/PRNewswire/ -- Pass the BBA today released the results of a survey they commissioned through Wilson Research Strategies (WRS) on voter attitudes towards a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The newly-formed Pass the BBA wishes to establish a baseline of national voter sentiment before they begin a targeted grassroots campaign to educate voters about their respective representative's position on the BBA over the next several months.
In this national survey, 1011 adults were asked whether they would be more likely or less likely to support their Congressional representative if they opposed the Balanced Budget Amendment. An overwhelming majority of 57% answered that they would be less like to support their representative if they opposed the BBA. The follow-up question asked whether if, should the representative vote against a BBA, would they be more likely to vote against them in their next primary election. 45% responded that they would be more likely to vote against that representative in the next primary. The survey questions can be viewed here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions.pdf
The cross-tab data is here: http://passthebba.com/docs/BBANationalSurveyQuestions_Crosstabs.pdf
"We knew that the voters wanted real change in November, but these results clearly show that they are willing to support more change in 2012 if their representatives don't deliver on key issues like this. Congress has a limited opportunity to achieve results, and we are pushing them to vote for a balanced budged amendment to the Constitution by October 1, 2011," said the Hon. Ken Blackwell, national chairman of Pass the BBA.
Several Members of Congress have introduced BBA bills, and several more are expected to be introduced in the upcoming months. Pass the BBA has endorsed efforts that balance the budget through spending cuts, require a supermajority vote in each chamber to raise taxes or increase debt and require the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress. Pass the BBA's model language was drafted by their Honorary Chairman Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and can be read here: http://www.passthebba.com/amendment/
"This is a good starting point, and we know these numbers will grow dramatically once we begin educating voters about their representative's tax and spend habit, or cynical efforts to convince the folks back home that they are fiscally responsible when they block efforts to stop the growth of government. We hope Congress acts quickly and decisively on this issue, the voters are watching carefully and so are we, " concluded Blackwell.
Wilson Research Strategies is one of the top polling and research firms in the country, and has conducted thousands of public opinion studies for over 100 of the Fortune 500, influential trade and professional associations, foundations, elected leaders of the U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives and state governments. more information on their work can be accessed here: http://www.w-r-s.com/home/
Pass the BBA has emerged as the leading advocate for a federal balanced budget amendment (BBA) and is focused on having a vote on the BBA by October 1, 2011, which is the beginning of the next fiscal year. Pass the BBA is a non-partisan, grassroots movement actively gathering 5,000 to 10,000 voter signatures in all 435 congressional districts demanding fiscal accountability from their leaders. The Hon. Ken Blackwell and former Florida House Majority Leader Adam Hasner serve as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively.
-----
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Monday, November 29, 2010
Federal Emergency Unemployment Benefits Set to Expire Unless Congress Acts
Georgians have received more than $2 billion in federal Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits over the last 12 months as part of the emergency UI program. To put that economic impact in context -- $2 billion is greater than the annual payroll for Robins Air Force Base. If Congress does not extend these benefits in December, millions of dollars will immediately stop flowing to Georgians pockets, lowering their purchasing power and impacting local economies across the state.
Congress provides emergency UI benefits in recessions to assist workers during periods of prolonged unemployment after they exhaust state UI benefits. These benefits help workers and families make ends meet when the number of job-searchers greatly out-numbers available jobs. For every 1 job opening nationally there are 5 unemployed workers. The job-population mismatch is especially pronounced in Georgia -- Today, Georgia has fewer jobs than in 2000, yet 20 percent more working age adults.
How would state leaders respond if a company with $2 billion in annual payroll suddenly announced they were eliminating all payroll in 2011? This is the dire reality faced by Georgia workers if federal UI benefits expire. An estimated 90,000 Georgians will lose benefits in December unless Congress acts, according to the National Employment Law Project.
Emergency UI Benefits Typical Until Unemployment Drops to 7.2%
Federal emergency benefits have been available in recessions since the 1950s and historically remain in place until unemployment falls to 7.2 percent or lower. Almost one in ten workers is unemployed today (9.6 percent nationally and 9.9 percent in Georgia), yet these emergency benefits are set to expire. Georgia's unemployment rate will likely stay above 9 percent in 2011, according to GSU Economic Forecasting Center.
Federal UI Benefits Have Helped Workers...And the State Budget
Georgia workers receiving federal UI benefits have contributed an estimated $100 million in income tax revenue over the last 12 months. UI benefits act as wage replacements for unemployed workers as they search for a job, and Georgia treats those benefits like regular wages when it comes to taxes. As the state has struggled with falling revenues and rising need, these tax contributions have added a small boost to revenues.
While the debate about UI extensions should focus on the very real impacts to workers and families, we at the state-level should also consider the impacts on state budget and tax policy. If emergency UI benefits expire and unemployment remains at 9 percent, as expected, will state leaders have to fill an additional $100 million hole in FY 2012 on top of the $1.8 to $2 billion budget shortfall? Will the demand for state services increase as these workers lose benefits -- at the same time revenues remain low? Is the state prepared to meet those additional demands for services?
The expiration of federal UI benefits has consequences for workers, families, and local economies, as well as the state's ability to meet rising needs for services.
Congress provides emergency UI benefits in recessions to assist workers during periods of prolonged unemployment after they exhaust state UI benefits. These benefits help workers and families make ends meet when the number of job-searchers greatly out-numbers available jobs. For every 1 job opening nationally there are 5 unemployed workers. The job-population mismatch is especially pronounced in Georgia -- Today, Georgia has fewer jobs than in 2000, yet 20 percent more working age adults.
How would state leaders respond if a company with $2 billion in annual payroll suddenly announced they were eliminating all payroll in 2011? This is the dire reality faced by Georgia workers if federal UI benefits expire. An estimated 90,000 Georgians will lose benefits in December unless Congress acts, according to the National Employment Law Project.
Emergency UI Benefits Typical Until Unemployment Drops to 7.2%
Federal emergency benefits have been available in recessions since the 1950s and historically remain in place until unemployment falls to 7.2 percent or lower. Almost one in ten workers is unemployed today (9.6 percent nationally and 9.9 percent in Georgia), yet these emergency benefits are set to expire. Georgia's unemployment rate will likely stay above 9 percent in 2011, according to GSU Economic Forecasting Center.
Federal UI Benefits Have Helped Workers...And the State Budget
Georgia workers receiving federal UI benefits have contributed an estimated $100 million in income tax revenue over the last 12 months. UI benefits act as wage replacements for unemployed workers as they search for a job, and Georgia treats those benefits like regular wages when it comes to taxes. As the state has struggled with falling revenues and rising need, these tax contributions have added a small boost to revenues.
While the debate about UI extensions should focus on the very real impacts to workers and families, we at the state-level should also consider the impacts on state budget and tax policy. If emergency UI benefits expire and unemployment remains at 9 percent, as expected, will state leaders have to fill an additional $100 million hole in FY 2012 on top of the $1.8 to $2 billion budget shortfall? Will the demand for state services increase as these workers lose benefits -- at the same time revenues remain low? Is the state prepared to meet those additional demands for services?
The expiration of federal UI benefits has consequences for workers, families, and local economies, as well as the state's ability to meet rising needs for services.
Friday, October 22, 2010
We Can Pay Off Our National Debt Within a Decade with Freed Money Technology and the Denver Plan, Claims Congressional Candidate J. Moromisato
/PRNewswire/ -- The Following is the fourth of a six-part statement by J. Moromisato.
4. A Zero National Debt Within a Decade Can Be Achieved with Freed Money Technology and the Denver Plan
With a growing national debt, now about 100% of our GDP, saddling our country with near $400 billion in interest payments every year, shouldn't we worry about reaching a breaking point?
There is the Denver Plan solution, which the mainstream media continues to ignore. It may be up to you to spread my message until the powers-that-be pay attention and do something about our dysfunctional financial system.
The Denver Plan explains how all the money government overspends, namely the annual fiscal deficit, goes one way or another into the pockets of the super-rich, which they in turn lend to the government in exchange for tradable securities that increases their wealth.
The Denver Plan proposes the establishment of Freed Money, which would decouple, or disconnect, the savings of the rich to the all-important flow of credit; this would enable the government to gradually raise taxes on the super-rich to the levels prevailing in the 1950s and 1960s -- when our country enjoyed the longest period of sustained economic growth.
Freed money would allow the Fed to replace all the privately held debt with bank-debt to the Fed, and the interest paid by the banks would thus constitute a new revenue stream for the government. How big would this be? The total outstanding debt in the U.S. is about $50 trillion, of which about $35 trillion are owed by private entities; at some point, perhaps a decade or so in the future, all that debt would become assets to the Fed; at a 4% interest rate, the interest to be earned by government would be $1.4 Trillion, that is larger than the total income tax -- from individuals and from corporations -- collected last year.
The combination of new interest and higher taxes revenues would enable the government to gradually pay the national debt -- now around $15 trillion. Furthermore, since the Fed would own that debt, and would return the interest it accrues to the Treasury, the government would save that $400 billion from its budget every year.
4. A Zero National Debt Within a Decade Can Be Achieved with Freed Money Technology and the Denver Plan
With a growing national debt, now about 100% of our GDP, saddling our country with near $400 billion in interest payments every year, shouldn't we worry about reaching a breaking point?
There is the Denver Plan solution, which the mainstream media continues to ignore. It may be up to you to spread my message until the powers-that-be pay attention and do something about our dysfunctional financial system.
The Denver Plan explains how all the money government overspends, namely the annual fiscal deficit, goes one way or another into the pockets of the super-rich, which they in turn lend to the government in exchange for tradable securities that increases their wealth.
The Denver Plan proposes the establishment of Freed Money, which would decouple, or disconnect, the savings of the rich to the all-important flow of credit; this would enable the government to gradually raise taxes on the super-rich to the levels prevailing in the 1950s and 1960s -- when our country enjoyed the longest period of sustained economic growth.
Freed money would allow the Fed to replace all the privately held debt with bank-debt to the Fed, and the interest paid by the banks would thus constitute a new revenue stream for the government. How big would this be? The total outstanding debt in the U.S. is about $50 trillion, of which about $35 trillion are owed by private entities; at some point, perhaps a decade or so in the future, all that debt would become assets to the Fed; at a 4% interest rate, the interest to be earned by government would be $1.4 Trillion, that is larger than the total income tax -- from individuals and from corporations -- collected last year.
The combination of new interest and higher taxes revenues would enable the government to gradually pay the national debt -- now around $15 trillion. Furthermore, since the Fed would own that debt, and would return the interest it accrues to the Treasury, the government would save that $400 billion from its budget every year.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Geithner is Wrong: The Obama-Pelosi-Reid Tax Hike is Not a 'Return to the 1990s'
/PRNewswire/ -- In advance of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's major economic address today Americans for Tax Reform released the following:
In a speech today at the Center for American Progress, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will say that the largest tax hike in American history (coming this January) is a return to the "pro-growth" fiscal policies of the 1990s. This is patently absurd. Here is why:
1. The tax rates scheduled under current law and the Obama budget are higher than those of the Clinton years. Everyone forgets that Obamacare imposes a new 3.8 percent surtax on investment income and raises the top Medicare payroll tax rate to 3.8 percent in 2013. That means that the top tax rates on the table are higher than they were in the 1990s:
2. We can't afford to raise tax rates while other countries have been cutting them. The United States has the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world (39 percent when states are factored in). The average in the developed world is 26 percent. Back in 1995, the developed world's average was nearly 37 percent, and the U.S. level was the same as today. So the corporate tax rate around the world has been slashed, and the United States has stayed the same. We can't afford to raise taxes at the same time as other countries have been cutting them.
3. The capital gains tax rate in the 1990s was going down, but the Obama budget calls for the rate to go up. The GOP Congress and President Clinton signed a capital gains tax cut in 1997, lowering the top rate from 28 to 20 percent. However, the combination of the January 2011 tax hike and Obamacare means that today's capital gains tax rate will rise from 15 to nearly 24 percent.
4. Spending was going down in the 1990s, but it is at record-high levels today. That's why the 1990s had surpluses, and this decade has record deficits. Between 1990 and 2000, federal spending fell from 22 percent of the economy to 18 percent of the economy. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal spending this decade will hover around 23 percent of the economy--each and every year, and far above the historical average of 21 percent. Record-high spending is causing deficits this decade, just as spending restraint caused surpluses in the 1990s. Taxes should not be hiked to pay for massive, deficit-causing spending.
In a speech today at the Center for American Progress, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will say that the largest tax hike in American history (coming this January) is a return to the "pro-growth" fiscal policies of the 1990s. This is patently absurd. Here is why:
1. The tax rates scheduled under current law and the Obama budget are higher than those of the Clinton years. Everyone forgets that Obamacare imposes a new 3.8 percent surtax on investment income and raises the top Medicare payroll tax rate to 3.8 percent in 2013. That means that the top tax rates on the table are higher than they were in the 1990s:
Obama Current
Clinton/ Budget Law
GOP
Congress
Capital
Gains 20% 23.8% 23.8%
Dividends 39.6% 23.8% 43.4%
Majority
of Small
Business
Profits 42.5% 43.4% 43.4%2. We can't afford to raise tax rates while other countries have been cutting them. The United States has the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world (39 percent when states are factored in). The average in the developed world is 26 percent. Back in 1995, the developed world's average was nearly 37 percent, and the U.S. level was the same as today. So the corporate tax rate around the world has been slashed, and the United States has stayed the same. We can't afford to raise taxes at the same time as other countries have been cutting them.
3. The capital gains tax rate in the 1990s was going down, but the Obama budget calls for the rate to go up. The GOP Congress and President Clinton signed a capital gains tax cut in 1997, lowering the top rate from 28 to 20 percent. However, the combination of the January 2011 tax hike and Obamacare means that today's capital gains tax rate will rise from 15 to nearly 24 percent.
4. Spending was going down in the 1990s, but it is at record-high levels today. That's why the 1990s had surpluses, and this decade has record deficits. Between 1990 and 2000, federal spending fell from 22 percent of the economy to 18 percent of the economy. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal spending this decade will hover around 23 percent of the economy--each and every year, and far above the historical average of 21 percent. Record-high spending is causing deficits this decade, just as spending restraint caused surpluses in the 1990s. Taxes should not be hiked to pay for massive, deficit-causing spending.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
CARE to Obama: Take Wildlife Refuge Cuts Off the Table
/PRNewswire/ -- In a letter delivered to President Obama today, a national coalition of wildlife conservation and sporting organizations has asked the President to take cuts to the National Wildlife Refuge System's budget off the table as he considers cutting federal agency spending by five percent in FY 2012. The coalition called the proposed cuts "wrong and inappropriate" at a time when refuges and the species they protect are dealing with potentially one of the largest environmental disasters in U.S. history in the Gulf of Mexico.
"It is neither the time nor the place to propose funding cuts for the National Wildlife Refuge System or for the Fish and Wildlife Service," said Evan Hirsche, Chair of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE). "Agencies are already spread thin responding to the belching oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and the President's proposed five percent budget cut would have dire consequences in the Refuge System's ability to help wildlife recover. The survival of species like the brown pelican, which was only recently removed from the endangered species list, is now looking more bleak than it did just a year ago."
National wildlife refuges protect a host of species that are being decimated in the Gulf of Mexico, including sea turtles, manatees and numerous migratory birds. The FWS is projecting that 20% of its nationwide staff will be deployed to the Gulf at some point to address the ongoing crisis, making it difficult for the agency to address ongoing refuge needs or future emergencies such as floods, hurricanes, and forest fires. Should the proposed funding cuts occur, the problems will be magnified ten-fold. Understaffed wildlife refuges will be forced to make difficult decisions to cut programs that protect wildlife, such as vital scientific monitoring programs. Ultimately, the cuts will compromise the System's congressionally mandated conservation mission.
The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) is a diverse coalition of 22 conservation, sporting, and scientific organizations representing more than 15 million members and supporters. According to a recent CARE report on Refuge System funding needs, the Refuge System currently faces a $3.7 billion operations and maintenance backlog.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"It is neither the time nor the place to propose funding cuts for the National Wildlife Refuge System or for the Fish and Wildlife Service," said Evan Hirsche, Chair of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE). "Agencies are already spread thin responding to the belching oil in the Gulf of Mexico, and the President's proposed five percent budget cut would have dire consequences in the Refuge System's ability to help wildlife recover. The survival of species like the brown pelican, which was only recently removed from the endangered species list, is now looking more bleak than it did just a year ago."
National wildlife refuges protect a host of species that are being decimated in the Gulf of Mexico, including sea turtles, manatees and numerous migratory birds. The FWS is projecting that 20% of its nationwide staff will be deployed to the Gulf at some point to address the ongoing crisis, making it difficult for the agency to address ongoing refuge needs or future emergencies such as floods, hurricanes, and forest fires. Should the proposed funding cuts occur, the problems will be magnified ten-fold. Understaffed wildlife refuges will be forced to make difficult decisions to cut programs that protect wildlife, such as vital scientific monitoring programs. Ultimately, the cuts will compromise the System's congressionally mandated conservation mission.
The Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) is a diverse coalition of 22 conservation, sporting, and scientific organizations representing more than 15 million members and supporters. According to a recent CARE report on Refuge System funding needs, the Refuge System currently faces a $3.7 billion operations and maintenance backlog.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
CDA: Obama Should End the Cuba Travel Ban and Stop Wasting U.S. Funds on Regime Change Effort
/PRNewswire/ -- Sarah Stephens, executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, issued the following statement about the Foreign Aid budget request for 2011 which proposes $20 million in wasteful spending on regime change programs for Cuba:
"Unless it's okay for the United States government to waste money on foreign aid programs that don't work, the Obama administration should remove the $20 million in spending it has proposed on 'regime change' on Cuba.
"Many activities funded by this program are illegal in Cuba, would certainly be illegal if Cuba conducted them in our country, and they have long histories of wasteful spending in the U.S. and hurting the intended beneficiaries in Cuba. Activities funded by this program recently landed a U.S. contractor in a Cuban prison. If you ever wanted to find a wasteful and counter-productive foreign aid program, this is it.
"The paradox is this: not one of these wasteful programs can hold a candle to the one policy change that would pour American information and ideas into Cuba, and bring both countries together - namely, ending the travel ban that stops all Americans from visiting the island and engaging the Cuban people, a 'program' which would cost the taxpayers nothing."
The Center for Democracy in the Americas (CDA) is devoted to changing U.S. policy toward the countries of the Americas by basing our relations on mutual respect, fostering dialogue with those governments and movements with which U.S. policy is at odds, and recognizing positive trends in democracy and governance. For more information about CDA, visit our website.
CDA's report, "9 Ways for US to Talk to Cuba and for Cuba to Talk to US," published last year, recommended ending counter-productive 'regime change' programs and relying instead on policies of engagement to advance America's interests and lead to normal relations between the U.S. and Cuba.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
"Unless it's okay for the United States government to waste money on foreign aid programs that don't work, the Obama administration should remove the $20 million in spending it has proposed on 'regime change' on Cuba.
"Many activities funded by this program are illegal in Cuba, would certainly be illegal if Cuba conducted them in our country, and they have long histories of wasteful spending in the U.S. and hurting the intended beneficiaries in Cuba. Activities funded by this program recently landed a U.S. contractor in a Cuban prison. If you ever wanted to find a wasteful and counter-productive foreign aid program, this is it.
"The paradox is this: not one of these wasteful programs can hold a candle to the one policy change that would pour American information and ideas into Cuba, and bring both countries together - namely, ending the travel ban that stops all Americans from visiting the island and engaging the Cuban people, a 'program' which would cost the taxpayers nothing."
The Center for Democracy in the Americas (CDA) is devoted to changing U.S. policy toward the countries of the Americas by basing our relations on mutual respect, fostering dialogue with those governments and movements with which U.S. policy is at odds, and recognizing positive trends in democracy and governance. For more information about CDA, visit our website.
CDA's report, "9 Ways for US to Talk to Cuba and for Cuba to Talk to US," published last year, recommended ending counter-productive 'regime change' programs and relying instead on policies of engagement to advance America's interests and lead to normal relations between the U.S. and Cuba.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Health Insurance Reform Proposals Are a Bargain Not a Bust for Georgia
Leading health insurance reform proposals to expand Medicaid that are making their way through Congress not only could cover one million low-income Georgians, but will provide more than 90 percent of the funds to do so.
This is a win-win for all Georgians, as explained in the Georgia Budget & Policy Institute's latest analysis. Both Governor Perdue and Lt. Governor Cagle's have overstated the budget impact and neglected to state that the federal government is not only picking up most of Georgia's tab, but that local economies will benefit from the healthcare dollars as well as healthier citizens.
The governor and lieutenant governor are both using out-of-date cost estimates when stating that Georgia cannot afford the reform proposals to expand Medicaid. In addition, both fail to apply these basic principles to their analysis:
1) Participation will ramp up over a few years and cannot practically happen the first day the expansion takes effect.
2) Full participation in the expanded Medicaid program may never occur.
3) Federal dollars will pay the full cost for two to three years, and then 90 percent of it after that.
"There is plenty of time to ensure the state has adequate funds to provide coverage to the lowest-income Georgians without access to health insurance, since neither proposal starts for a few years," said Timothy Sweeney, the Institute's senior healthcare analyst, "and even when the law does go into effect, those eligible will sign-up over another several years, not all at once.
"Another reason that expanding Medicaid is a bargain not just for Georgia, but for all the states, is that in addition to getting its citizens covered, it injects millions of federal funds into local economies," said Sweeney, the report's author.
Georgian's needs are growing dramatically and the state's ability to meet them are shrinking. Georgia's uninsured rate is tenth in the nation. Roughly one in seven people lived in poverty in 2008, and our job loss rate is fifth in the nation. Vulnerable groups are hit hardest during recessions, and low-income workers are losing employer-sponsored health insurance faster than others.
The analysis also explains why both houses of Congress are choosing to expand Medicaid, and how each bill funds the expansion with federal funds.
The Georgia Department of Community Health is currently reworking their cost estimates based on current reform proposals that have been passed in Congress. "The state's highest leaders should use accurate numbers and not scare people into believing the state cannot afford to expand coverage to those with the least access to healthcare," said Alan Essig, the Institue's executive director.
"In fact they have it backwards, the state cannot afford not to take advantage of this incredible opportunity to insure its neediest citizens."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
This is a win-win for all Georgians, as explained in the Georgia Budget & Policy Institute's latest analysis. Both Governor Perdue and Lt. Governor Cagle's have overstated the budget impact and neglected to state that the federal government is not only picking up most of Georgia's tab, but that local economies will benefit from the healthcare dollars as well as healthier citizens.
The governor and lieutenant governor are both using out-of-date cost estimates when stating that Georgia cannot afford the reform proposals to expand Medicaid. In addition, both fail to apply these basic principles to their analysis:
1) Participation will ramp up over a few years and cannot practically happen the first day the expansion takes effect.
2) Full participation in the expanded Medicaid program may never occur.
3) Federal dollars will pay the full cost for two to three years, and then 90 percent of it after that.
"There is plenty of time to ensure the state has adequate funds to provide coverage to the lowest-income Georgians without access to health insurance, since neither proposal starts for a few years," said Timothy Sweeney, the Institute's senior healthcare analyst, "and even when the law does go into effect, those eligible will sign-up over another several years, not all at once.
"Another reason that expanding Medicaid is a bargain not just for Georgia, but for all the states, is that in addition to getting its citizens covered, it injects millions of federal funds into local economies," said Sweeney, the report's author.
Georgian's needs are growing dramatically and the state's ability to meet them are shrinking. Georgia's uninsured rate is tenth in the nation. Roughly one in seven people lived in poverty in 2008, and our job loss rate is fifth in the nation. Vulnerable groups are hit hardest during recessions, and low-income workers are losing employer-sponsored health insurance faster than others.
The analysis also explains why both houses of Congress are choosing to expand Medicaid, and how each bill funds the expansion with federal funds.
The Georgia Department of Community Health is currently reworking their cost estimates based on current reform proposals that have been passed in Congress. "The state's highest leaders should use accurate numbers and not scare people into believing the state cannot afford to expand coverage to those with the least access to healthcare," said Alan Essig, the Institue's executive director.
"In fact they have it backwards, the state cannot afford not to take advantage of this incredible opportunity to insure its neediest citizens."
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, October 19, 2009
Concord Coalition Says That Medicare 'Doc Fix' Should Be Paid For
/PRNewswire/ -- The Concord Coalition said today that if Congress raises physician reimbursement rates in Medicare, it should spell out how to pay for the changes.
The Senate is expected to consider a bill this week that would permanently increase physician reimbursement rates relative to the current Medicare "sustainable growth rate" (SGR) formula and exempt this "doc fix" from pay-as-you-go budget rules (PAYGO). This exemption would increase federal deficits by roughly $250 billion over 10 years.
Concord said that changes in the payment formula should be included and paid for as part of comprehensive health care reform. The issue of how Medicare reimburses physicians is central to the broader effort to get Medicare and health spending in general onto a more sustainable path.
"Dealing with the 'doc fix' in a separate bill, outside of health care reform, would change the scoring of the bills but not the effect on the deficit. If policymakers believe that the current SGR formula is unrealistic, they should replace it with a more appropriate policy and pay for the change in keeping with their pledge to reform health care in a deficit-neutral way. If paying for this SGR change means there would be fewer offsets on the table to pay for expanded coverage, then policymakers would be forced to appropriately weigh their priorities and make the necessary tough choices -- either scale back other costs in the health reform package or find more ways to pay for the larger bill," said Concord Coalition Executive Director Robert L Bixby.
Bixby said that deficit-financing a permanent increase in Medicare physician payments does not bode well for eventually "bending the health cost curve" and improving fiscal sustainability more generally.
"The current SGR payment formula was originally enacted as part of the 1997 balanced budget agreement to slow the growth of physician payments. Exempting a change in that formula from PAYGO would undermine the credibility of promises now being made to restrict provider payments in the future. Why should anyone believe that Congress will enforce future promises to limit provider payments when it cannot summon the political will to enforce the limits it has already enacted?" Bixby said.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
The Senate is expected to consider a bill this week that would permanently increase physician reimbursement rates relative to the current Medicare "sustainable growth rate" (SGR) formula and exempt this "doc fix" from pay-as-you-go budget rules (PAYGO). This exemption would increase federal deficits by roughly $250 billion over 10 years.
Concord said that changes in the payment formula should be included and paid for as part of comprehensive health care reform. The issue of how Medicare reimburses physicians is central to the broader effort to get Medicare and health spending in general onto a more sustainable path.
"Dealing with the 'doc fix' in a separate bill, outside of health care reform, would change the scoring of the bills but not the effect on the deficit. If policymakers believe that the current SGR formula is unrealistic, they should replace it with a more appropriate policy and pay for the change in keeping with their pledge to reform health care in a deficit-neutral way. If paying for this SGR change means there would be fewer offsets on the table to pay for expanded coverage, then policymakers would be forced to appropriately weigh their priorities and make the necessary tough choices -- either scale back other costs in the health reform package or find more ways to pay for the larger bill," said Concord Coalition Executive Director Robert L Bixby.
Bixby said that deficit-financing a permanent increase in Medicare physician payments does not bode well for eventually "bending the health cost curve" and improving fiscal sustainability more generally.
"The current SGR payment formula was originally enacted as part of the 1997 balanced budget agreement to slow the growth of physician payments. Exempting a change in that formula from PAYGO would undermine the credibility of promises now being made to restrict provider payments in the future. Why should anyone believe that Congress will enforce future promises to limit provider payments when it cannot summon the political will to enforce the limits it has already enacted?" Bixby said.
-----
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use
Monday, May 4, 2009
Obama's Proposal to Double-Tax Profits Will Kill U.S. Jobs
/PRNewswire / -- With President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner today announcing a job-killing tax increase of over $200 billion over the next ten years, Americans for Tax Reform issued the following fact sheet on the state of international and corporate taxation:
America has the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world. The United States is tied with Japan for one very dubious honor -- having the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world. According to the OECD, the United States has a combined marginal corporate rate of nearly 40 percent. This compares very negatively to our European competitors' average rate of 25 percent. The Republic of Ireland stands in the starkest contrast, with a corporate income tax rate of 12.5 percent. In the developing world, rates of 10 or 15 percent are commonplace.
America is one of the only developed countries that double-taxes the international profits of our own companies. If a Polish company earns a profit in France, it pays the French corporate income tax, and nothing else. But if a U.S. company earns that same profit in France, it must pay the French corporate tax and the U.S. corporate tax (minus whatever was paid to France). So not only does the U.S. impose the highest corporate rate in the world, it makes sure that this rate is applied to both domestic and international profits. This is called a "worldwide taxation system" and the U.S. is one of a tiny handful of countries that still practices it.
Recognizing the problem this creates, Congress has crafted a confusing set of exclusions, deferrals, deductions, and credits on international profits. In general, U.S. companies can avoid paying this double-tax until they repatriate the profits back to the U.S.
By seeking to take away these double-tax band-aids without lowering the corporate rate substantially or fixing the global taxation scheme, Obama's proposal will shove jobs and capital out of America and into foreign countries. Obama's budget and Congressional tax-writers have been clear -- they want companies to pay the full corporate rate as soon as the international profit is earned. In a global economy, companies don't have to take this lying down. It's a relatively simple matter for a U.S. company with an Irish subsidiary to become an Irish company with a U.S. subsidiary. The Obama plan will force thousands of companies to make this job-killing decision. Companies that export goods will soon start exporting jobs.
The U.S. should tax our companies the way the rest of the world taxes theirs -- territoriality. The rest of the developed world has figured this out: if they want to retain jobs and capital in their countries, they have to adopt territoriality. This means that companies only pay corporate income tax in the country where the profit is earned. The U.S. partially tried this in 2005, when companies were allowed to repatriate deferred foreign earnings at a 5.25% rate -- far lower than what they would have to pay otherwise. The result was a one-year infusion of $318 billion in capital to the United States, resulting in $17 billion in additional corporate income tax payments, and the creation of thousands of new jobs.
The U.S. needs to lower our corporate income tax rate to become more competitive. American employers are competing globally with Irish, British, German, etc. companies. It makes no sense to saddle our employers with the highest corporate rate in the world. At the very least, we need to lower our corporate tax rate to 25 percent or less. This simply begins to make our tax treatment of large employers somewhat comparable to our European competitors. When combined with territoriality, this move would begin to change the corporate tax culture in the U.S. from a jobs killer to a jobs magnet.
America has the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world. The United States is tied with Japan for one very dubious honor -- having the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world. According to the OECD, the United States has a combined marginal corporate rate of nearly 40 percent. This compares very negatively to our European competitors' average rate of 25 percent. The Republic of Ireland stands in the starkest contrast, with a corporate income tax rate of 12.5 percent. In the developing world, rates of 10 or 15 percent are commonplace.
America is one of the only developed countries that double-taxes the international profits of our own companies. If a Polish company earns a profit in France, it pays the French corporate income tax, and nothing else. But if a U.S. company earns that same profit in France, it must pay the French corporate tax and the U.S. corporate tax (minus whatever was paid to France). So not only does the U.S. impose the highest corporate rate in the world, it makes sure that this rate is applied to both domestic and international profits. This is called a "worldwide taxation system" and the U.S. is one of a tiny handful of countries that still practices it.
Recognizing the problem this creates, Congress has crafted a confusing set of exclusions, deferrals, deductions, and credits on international profits. In general, U.S. companies can avoid paying this double-tax until they repatriate the profits back to the U.S.
By seeking to take away these double-tax band-aids without lowering the corporate rate substantially or fixing the global taxation scheme, Obama's proposal will shove jobs and capital out of America and into foreign countries. Obama's budget and Congressional tax-writers have been clear -- they want companies to pay the full corporate rate as soon as the international profit is earned. In a global economy, companies don't have to take this lying down. It's a relatively simple matter for a U.S. company with an Irish subsidiary to become an Irish company with a U.S. subsidiary. The Obama plan will force thousands of companies to make this job-killing decision. Companies that export goods will soon start exporting jobs.
The U.S. should tax our companies the way the rest of the world taxes theirs -- territoriality. The rest of the developed world has figured this out: if they want to retain jobs and capital in their countries, they have to adopt territoriality. This means that companies only pay corporate income tax in the country where the profit is earned. The U.S. partially tried this in 2005, when companies were allowed to repatriate deferred foreign earnings at a 5.25% rate -- far lower than what they would have to pay otherwise. The result was a one-year infusion of $318 billion in capital to the United States, resulting in $17 billion in additional corporate income tax payments, and the creation of thousands of new jobs.
The U.S. needs to lower our corporate income tax rate to become more competitive. American employers are competing globally with Irish, British, German, etc. companies. It makes no sense to saddle our employers with the highest corporate rate in the world. At the very least, we need to lower our corporate tax rate to 25 percent or less. This simply begins to make our tax treatment of large employers somewhat comparable to our European competitors. When combined with territoriality, this move would begin to change the corporate tax culture in the U.S. from a jobs killer to a jobs magnet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)