There is an old bromide that a lie told often enough becomes a truth. Unfortunately the truth of that bromide is no lie. Case in point? Virtually every “truth” the Republican party rode to its recent landslide legislative victory. I thought it might be interesting (depressing might actually be a better word) to catalogue the lies Republicans, and their 24/7/365 “news” channel, have alchemized magically into truths. Some of these I’ve alluded to at least in earlier blogs.
OBAMACARE IS THE FIRST STEP TO SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. To the chagrin of progressives, the health care reform package did not include a public option. What it did do, in the short term, was outlaw the most rapacious of insurance industry practices (cancelling policies when claims are filed, denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions, forcing children off their parents’ policies the minute they leave school), and, in the long term, mandate that every one have at least a minimal level of health insurance. Ay, there’s the socialism rub, Republicans say. But no, what the bill says is that insurance must be purchased from private insurance companies—which sounds like quite a “free market” thing to me. Oh, and there won't be any death panels or any rationing of health care unless the private insurers try to institute same. In which case, there are now regulatory agencies that can tell them no.
OBAMACARE WILL MONUMENTALLY INCREASE THE FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT AND ULTIMATELY THE NATIONAL DEBT. In fact, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has said repeatedly that the health care bill will cut costs by as much as 10 billion dollars during its first decade or two, and then decrease costs at an even higher rate after that. The CBO’s analysis, which was first released BEFORE the bill was actually passed and has been released again several times since, is that the long-term effect of the bill will be reduction of the federal budget deficit and the national debt.
OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS HAVE CAUSED AN EXPLOSIVE INCREASE IN THE FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT AND MORTGAGED THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN. It takes a pair of cast-iron cajones to tell this lie, but it’s been one of the most popular. In fiscal year 2000, the last for which President Clinton was responsible, the federal budget showed an 86.4 billion dollar surplus. In fiscal 2008, the last year for which W. was responsible, the federal budget showed a 458 billion dollar deficit. (these figures from the Congressional Budget Office). But that ½ trillion dollar swing into red ink actually understates Bush’s deficit creation. The cost of his two wars, estimated in 2008 at 1 trillion dollars, isn’t reflected in any of his budgets because the entirety of both wars under Bush was fought “off-budget.” Afghanistan and Iraq were both paid for under Bush by “supplemental appropriations,” that is, additional moneys approved by Congress AFTER that year’s budget was already in place. Just as important, maybe more so long term, the Bush administration made no attempt to actually pay for the supplemental appropriations. Rather, it simply borrowed the money—meaning that in the long run the cost of his wars will be substantially greater than 1 trillion dollars.
If one needed a glaring illustration of the abject cynicism of the Republican party when it comes to things economic, it would be hard to find a better one than the cavalier manner in which the Bush administration became the first administration ever to launch two wars and CUT taxes at the same time. And not just cut taxes, but do so in a way that aimed 95% of the cut at the top 5% of incomes.
The budget deficit at the end of fiscal 2009, the first year for which Obama was responsible, was 1.4 trillion dollars. Look, the Republicans say, in one year the deficit increased by nearly a trillion dollars. Can’t deny that, but let’s put it into context. First, fiscal 2009 was the first year that the cost of two wars was actually included in the budget. Second, the bank bailout program (TARP) was authorized under Bush in October, 2008 and half the money it authorized (350 billion) was released on Oct. 3, 2008, so it was counted as a fiscal 2009 expenditure even though Obama and the Democrats had nothing directly to do with it. Third, even before Obama took office, it was clear the auto industry was about to implode. The first step in bailing that industry out was taken in December, 2008 (again, fiscal 2009) by Bush when he authorized 17.4 billion dollars in emergency loans. That figure ultimately grew to about 86 billion under Obama, but in the latter case, it came in the form of purchases of GM and Chrysler common stock by the government. It was recently announced that GM intends to buy back over half of that stock from the government within the next few months, and all of it as soon after that as possible. Ultimately, the Treasury will turn a profit on its investment in the auto industry. Republican children won't have to pay for that one.
Then there is the 814 billion dollar stimulus bill. This one is in fact all on Obama and is clearly a huge factor in the 2009 budget deficit. It’s hard to take credit for something that didn’t happen, but what didn’t happen in this case is that the world financial system and the American economy did not collapse and at least 3 million Americans didn’t lose their jobs. True the unemployment rate climbed to and has remained in the 9.5/9.6% range, but every economic study indicates that without the stimulus package, it would be closer to 12%. Some studies have placed the figure as high as 15%.
What the Republicans also ignore (what they generally do with facts they don’t like) is the fact that the budget deficit actually decreased from 1.4 to slightly less than 1.3 trillion in the recently concluded fiscal 2010. Not a huge reduction, granted, but an indication that Democratic policies are beginning to move things in the right direction. Perhaps more significant, the actual deficit represents 8.9% of the nation’s economy, down from 10% the year before.
One last Republican hypocrisy regarding the deficit and the future they fear it will mortgage. The Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Obama has proposed extending those cuts for everyone making under $250,000; the Republicans want to extend them for everyone--and to add a fix (basically an elimination) of the Alternative Minimum Tax that mostly effects the highest income earners. Obama's plan would result in approximately a 678 billion dollar increase in federal revenue by 2020. The Republican plan would subtract approximately 3 trillion dollars from federal revenue during the same period. That certainly wouldn't help the economic future of our kids, but it's a great boon to the economic health of today's richest Americans.
My brain is exploding from ferreting out all these numbers, as yours probably is from reading them, so I’m going to stop here for now. Check back with the blog in the near future and we’ll have more things to add to the catalogue of lies the Republicans told often enough and loudly enough to make them truths for way too many.
One last Republican hypocrisy regarding the deficit and the future they fear it will mortgage. The Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Obama has proposed extending those cuts for everyone making under $250,000; the Republicans want to extend them for everyone--and to add a fix (basically an elimination) of the Alternative Minimum Tax that mostly effects the highest income earners. Obama's plan would result in approximately a 678 billion dollar increase in federal revenue by 2020. The Republican plan would subtract approximately 3 trillion dollars from federal revenue during the same period. That certainly wouldn't help the economic future of our kids, but it's a great boon to the economic health of today's richest Americans.
My brain is exploding from ferreting out all these numbers, as yours probably is from reading them, so I’m going to stop here for now. Check back with the blog in the near future and we’ll have more things to add to the catalogue of lies the Republicans told often enough and loudly enough to make them truths for way too many.
Am I to accept the premise that insurers can offer coverage to all cases in this environment and remain profitable?
ReplyDeleteOn Taxes, it would be fair to show the total percentage of income taxes paid by that top 5% of earners, even with the Bush tax cuts in place. The answer is to decrease spending, both parties.
response to shawn: as far as insurers go, the main reason the industry actually supports the health care bill is that the significant majority of people not covered now--who will have to purchase coverage by 2014--are people under 35 who are generally the healthiest segment of the population. so yes, it is reasonable to accept the premise that private insurance can offer policies to everyone and remain profitable. if anything, it will become more profitable.
ReplyDeleteon taxes, not sure i see the relevance of what percentage of total taxes were paid by the top 5%, but here are a couple figures you might find interesting: in 1976, the top 1% of American earners took in a little less than 9% of total earned income; in 2007 (last year figures are available), the top 1% took in 23.5% of pretax income. From 2002-2007, the top 1%'s pretax income increased 10% every year. During those same years, median income went down and the poverty level rose. what does this mean? means the super-rich are taking proportionately more from the economy than they are giving.