out of his way to align himself with a relatively extreme group of Republicans, exemplified by his choice of a vice presidential partner, that represents a radical change in how our society and government operates. Today’s Republican Party is not the party of Ronald Reagan, it is now the Republican Party of Negativity.
Today’s Republican Party of Negativity is assaulting women’s rights, trying to undo women’s access to birth control, right to humane treatment when raped, or right to equal pay.
Today’s Republican Party of Negativity is in denial that global warming is largely caused by the actions of humans and will have disastrous consequences if we don’t begin to take notice and do something about it.
Today’s Republican Party of Negativity is repeatedly voting to obstruct legislation in the Senate. The Senate leadership said this bluntly shortly after I was elected, and has proceeded to filibuster and delay legislation repeatedly. The democratic majority has had to invoke cloture, which is a vote to try to end a filibuster hundreds of times during my term, an intentional Republican strategy.
Today’s Republican Party of Negativity wastes its time voting 33 times to repeal ObamaCare in the House even when it knows the legislation has no chance of making it through the Senate or being signed by me.
Today’s Republican Party of Negativity repeatedly asserts that ObamaCare reflects a government takeover of health care, while even any fool can look at Massachusetts reforms on which it is based and see that ObamaCare does precisely the opposite, building upon private health care provision, private insurance plans and individual consumer choice of health plan options.
Today’s Republican Party of Negativity needlessly held our country hostage by refusing to raise the US debt ceiling, even after many of the same Republican senators voted 17 times to raise the debt ceiling under Ronald Reagan, and voted seven times to raise the debt ceiling under George W Bush.
Today’s Republican Party of Negativity and new chief spokesman Governor Romney says that they care about everybody, but their own votes, their own private speeches, and the words of their corporate sponsors tell us the truth.
I urge you to vote for me, Barack Obama and for others in the Democratic party this November, and show today’s Republican Party of Negativity that theirs is not the direction that our country should go in.
God Bless America.
[i] http://www.youtube.com/politics?feature=etp-pv-ype-b54f6ff011
[iv] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge03Sys8SdA, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBj0joyCeag&feature=relmfu
[v] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/revenue.cfm
[vi] http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/05/facts-and-figures-of-job-creation-spending-and-gdp-growth-in-10-bullet-points/,
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/09/06/bill-clinton-is-right-the-economy-really-does-do-better-under-democrats
[viii] http://treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
Top 25 Economics Web sites
http://topsitesblog.com/economics-websites/
This list is interesting to browse, or to select a few to include on your own web site.
Interesting that the BU Blog the Incidental Economist made it to #6.
Here is the direct link.
6. The Incidental Economist is a blog focused on economics, U.S. health policy, politics, and law, and with other fields.