Sunday, April 17, 2011

Republicans Are Betting That Granny Hates Her Grandchildren

House Republicans adopted, almost unanimously, the Ryan plan to end Medicare. Of course they know that Medicare is popular and among seniors is far more popular than private insurance is for other people. So they wouldn't dare take it away from those currently receiving Medicare.

Their solution is to only take it away from people not currently eligible, those below fifty-five years old. From a political standpoint they think they will keep seniors on their side, assuring all those seniors who vote that their Medicare is safe. This cynical plan could work but only if those seniors hate their children and grandchildren. If not hate, Republican hope that seniors at least dislike their offspring enough that they want them to be denied the same medical security they enjoy, an assurance from the government that their medical future is safe.

It is possible that some of the parents and grandparents of these Republican Representatives feel that way about their issue, but I don't think that most grandparents feel that way. Having experienced first hand the effects of aging and the anxiety of paying for their medical care before becoming eligible for Medicare, it is reasonable to assume that most of these seniors will not wish upon their children and grandchildren a fate that is worse than what they experienced


First, the plan. The Republican plan ends the guaranteed Medicare benefit, substituting a plan to give seniors a voucher/coupon to pay part of the cost of buying private insurance, assuming a plan is available. In addition, the plan tells people that whenMedicare ends, they can't get these vouchers when they are sixty-five, but have to wait till they are sixty-seven.

The voucher plan is unacceptable for four main reasons. First, in all likelihood it will be unworkable. Finding insurance companies to guarantee the elderly will be difficult if not impossible. Second, if any insurers participate the premiums they will charge will be far higher than the value of the vouchers. Third, the plan enriches insurance companies at the expense of seniors. Lastly and most importantly, as each year passes the burden of paying for care is increasingly shifted onto seniors.

The Ryan plan doesn't save dollars, it doesn't reduce the cost of medical care, it merely shifts those from the government to seniors. This shift is dramatic. In a study by Center For Economic And Policy Research, using Congressional Budget Office Data, under the Ryan plan seniors will pay 35% of their income for medical care in 2022 and that percentage will increase to 68% by 2050.

This happens because the value of the vouchers only increase with the inflation rate. Health care costs have been rising far above that rate and there is nothing in Ryan's plan to control costs. This is where Ryan saves the government billions, by transferring to seniors the ever increasing difference between the value of the voucher and the ballooning insurance premiums.

And these are just median figures, They ignore the reality of the millions of seniors who will fall above those median levels. Many of those people who will have been left to the mercy of the private insurance market will be financially ruined. And when they have no money, they will be forced onto Medicaid. But Ryan proposes to gut that program too, by shifting costs to already cash strapped states.

All of that is bad enough. But the Republicans weren't satisfied. Ryan decided to save even more money to fund Billionaire tax cuts by telling people who are currently fifty-five that they are not only ineligible for Medicare, they can't even get vouchers when they reach sixty-five. No. They have to wait longer and if they were born in 1966 they'll have to wait a full two years longer.

Ryan may have thought that delaying access to his faux Medicare vouchers till sixty-seven would sail through issue since the Social Security retirement age also increases to sixty-seven for younger Americans. But that is the problem with simplistic thinking. He doesn't appear to understand that while it may be hard to find a job and sometimes even to work after sixty-five, it is near impossible to find health insurance at that age and totally impossible to find affordable insurance. That is, of course, unless you are part of the that upper 3% of the income scale.

Even Reagan understood that point and the Medicare eligibility rate was not raised as part of the 1983 Social Security deal. Also, while the 1983 Social Security law gradually raised the retirement age to sixty-seven, it still allows people to draw reduced benefits earlier, even at sixty-two. Such is not the case with the Ryan/Republican plan. Under their plan a person between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-seven gets nothing. No reduced Medicare, no reduced voucher, nothing.

But money is only part of the issue. The other is the anxiety, the lost peace of mind that comes with Medicare today. Medicare was enacted in 1965 because seniors were suffering, not just medically and financially, but also emotionally. They were needing medical care as they aged much more than when they were young and they could not find people to treat them unless they were well off. Insurance was not available. Medicare was a Godsend. For the first time they were guaranteed coverage, access to medical services and it was reasonably affordable. For some of very limited means, even paying the current premiums and co-pays in Medicare is hard, but it's nothing like the crushing burden faced before 1965.

Ryan wants to end all this. No longer will seniors know they have coverage, can get treatment and, that their costs are limited. They will be thrown back to the bad old days. Sure, there may be a policy out there. They can't know if it will be there and can't know what it will cover. But even if it is there, they know today that the policy will be expensive and as time passes they will have to pay more and more out of their pocket to pay for it.

Seniors on Medicare today know these things. They may feel a little better that the Republican plan, as it stands today, will not affect them. Some may wonder whether, once passed, it could easily be changed to start taking back benefits they currently have. But even if not, they will know it will affect their children and grandchildren. The very loved ones who they struggled all their lives for, showering them with love and affection. The very ones they now see struggling to pay their bills, find jobs, and keep their homes. The grandchildren who they love dearly, never passing up an opportunity to brag about and spoil.

Knowing what she knows, is Granny really going to throw her sweet children and grandchildren to wolves? The Republicans are counting on it. I think they will be surprised.

Friday, April 15, 2011

A Truly Sick Part Of Ryan's Plan To End Medicare That You May Not Have Heard About

The CBO Analysis of the Ryan, soon to be Republican, plan to end Medicare reveals something that's largely flying under the radar. Seniors won't be able to get his crummy vouchers when they are sixty-five they have to wait two more years, until they are sixty-seven. No Medicare, no voucher, no nothing until you are sixty-seven.

Ryan doesn't talk about it and it doesn't appear in the plan published on the Vouchercare website. One has to go to the Congressional Budget Office report to find it. And there you discover that under the Ryan/Republican plan
Starting in 2022, the age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months per year until it reached 67 in 2033.


That means that if you were born in 1966 or later you won't be eligible for diddlysquat until you are sixty-seven. No Medicare, no voucher, no nothing.

For those two years, seniors will be totally on their own. That means for those who are employed, if their employer offers insurance they'll be forced to work two more years unless they want to go broke trying to buy insurance in the open market. Alternatively they can go without insurance and pray they don't get sick. Those who are not working will truly be fending for themselves.

Ryan is keeping quiet about this but it is a big element of his savings. For guys like him, this plan is genius. Workers have to pay Medicare taxes for two more years before they can begin to draw any benefit. Sadly, it also means that more people will die before ever receiving Medicare. A boat load of Billionaire tax cuts will be financed with those Medicare taxes and by not having to make pesky payments to doctors for those two years.

Ending Medicare and substituting the voucher program is terrible. It's selfish and mean. But this, this is positively craven.

First, the voucher plan. It is unacceptable for four main reasons. First, in all likelihood it will be unworkable. Finding insurance companies to guarantee the elderly will be difficult if not impossible. Second, if any insurers participate the premiums they will charge will be far higher than the value of the vouchers. Third, the plan enriches insurance companies at the expense of seniors. Lastly and most importantly, as each year passes the burden of paying for care is increasingly shifted onto seniors. This happens because the value of the vouchers only increase with the inflation rate. Health care costs have been rising far above that rate and there is nothing in Ryan's plan to control costs. This is where Ryan saves the government billions, by transferring to seniors the ever increasing difference between the voucher and the insurance premiums.

All of that is bad enough. But the Republicans weren't satisfied. Ryan decided to save even more money to fund Billionaire tax cuts by telling people who are currently fifty-five that they are not only ineligible for Medicare, they can't even get vouchers when they reach sixty-five. No. They have to wait longer and if they were born in 1966 they'll have to wait a full two years longer.

Ryan was surely thinking that this shouldn't be an issue since the Social Security retirement age also increases to sixty-seven for younger Americans. But that is the problem with simplistic thinking. He doesn't appear to understand that while it may be hard to find a job and sometimes even to work after 65, it is near impossible to find health insurance at that age and totally impossible to find affordable insurance. That is, of course, unless you are part of the that upper 3% of the income scale. Even Reagan understood that point and the Medicare eligibility rate was not raised as part of the 1983 Social Security deal.

Also, while the 1983 Social Security law gradually raised the retirement age to 67 it still allows people to draw reduced benefits at 65 or even 62. That law only raised the age for full benefits. Under Ryan's plan a person between 65 and 67 gets nothing, no reduced Medicare, no reduced voucher, nothing.

The phrase "doughnut hole" is already taken. This hole in coverage is a chasm of suffering. We need to beat this like a drum.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Obama Affirms Our Vision Of America And Lays Down Markers

President Obama delivered a speech on April 13, 2011 that not only laid out is plan for dealing with long term fiscal issues but showed how his proposals reflect the shared vision we have of our nation. The speech was not only great on substance it was fantastic on its message. It also laid out the contrast the between the Democratic vision of a prosperous, compassionate and growing America with the Republican down cast view of a country in decline with a middle class sacrificing to enrich billionaires.

There are many memorable passages. Here are a few of mine. Probably the one that will sting the Republicans the most is this one,

Think about it. In the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working Americans actually declined. The top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a million dollars each. And that’s who needs to pay less taxes? They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? That’s not right, and it’s not going to happen as long as I’m President.


That was but one of many statements on both taxes and health care that drew sharp difference. In talking about the Republican plan to give the wealthy tax cuts financed by taking money away from seniors, he said what needs to be said. The Republicans want to end Medicare as we know it.
It’s a vision that says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors. It says that ten years from now, if you’re a 65 year old who’s eligible for Medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck – you’re on your own. Put simply, it ends Medicare as we know it.


No more of this silly "reform Medicare" language that some in the media spout. It ends the Medicare we have known for almost fifty years.


Here are a few more key passages on Medicare and Medicaid. This passage sums up the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats want to control how much health care costs, and make sure seniors get it without increasing their out of pocket expenses. Republicans don't care how costs go up, they just want to shift those costs from the government to seniors.


The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.


His commitment could not be clearer. This is a line in the sand. Republovouchercare and Medicaid block grants are dead.

But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.


He set up the tax discussion with a reminder of how we got here and a restatement of his commitment to end the cuts for the wealthy.

In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.


He also opened up a new avenue for making billionaires pay their fair share. I hope he really presses this one.

Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.


Here he took a well needed swipe at those who praised Paul Ryan's so-called courage
The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.


These last two paragraphs summarize his vision of America, a vision that on can dare say is shared by the vast majority of the people.

I say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more. I don’t need another tax cut. Warren Buffett doesn’t need another tax cut. Not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for Medicare. Or by cutting kids from Head Start. Or by taking away college scholarships that I wouldn’t be here without. That some of you wouldn’t be here without. And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They want to give back to the country that’s done so much for them. Washington just hasn’t asked them to.

. . . . . . .

Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments.


This was a fantastic statement of the American vision we all thought most of us shared. He has laid it out and made clear not only where he wants to lead us, but also where he will refuse to allow us to be dragged. The battles will be many, but the playing field is clear.

Monday, April 04, 2011

The Supreme Court Further Guts Taxpayer Standing In Arizona Christian School Case

The Court decided Arizona Christian School v Winn today. Although the case revolves around the legality of a tax credit for contributions to private schools, including religious schools, the Court did not rule on the Constitutionality of the program. Instead, the Court threw the case out on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not have "standing" to sue. That means they didn't have the right to bring the case and therefore the case is dismissed and the program stands.

Some people are confused about this case but the ruling is clear. Here is the holding from the case syllabus

Held: Because respondents challenge a tax credit as opposed to a governmental expenditure, they lack Article III standing under Flast v. Cohen , supra . Pp. 4–19.


This is an important case even though it has nothing to do with education, the Fourteenth amendment, or Brown v Board. It is important because it further guts the ability of Taxpayers to challenge government action. Here's why.

Under Article III of the Constitution, courts can only hear "cases or controversies." To sue someone, you have to show that you have been injured, physically, monetarily, whatever. The Court has generally ruled that if your only asserted injury is as a taxpayer then that is a generalized grievance that doesn't give you standing. Progressives on the Court have favored taxpayer standing because it increases the ability of citizens to challenge government action. The self described "conservatives' do not favor taxpayer standing. Well, the anti-progressives prevailed again.

The Court majority found a way to further narrow the rights of taxpayers to sue by creating a new rule. Under the existing precedent of the case, Flast v Cohen, a suit like this, which challenges the tax credit on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment prohibition against the "establishment of religion, could have been brought if it met these criteria,

(1) a “logical link” between the plaintiff’s taxpayer status “and the type of legislative enactment attacked,” and (2) “a nexus” between such taxpayer status and “the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged.”


In this case the Court bypassed that analysis by holding that a tax credit is not the same as an expenditure of funds and therefor no injury can be found. This distinction is truly ridiculous and was clearly fabricated for the sole purpose of making it harder for citizens to hold their government accountable.

Here is the syllabus of the case and the full case is at the link above.


Respondents, Arizona taxpayers, sued petitioner Director of the State Department of Revenue, challenging Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §43–1089 on Establishment Clause grounds. The Arizona law gives tax credits for contributions to school tuition organizations, or STOs, which then use the contributions to provide scholarships to students attending private schools, including religious schools. Petitioner Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization and others later intervened. The District Court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. Reversing, the Ninth Circuit held that respondents had standing as taxpayers under Flast v. Cohen , 392 U. S. 83 , and had stated an Establishment Clause claim.

Held: Because respondents challenge a tax credit as opposed to a governmental expenditure, they lack Article III standing under Flast v. Cohen , supra . Pp. 4–19.

(a) Article III vests in the Federal Judiciary the “Power” to resolve “Cases” and “Controversies.” That language limits the Federal Judiciary to the traditional role of Anglo-American courts: redressing injuries resulting from a specific legal dispute. To obtain a ruling on the merits in federal court a plaintiff must assert more than just the “generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance.” Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War , 418 U. S. 208 . Instead the plaintiff must establish standing, which requires “an ‘injury in fact’”; “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of”; and a conclusion that it is “‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’ ” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U. S. 555 . Pp. 4–6.

(b) In general, the mere fact that someone is a taxpayer does not provide standing to seek relief in federal court. The typical assertion of taxpayer standing rests on unjustifiable economic and political speculation. See Frothingham v. Mellon , 262 U. S. 447 ; Doremus v. Board of Ed. of Hawthorne , 342 U. S. 429 . When a government expends resources or declines to impose a tax, its budget does not necessarily suffer. Even assuming the State’s coffers are depleted, finding injury would require a court to speculate “that elected officials will increase a taxpayer-plaintiff’s tax bill to make up a deficit.” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno , 547 U. S. 332 . And to find redressability a court must assume that, were the taxpayers’ remedy allowed, “legislators [would] pass along the supposed increased revenue in the form of tax reductions.” Ibid . These conclusions apply to the present cases. The costs of education may be a significant portion of Arizona’s annual budget, but the tax credit, by facilitating the operation of both religious and secular private schools, could relieve the burden on public schools and provide cost savings to the State. Even if the tax credit had an adverse effect on Arizona’s budget, causation and redressability problems would remain. To find a particular injury in fact would require speculation that Arizona lawmakers react to revenue shortfalls by increasing respondents’ tax liability. A causation finding would depend on the additional assumption that any tax increase would be traceable to the STO tax credit. And respondents have not established that an injunction against the credit’s application would prompt Arizona legislators to “pass along [any] increased revenue [as] tax reductions.” Ibid. Pp. 6–10.

(c) Respondents’ suit does not fall within the narrow exception to the rule against taxpayer standing established in Flast v. Cohen , supra. There, federal taxpayers had standing to mount an Establishment Clause challenge to a federal statute providing General Treasury funds to support, inter alia , textbook purchases for religious schools. To have standing under Flast, taxpayers must show (1) a “logical link” between the plaintiff’s taxpayer status “and the type of legislative enactment attacked,” and (2) “a nexus” between such taxpayer status and “the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged.” 392 U. S., at 102. Considering the two requirements together, Flast explained that individuals suffer a particular injury when, in violation of the Establishment Clause and by means of “the taxing and spending power,” their property is transferred through the Government’s Treasury to a sectarian entity. Id., at 105–106. “The taxpayer’s allegation in such cases would be that his tax money is being extracted and spent in violation of specific constitutional protections against such abuses of legislative power.” Id ., at 106. The STO tax credit does not visit the injury identified in Flast . When the Government spends funds from the General Treasury, dissenting taxpayers know that they have been made to contribute to an establishment in violation of conscience. In contrast, a tax credit allows dissenting taxpayers to use their own funds in accordance with their own consciences. Here, the STO tax credit does not “extrac[t] and spen[d]” a conscientious dissenter’s funds in service of an establishment, 392 U. S ., at 106, or “ ‘force a citizen to contribute’ ” to a sectarian organization, id. , at 103. Rather, taxpayers are free to pay their own tax bills without contributing to an STO, to contribute to a religious or secular STO of their choice, or to contribute to other charitable organizations. Because the STO tax credit is not tantamount to a religious tax, respondents have not alleged an injury for standing purposes. Furthermore, respondents cannot satisfy the requirements of causation and redressability. When the government collects and spends taxpayer money, governmental choices are responsible for the transfer of wealth; the resulting subsidy of religious activity is, under Flast , traceable to the government’s expenditures; and an injunction against those expenditures would address taxpayer-plaintiffs’ objections of conscience. Here, by contrast, contributions result from the decisions of private taxpayers regarding their own funds. Private citizens create private STOs; STOs choose beneficiary schools; and taxpayers then contribute to STOs. Any injury the objectors may suffer are not fairly traceable to the government. And, while an injunction most likely would reduce contributions to STOs, that remedy would not affect noncontributing taxpayers or their tax payments. Pp. 10–16.

(d) Respondents’ contrary position—that Arizonans benefiting from the tax credit in effect are paying their state income tax to STOs—assumes that all income is government property, even if it has not come into the tax collector’s hands. That premise finds no basis in standing jurisprudence. This Court has sometimes reached the merits in Establishment Clause cases involving tax benefits as opposed to governmental expenditures. See Mueller v. Allen , 463 U. S. 388 ; Nyquist v. Mauclet , 432 U. S. 1 ; Hunt v. McNair , 413 U. S. 734 ; Walz v. Tax Comm’n of City of New York , 397 U. S. 664 . But those cases did not mention standing and so do not stand for the proposition that no jurisdictional defects existed. Moreover, it is far from clear that any nonbinding sub silentio standing determinations in those cases depended on Flast , as there are other ways of establishing standing in Establishment Clause cases involving tax benefits. Pp. 16–18.

562 F. 3d 1002, reversed.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Kagan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined.

Notes

1 Together with No. 09–991, Garriott, Director, Arizona Department of Revenue v. Winn et al., also on certiorari to the same court.