Aa
Info for fence sitters
I will try to post some information for your consideration every day.
All of it will have documentation sources for your convenience3.
#1John McCain has been touring the country telling displaced factory workers that their jobs will come back if corporations get to keep more of their profits. According to McCain, “America has the second highest business [tax] rate in the entire world. It's any wonder that jobs are moving overseas. We're taxing them out of the country.” [John McCain]
That might be a compelling argument… if it weren’t completely false.
The Facts
The problem is not that corporations are overtaxed. In fact, a whopping two-thirds of American corporations and foreign corporations doing business in the United States pay absolutely no federal income taxes—despite taking in $2.5 trillion in sales. [Government Accounting Office] In 2005, 28 percent of large foreign companies doing business in the United States (those with more than $250 million in assets or $50 million in sales) paid no taxes.
Compared to our competitors’ corporate tax rates, the U.S. rate is low. According to the World Bank and PricewaterhouseCoopers, the United States’ total corporate tax burden ranks 76th of over 100 countries. [World Bank] When conservatives claim that the U.S. tax rate is high, they’re talking about the “statutory rate.” But corporations treat the statutory rate as just a guideline—they use offshore tax havens and accounting loopholes to pay much lower actual rates. The tax rate corporations actually pay is lower than the rates of economic competitors such as China (15th highest tax rate), India (19th), and Mexico (51st). [World Bank]
The U.S. collects less in corporate taxes than other wealthy countries do. Measuring tax collections as a share of GDP is a good way to put a country’s tax rate in the context of its economy’s size. In the last seven years, the U.S. has collected an average of 2.4 percent of its GDP in corporate taxes—less than the average 3.4 percent collected by other industrialized nations. If laws remain the same, U.S. corporate taxes will be only 1.9 percent of GDP in less than ten years. [U.S. Treasury Department]
Corporations should pay their fair tax share. American workers increasingly carry more of the tax burden than corporations do. In the 1950s, corporate income taxes accounted for about a quarter of federal tax revenues; now they account for just one-tenth, leaving workers to pay the difference. [Economic Policy Institute]
All of it will have documentation sources for your convenience3.
#1John McCain has been touring the country telling displaced factory workers that their jobs will come back if corporations get to keep more of their profits. According to McCain, “America has the second highest business [tax] rate in the entire world. It's any wonder that jobs are moving overseas. We're taxing them out of the country.” [John McCain]
That might be a compelling argument… if it weren’t completely false.
The Facts
The problem is not that corporations are overtaxed. In fact, a whopping two-thirds of American corporations and foreign corporations doing business in the United States pay absolutely no federal income taxes—despite taking in $2.5 trillion in sales. [Government Accounting Office] In 2005, 28 percent of large foreign companies doing business in the United States (those with more than $250 million in assets or $50 million in sales) paid no taxes.
Compared to our competitors’ corporate tax rates, the U.S. rate is low. According to the World Bank and PricewaterhouseCoopers, the United States’ total corporate tax burden ranks 76th of over 100 countries. [World Bank] When conservatives claim that the U.S. tax rate is high, they’re talking about the “statutory rate.” But corporations treat the statutory rate as just a guideline—they use offshore tax havens and accounting loopholes to pay much lower actual rates. The tax rate corporations actually pay is lower than the rates of economic competitors such as China (15th highest tax rate), India (19th), and Mexico (51st). [World Bank]
The U.S. collects less in corporate taxes than other wealthy countries do. Measuring tax collections as a share of GDP is a good way to put a country’s tax rate in the context of its economy’s size. In the last seven years, the U.S. has collected an average of 2.4 percent of its GDP in corporate taxes—less than the average 3.4 percent collected by other industrialized nations. If laws remain the same, U.S. corporate taxes will be only 1.9 percent of GDP in less than ten years. [U.S. Treasury Department]
Corporations should pay their fair tax share. American workers increasingly carry more of the tax burden than corporations do. In the 1950s, corporate income taxes accounted for about a quarter of federal tax revenues; now they account for just one-tenth, leaving workers to pay the difference. [Economic Policy Institute]
Since George Bush took office, the price of gasoline has skyrocketed. When Bush took office in January 2001, the average price of regular gasoline was $1.47 per gallon. It’s now $4.10 (as of June 30, 2008). Even adjusted for inflation, gas prices have more than doubled under the Bush administration. As a result, the average household will spend about $2,300 more on gasoline this year than in 2000 (adjusted for inflation). [CAF]
Bush and McCain are cynical flip-floppers on oil drilling. Since the Reagan Administration, offshore oil drilling has been banned on most of the outer continental shelf. Until June 2008, Bush and McCain opposed lifting that ban. [New York Times] And while Bush has favored drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), he could never persuade a conservative-dominated Congress to approve that scheme. Even McCain opposes it. [New York Times]
New drilling wouldn’t bring the first drop of oil to market for at least 10 years—and they know it. Normally, it takes years—to set up operations, dig test wells, and build a functioning oil rig—before any oil goes to market. On top of that, all of the oil drilling ships in the world are booked for the next five years. [New York Times] So it would take 10 years before any oil is pumped out of new offshore wells, and about 20 years before those wells would reach peak capacity. The Bush Administration admits there could be no oil production in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge until 2018 and production would not peak until 2027. [U.S. Department of Energy]
Even at peak capacity in 20 years, new oil drilling won’t lower gas prices—and they know it. There is simply too little oil in these offshore areas to affect global supply. Bush’s own Department of Energy shows that by the year 2025, ANWR drilling would lower crude oil prices by only 75 cents per barrel (which amounts to about 2 cents a gallon at the pump). [U.S. Department of Energy] The latest government estimate for new offshore wells estimates that, even in 20 years, they would pump only about one-fifth as much oil as ANWR and therefore “any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.” [U.S. Department of Energy]
Since 2001, Bush and his allies have blocked every reasonable measure to promote U.S. energy independence. Bush slashed Department of Energy programs that promoted conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy sources. [Center for American Progress] Bush and Senate conservatives killed 2007 legislation that would have required 15 percent of our electricity to come from renewable sources, and they continue to block the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. [Washington Post] And during the years when conservatives controlled Congress, they did nothing to improve fuel efficiency for cars and SUVs. In December 2007, the day after Bush finally signed Democratic legislation which modestly increases fuel efficiency standards, the administration blocked laws enacted in 18 states that would have improved auto-efficiency rules for a majority of Americans. [New York Times]
The Argument
he Bush-McCain-conservative wail that we should authorize new oil drilling to address gasoline prices is a hoax. They know perfectly well that drilling offshore or in the Alaskan wilderness would produce no oil for a decade. They know perfectly well that even in two decades this new offshore and Alaskan oil would have almost no effect on the price of gasoline—because Bush’s own Energy Department says so. After Bush and his allies have spent the last 7½ years wrecking our nation’s energy security, why would any American believe them now?
It’s time for American energy policy to benefit Americans—not giant multinational oil companies. The current cry to open up risky areas for oil drilling will benefit no one except the big oil companies. These are the same companies that are now raking in record profits. In recent years, the oil industry has given tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions to conservative candidates. John McCain alone has received over $1 million in contributions from the oil industry. [Center for Responsive Politics] It’s time to stop the special-interest dealing in Washington and enact practical policies that will end America’s dependence on foreign oil.
The oil companies themselves are responsible for the lack of drilling in 68 million acres of federal land. There are 91.5 million acres of federal property onshore and offshore that are currently leased for oil and gas drilling. But only about 23.5 million acres, just over 25 percent, are actually producing oil and gas. [Committee on Natural Resources] There are 68 million untouched acres could produce far more oil than the disputed off-shore and Alaskan areas. Before we consider letting oil companies drill in areas that could ruin the California or Florida coasts, let’s insist that they first drill in the millions of acres that could have been producing oil already.
Solutions
The short term solutions are: release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, crack down on speculation in oil futures, and investigate oil companies for price-gouging. Bush should release supplies from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that now holds close to 700 million gallons to start pushing prices downward. The Bush Administration should reverse its ruling that opened up oil-futures speculation to hedge funds and other new institutional investors. And the Justice Department should begin investigating whether the big oil companies have engaged in price fixing.
The long term solution is to make America energy independent by investing in conservation, energy efficiency, and clean power. Energy conservation is the fastest method to make a major difference in oil prices—we can save millions of barrels of oil much more quickly than we can produce new oil, and the effect on prices is the same. Increasing fuel efficiency standards to an average of 32 miles per gallon would save sixteen times more oil than could be produced by new offshore drilling. [CEPR] Ultimately, the only way for our nation to become energy independent is to invest in clean power sources such as wind, solar energy, and geothermal energy—which will also help solve the problem of global warming.
Bush and McCain are cynical flip-floppers on oil drilling. Since the Reagan Administration, offshore oil drilling has been banned on most of the outer continental shelf. Until June 2008, Bush and McCain opposed lifting that ban. [New York Times] And while Bush has favored drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), he could never persuade a conservative-dominated Congress to approve that scheme. Even McCain opposes it. [New York Times]
New drilling wouldn’t bring the first drop of oil to market for at least 10 years—and they know it. Normally, it takes years—to set up operations, dig test wells, and build a functioning oil rig—before any oil goes to market. On top of that, all of the oil drilling ships in the world are booked for the next five years. [New York Times] So it would take 10 years before any oil is pumped out of new offshore wells, and about 20 years before those wells would reach peak capacity. The Bush Administration admits there could be no oil production in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge until 2018 and production would not peak until 2027. [U.S. Department of Energy]
Even at peak capacity in 20 years, new oil drilling won’t lower gas prices—and they know it. There is simply too little oil in these offshore areas to affect global supply. Bush’s own Department of Energy shows that by the year 2025, ANWR drilling would lower crude oil prices by only 75 cents per barrel (which amounts to about 2 cents a gallon at the pump). [U.S. Department of Energy] The latest government estimate for new offshore wells estimates that, even in 20 years, they would pump only about one-fifth as much oil as ANWR and therefore “any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.” [U.S. Department of Energy]
Since 2001, Bush and his allies have blocked every reasonable measure to promote U.S. energy independence. Bush slashed Department of Energy programs that promoted conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy sources. [Center for American Progress] Bush and Senate conservatives killed 2007 legislation that would have required 15 percent of our electricity to come from renewable sources, and they continue to block the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. [Washington Post] And during the years when conservatives controlled Congress, they did nothing to improve fuel efficiency for cars and SUVs. In December 2007, the day after Bush finally signed Democratic legislation which modestly increases fuel efficiency standards, the administration blocked laws enacted in 18 states that would have improved auto-efficiency rules for a majority of Americans. [New York Times]
The Argument
he Bush-McCain-conservative wail that we should authorize new oil drilling to address gasoline prices is a hoax. They know perfectly well that drilling offshore or in the Alaskan wilderness would produce no oil for a decade. They know perfectly well that even in two decades this new offshore and Alaskan oil would have almost no effect on the price of gasoline—because Bush’s own Energy Department says so. After Bush and his allies have spent the last 7½ years wrecking our nation’s energy security, why would any American believe them now?
It’s time for American energy policy to benefit Americans—not giant multinational oil companies. The current cry to open up risky areas for oil drilling will benefit no one except the big oil companies. These are the same companies that are now raking in record profits. In recent years, the oil industry has given tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions to conservative candidates. John McCain alone has received over $1 million in contributions from the oil industry. [Center for Responsive Politics] It’s time to stop the special-interest dealing in Washington and enact practical policies that will end America’s dependence on foreign oil.
The oil companies themselves are responsible for the lack of drilling in 68 million acres of federal land. There are 91.5 million acres of federal property onshore and offshore that are currently leased for oil and gas drilling. But only about 23.5 million acres, just over 25 percent, are actually producing oil and gas. [Committee on Natural Resources] There are 68 million untouched acres could produce far more oil than the disputed off-shore and Alaskan areas. Before we consider letting oil companies drill in areas that could ruin the California or Florida coasts, let’s insist that they first drill in the millions of acres that could have been producing oil already.
Solutions
The short term solutions are: release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, crack down on speculation in oil futures, and investigate oil companies for price-gouging. Bush should release supplies from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that now holds close to 700 million gallons to start pushing prices downward. The Bush Administration should reverse its ruling that opened up oil-futures speculation to hedge funds and other new institutional investors. And the Justice Department should begin investigating whether the big oil companies have engaged in price fixing.
The long term solution is to make America energy independent by investing in conservation, energy efficiency, and clean power. Energy conservation is the fastest method to make a major difference in oil prices—we can save millions of barrels of oil much more quickly than we can produce new oil, and the effect on prices is the same. Increasing fuel efficiency standards to an average of 32 miles per gallon would save sixteen times more oil than could be produced by new offshore drilling. [CEPR] Ultimately, the only way for our nation to become energy independent is to invest in clean power sources such as wind, solar energy, and geothermal energy—which will also help solve the problem of global warming.
To stave off financial collapse, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have pumped out nearly $900 billion to bail out the bad bets of Wall Street. Now there’s movement for a “comprehensive” response, with taxpayers asked to take over the toxic paper of the banks, a bailout that may put over $1 trillion at risk. Conservatives are arguing that this crisis is due to government interference in the marketplace: that the Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to make bad loans; that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, in their quasi government status, were at the root of the crisis.
This is the big lie. The reality is simple and plain.
The Facts
Conservative economic philosophy has caused the current financial crisis. It is not “the market.” It is not miscalculation. It’s not even greed. Financial corporations are failing because conservatives created the conditions where greed would inevitably lead to economic chaos. [New York Times primer on the crisis]
Conservative “free market” fundamentalists dismantled New Deal protections. Finance is too important to be left to bankers. We learned that in the Great Depression. To curb irresponsible speculation and secure banks, Franklin Roosevelt and Congress reformed the financial industry with tighter controls on banks, mortgage lenders and other creditors, and stock exchanges. These reforms worked for more than fifty years. But starting in the 1980s, heeding Ronald Reagan’s call to shrink the federal government and leave the economy in the care of the market’s “invisible hand,” conservatives systematically dismantled economic safeguards. [Robert Kuttner’s American Prospect article and his congressional testimony]
Conservatives weakened and eventually repealed of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Glass-Steagall separated investment banks and commercial banks, to prevent a single institution from making risky loans, repackaging them as securities, and selling them to investors—a major part of the current crisis. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which eliminated the Glass-Steagall limits, was authored by then-Senator Phil Gramm who is now John McCain’s chief financial advisor. [Newsweek]
Conservative regulators opposed using the powers that they had. The Federal Reserve, led by conservative Alan Greenspan, had the power and responsibility to police the mortgage market. A Democratic Congress gave him that job as part of the Homeownership Opportunity and Equity Protection Act of 1994. But based on the conservative anti-regulation philosophy, he never implemented the law. The Bush Administration subsequently encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase sub-prime lending. [New York Times]
Conservatives cheered on the creation of a largely unregulated shadow banking system. Hedge funds and private-equity firms have been allowed to operate without limits, even though they create risky securities, buy and sell companies, and borrow at spectacular levels to speculate on the market. Bankers made millions by taking on ever more exotic risks. They turned home mortgages into speculative packages, and then pushed hard to lower standards of lending. Thanks to the conservative economic philosophy, these corporations have turned much of the market into nothing more than a gigantic gambling casino. [Paul Krugman]
Solutions
Impose new regulations on all parts of the financial system—limits on capital, leverage, exotic instruments, and compensation. The price of rescuing the financial system must be to get it back under control.
Strengthen the cop on the financial beat. We need regulators who will enforce the law, not scorn the responsibility they have.
Kick start the real economy, don’t just bail out the banks. We need a public investment initiative to get the economy moving, investing in renewable energy, rebuilding green, extending unemployment insurance, helping cities and states avoid deep cuts in health care, police and fire services, and more.
This is the big lie. The reality is simple and plain.
The Facts
Conservative economic philosophy has caused the current financial crisis. It is not “the market.” It is not miscalculation. It’s not even greed. Financial corporations are failing because conservatives created the conditions where greed would inevitably lead to economic chaos. [New York Times primer on the crisis]
Conservative “free market” fundamentalists dismantled New Deal protections. Finance is too important to be left to bankers. We learned that in the Great Depression. To curb irresponsible speculation and secure banks, Franklin Roosevelt and Congress reformed the financial industry with tighter controls on banks, mortgage lenders and other creditors, and stock exchanges. These reforms worked for more than fifty years. But starting in the 1980s, heeding Ronald Reagan’s call to shrink the federal government and leave the economy in the care of the market’s “invisible hand,” conservatives systematically dismantled economic safeguards. [Robert Kuttner’s American Prospect article and his congressional testimony]
Conservatives weakened and eventually repealed of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Glass-Steagall separated investment banks and commercial banks, to prevent a single institution from making risky loans, repackaging them as securities, and selling them to investors—a major part of the current crisis. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which eliminated the Glass-Steagall limits, was authored by then-Senator Phil Gramm who is now John McCain’s chief financial advisor. [Newsweek]
Conservative regulators opposed using the powers that they had. The Federal Reserve, led by conservative Alan Greenspan, had the power and responsibility to police the mortgage market. A Democratic Congress gave him that job as part of the Homeownership Opportunity and Equity Protection Act of 1994. But based on the conservative anti-regulation philosophy, he never implemented the law. The Bush Administration subsequently encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase sub-prime lending. [New York Times]
Conservatives cheered on the creation of a largely unregulated shadow banking system. Hedge funds and private-equity firms have been allowed to operate without limits, even though they create risky securities, buy and sell companies, and borrow at spectacular levels to speculate on the market. Bankers made millions by taking on ever more exotic risks. They turned home mortgages into speculative packages, and then pushed hard to lower standards of lending. Thanks to the conservative economic philosophy, these corporations have turned much of the market into nothing more than a gigantic gambling casino. [Paul Krugman]
Solutions
Impose new regulations on all parts of the financial system—limits on capital, leverage, exotic instruments, and compensation. The price of rescuing the financial system must be to get it back under control.
Strengthen the cop on the financial beat. We need regulators who will enforce the law, not scorn the responsibility they have.
Kick start the real economy, don’t just bail out the banks. We need a public investment initiative to get the economy moving, investing in renewable energy, rebuilding green, extending unemployment insurance, helping cities and states avoid deep cuts in health care, police and fire services, and more.
National security is a subject on which progressives have struggled to find a winning message. It’s a topic where conservatives get away with surreal talking points, such as, “Let’s fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here,” which Sarah Palin repeated as recently as last week. [New York Times] McCain simplistically asserts that America’s choices in Iraq are “victory” or “retreat.” [Washington Post] How can we turn the debate from a recitation of absurd slogans into a serious reconsideration of America’s role in the world?
The Facts
The Bush-McCain war in Iraq is a disaster. So far, the costs of the war include over 4,000 fallen American soldiers, approximately 30,000 more wounded, and $565 billion lost. This does not include the costs borne by other nations, or the tremendous suffering of innocent civilians in Iraq. Most Americans think the Iraq war is a failure [Gallup] and record numbers of Americans are dissatisfied with our nation’s position in the world. [Gallup] Among the citizens of other nations, America’s standing in the world is at an all-time low. [Gallup]
Bush’s efforts to fight terrorism have backfired. According to the most recently declassified National Security Estimate, the Iraq war has had a “rejuvenating effect” on Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. [Washington Post] Worldwide, suicide bombings have increased greatly since 2001, and 2007 was the worst year for such bombings in more than a quarter-century. Over half of all suicide bombings last year took place in U.S.-occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. [Washington Post]
Bush has depleted our military. A poll of 3,400 military officers found that 60 percent say the U.S. military is weaker today than it was five years ago, and nearly 90 percent say the Iraq war has “stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin.” [Foreign Policy] The military’s involuntary extensions of duty—especially “stop loss” orders to National Guard soldiers—have caused hardships for soldiers and their families and have made it more difficult to recruit future soldiers. [USA Today] The U.S. Government Accountability Office reports that it will take years and cost about $200 billion to repair or replace equipment that was warn out or broken in the Iraq war. [GAO]
Bush continues to outsource national security. “Free market” ideology trumps national security in the Bush Administration. Not only have we outsourced critical military jobs to the likes of Halliburton and Blackwater, the Bush Administration has also hired private companies to spy for the United States. In fact, 70 percent of the intelligence budget now goes to contractors. In other words, private corporate interests control our nation’s most sensitive information and help direct our most critical foreign policy decisions. [CBS News]
Bush has had little success in stopping nuclear proliferation. One of America’s greatest security threats is the possibility that nuclear weapons will find their way into the hands of rogue states or terrorists. Yet, the Administration’s ham-fisted approach to Iranian nuclear programs has accomplished nothing. Bush’s nuclear deal with North Korea is on the verge of breakdown. His nuclear agreement with India undermined nonproliferation arguments elsewhere. And Bush’s opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and his refusal to cooperate in other international efforts have worsened the problem. [Arms Control Association]
Bush has made no progress on energy independence. Our dependence on foreign oil remains a grave risk to national security. Fifty-eight percent of oil consumed in the U.S. is imported. [Energy Information Administration] Still, Bush slashed Department of Energy programs that promoted conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy sources. Bush and Senate conservatives killed 2007 legislation that would have required 15 percent of our electricity to come from renewable sources and they continue to block the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. [Center for American Progress, Washington Post] Conservatives did nothing to improve fuel efficiency for cars and SUVs while they controlled Congress and the White House. Then in December 2007, the day after Bush signed Democratic legislation which modestly increases fuel efficiency standards, the administration blocked laws enacted in 18 states that would improve auto efficiency rules for a majority of Americans. [New York Times]
Solutions
The Bush-McCain approach—preemptive war, non-cooperation with our allies, outsourcing to firms like Halliburton, and continuing U.S. reliance on foreign oil—has made our nation less secure. We need a progressive U.S. foreign policy that engages our allies and uses moral leadership to build a safer world for us all.
The Facts
The Bush-McCain war in Iraq is a disaster. So far, the costs of the war include over 4,000 fallen American soldiers, approximately 30,000 more wounded, and $565 billion lost. This does not include the costs borne by other nations, or the tremendous suffering of innocent civilians in Iraq. Most Americans think the Iraq war is a failure [Gallup] and record numbers of Americans are dissatisfied with our nation’s position in the world. [Gallup] Among the citizens of other nations, America’s standing in the world is at an all-time low. [Gallup]
Bush’s efforts to fight terrorism have backfired. According to the most recently declassified National Security Estimate, the Iraq war has had a “rejuvenating effect” on Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. [Washington Post] Worldwide, suicide bombings have increased greatly since 2001, and 2007 was the worst year for such bombings in more than a quarter-century. Over half of all suicide bombings last year took place in U.S.-occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. [Washington Post]
Bush has depleted our military. A poll of 3,400 military officers found that 60 percent say the U.S. military is weaker today than it was five years ago, and nearly 90 percent say the Iraq war has “stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin.” [Foreign Policy] The military’s involuntary extensions of duty—especially “stop loss” orders to National Guard soldiers—have caused hardships for soldiers and their families and have made it more difficult to recruit future soldiers. [USA Today] The U.S. Government Accountability Office reports that it will take years and cost about $200 billion to repair or replace equipment that was warn out or broken in the Iraq war. [GAO]
Bush continues to outsource national security. “Free market” ideology trumps national security in the Bush Administration. Not only have we outsourced critical military jobs to the likes of Halliburton and Blackwater, the Bush Administration has also hired private companies to spy for the United States. In fact, 70 percent of the intelligence budget now goes to contractors. In other words, private corporate interests control our nation’s most sensitive information and help direct our most critical foreign policy decisions. [CBS News]
Bush has had little success in stopping nuclear proliferation. One of America’s greatest security threats is the possibility that nuclear weapons will find their way into the hands of rogue states or terrorists. Yet, the Administration’s ham-fisted approach to Iranian nuclear programs has accomplished nothing. Bush’s nuclear deal with North Korea is on the verge of breakdown. His nuclear agreement with India undermined nonproliferation arguments elsewhere. And Bush’s opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and his refusal to cooperate in other international efforts have worsened the problem. [Arms Control Association]
Bush has made no progress on energy independence. Our dependence on foreign oil remains a grave risk to national security. Fifty-eight percent of oil consumed in the U.S. is imported. [Energy Information Administration] Still, Bush slashed Department of Energy programs that promoted conservation, efficiency, and renewable energy sources. Bush and Senate conservatives killed 2007 legislation that would have required 15 percent of our electricity to come from renewable sources and they continue to block the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008. [Center for American Progress, Washington Post] Conservatives did nothing to improve fuel efficiency for cars and SUVs while they controlled Congress and the White House. Then in December 2007, the day after Bush signed Democratic legislation which modestly increases fuel efficiency standards, the administration blocked laws enacted in 18 states that would improve auto efficiency rules for a majority of Americans. [New York Times]
Solutions
The Bush-McCain approach—preemptive war, non-cooperation with our allies, outsourcing to firms like Halliburton, and continuing U.S. reliance on foreign oil—has made our nation less secure. We need a progressive U.S. foreign policy that engages our allies and uses moral leadership to build a safer world for us all.
Lovepat,
Keep the info coming. It's great. And no one seems to be able to debate it. lol
Keep the info coming. It's great. And no one seems to be able to debate it. lol
from Sam Cox
to Ana Marie Cox
date Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:55 AM
subject Re: McCain health care plan
I read his proposal in the American Academy of Actuaries magazine, Contingencies. It will not work, in my opinion, even if he could get a Democratic Congress to go along (it would not).
Most Americans with health insurance get it through an employer and those folks are relatively happy with it. Employers are not happy with it generally and would like to get away from providing it. The government allows companies to deduct health care expenses from income and does not count the cost of health benefits as income to the employee. In effect it is away of paying employees tax free income, as long as it goes to heath care. (Originally this was a way to work around the WWII freeze on ordinary wages.) McCain's proposal does way with this setup, making the heath care benefit taxable income. On average that is $12,000 per year for a family of four. If a family continues in an employer program it will pay an additional tax. If they are in the 25% bracket (say $75000 income) then they pay an additional $3000 in taxes. An individual in an employer plan with health benefits of about $6000 so will pay an additional $1500 in taxes.
McCain's proposal gives individuals a $2500 tax credit so the net for an individual is a tax credit of $1000. For a family with two persons filing, they get a tax credit of $5000, so get a net $2000 credit they can use to off set other taxes. (Actually it is not clear on this; maybe you do not get an offset.) So far is looks good for those who that already have health care through an employer. However, the costs are escalating faster than overall price inflation, so unless the tax credits are indexed to heath care costs, the advantage will disappear in a few years. While this aspect looks good now (for those who have and can continue with employer coverage), that may change without indexing. The proposal says nothing about indexing.
A family with no employer health care pays an average of more than $12000 per year for insurance because individual plans are more expensive (or go without and experience about the same out of pocket heath expenses on average with a lot more variance). They get the tax credit too, so a family gets a $5000 but it still costs them $7000 per year. This may bring coverage into reach for some families, but certainly not all.
Only about 60% of employers provide health care coverage. McCain's program removes the incentive for employers to provide it so I expect a lot of them will stop providing it. More Americans will be on their own, those with preexisting conditions will not get insurance. And it provides no incentive for employers to start covering employees. For small businesses, the situation is worse - only about 45% provide health benefits.
Another important aspect of McCain's plan is to deregulate health insurance. Now the states regulate it and provide consumer protection, solvency and other regulations. McCain says he will deregulate as``we have done over the last decade in banking.'' We see now how that turned out. It will be a huge mess.
I don't think McCain understands insurance or insurance regulation. This is just false: ``Health insurance is simply a financial device that shifts around the apparent costs of the nation's overall health care bill among various payers.'' Above all, insurance is a mechanism for managing risk. It also provides for economy of scale too but the primary function is to reduce the risk to an individual or family of catastrophic heath care costs. It is a very serious problem and McCain's proposal ignores it. No other developed nation treats its citizens this way, forcing them to bear the risk of catastrophic heath care costs.
There is no reason to believe McCain's propoals will solve the problems of rising health costs or lack of coverage. Indeed, I think it will aggravate these serious problems.
to Ana Marie Cox
date Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:55 AM
subject Re: McCain health care plan
I read his proposal in the American Academy of Actuaries magazine, Contingencies. It will not work, in my opinion, even if he could get a Democratic Congress to go along (it would not).
Most Americans with health insurance get it through an employer and those folks are relatively happy with it. Employers are not happy with it generally and would like to get away from providing it. The government allows companies to deduct health care expenses from income and does not count the cost of health benefits as income to the employee. In effect it is away of paying employees tax free income, as long as it goes to heath care. (Originally this was a way to work around the WWII freeze on ordinary wages.) McCain's proposal does way with this setup, making the heath care benefit taxable income. On average that is $12,000 per year for a family of four. If a family continues in an employer program it will pay an additional tax. If they are in the 25% bracket (say $75000 income) then they pay an additional $3000 in taxes. An individual in an employer plan with health benefits of about $6000 so will pay an additional $1500 in taxes.
McCain's proposal gives individuals a $2500 tax credit so the net for an individual is a tax credit of $1000. For a family with two persons filing, they get a tax credit of $5000, so get a net $2000 credit they can use to off set other taxes. (Actually it is not clear on this; maybe you do not get an offset.) So far is looks good for those who that already have health care through an employer. However, the costs are escalating faster than overall price inflation, so unless the tax credits are indexed to heath care costs, the advantage will disappear in a few years. While this aspect looks good now (for those who have and can continue with employer coverage), that may change without indexing. The proposal says nothing about indexing.
A family with no employer health care pays an average of more than $12000 per year for insurance because individual plans are more expensive (or go without and experience about the same out of pocket heath expenses on average with a lot more variance). They get the tax credit too, so a family gets a $5000 but it still costs them $7000 per year. This may bring coverage into reach for some families, but certainly not all.
Only about 60% of employers provide health care coverage. McCain's program removes the incentive for employers to provide it so I expect a lot of them will stop providing it. More Americans will be on their own, those with preexisting conditions will not get insurance. And it provides no incentive for employers to start covering employees. For small businesses, the situation is worse - only about 45% provide health benefits.
Another important aspect of McCain's plan is to deregulate health insurance. Now the states regulate it and provide consumer protection, solvency and other regulations. McCain says he will deregulate as``we have done over the last decade in banking.'' We see now how that turned out. It will be a huge mess.
I don't think McCain understands insurance or insurance regulation. This is just false: ``Health insurance is simply a financial device that shifts around the apparent costs of the nation's overall health care bill among various payers.'' Above all, insurance is a mechanism for managing risk. It also provides for economy of scale too but the primary function is to reduce the risk to an individual or family of catastrophic heath care costs. It is a very serious problem and McCain's proposal ignores it. No other developed nation treats its citizens this way, forcing them to bear the risk of catastrophic heath care costs.
There is no reason to believe McCain's propoals will solve the problems of rising health costs or lack of coverage. Indeed, I think it will aggravate these serious problems.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Addiction: Social Community
Is treating glaucoma with marijuana all hype, or can hemp actually help?
If you think marijuana has no ill effects on your health, this article from Missouri Medicine may make you think again.
Julia Aharonov, DO, reveals the quickest way to beat drug withdrawal.
Tricks to help you quit for good.
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
