Major committees in Congress are moving quickly—some would say too quickly—on legislation that will have a great impact on our health and our pocketbooks. The bills that are advancing are quite momentous. If they were being shaped by sound, well-researched analysis, perhaps the proposals wouldn’t be as scary. Unfortunately, much of the health care and energy legislation is being developed more by deal-cutting than by what works in the real world.
The health care legislation is a prime example. The cost estimates for the bills being shaped in various committees range from $1 trillion to $3.5 trillion over a 10-year period. With the budget deficit for next year already slated to be almost $2 trillion, even the spend-happy Congress is under pressure to pay for whatever is proposed and not simply add the cost to the ever-increasing federal deficit. One of the major taxes being discussed to pay for the health care bills is a tax on employer-provided health insurance. Such a tax could raise almost $500 billion to offset the cost of covering more of the uninsured and underinsured. The problem is, it could blow a hole in the foundation of our health care system that is based on coverage paid for all or in part by employers.
Some of the loudest critics of this tax proposal are the labor unions that have negotiated labor contracts with Cadillac benefits largely paid for by their employers. The staunch opposition of the unions is leaving its mark. One of the major Senate proposals now calls for creating an exemption from this tax for—you guessed it!—labor unions. If such a plan passes, non-union workers could be subject to having their employer-provided health insurance premium payments taxed as ordinary income. That means that, in addition to the regular income tax rate they are subject to applying to this benefit, they would have to pay Medicare and Medicaid taxes on the amount as well. Their employers would also have to pay their share of the Medicare and Medicaid taxes. Non-union employers and employees would have to pay the tax while their union counterparts would escape the burden.
Substituting politics for sound policy decisions is very much at play with the energy legislation under consideration in Congress as well. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is determined to have “cap and trade” legislation—that would limit carbon dioxide emissions and drive up energy costs—enacted by the end of summer. But Pelosi and Company ran into a wall of opposition from many members of their own Democratic Caucus who are concerned about the economic impact of the legislation on their constituents. Particularly upset are farm state Democrats who believe the legislation could jeopardize their re-elections. The Waxman-Markey bill cannot pass without those key votes. So what happened? Deals were cut to placate the concerns of some but left the constituents of other congressmen (many in “Red States”) on the hook for paying potentially huge increases in energy costs.
This is no way to run a railroad. If a complete revamp of the nation’s health care system is a necessity, then everyone—union members included—should have to pick up the huge cost of paying for it. If significantly increased energy costs are the price that must be paid for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, then everyone in every region of the nation should have to bear those costs. There are sound reasons for opposing both the “cap and trade” legislation and the health care bills. Playing politics with who gets the bill for them only adds fuel to the fire.
It is not from lack of trying that an Energy Bill has not been passed. It makes no sense not to use our domestic oil, natural gas, and coal while developing alternative sources. We need to use nuclear power too. The rest of the world is while we are looking at wind turbines and solar and fueling our cars with a food crop. All of these being subsidized by taxpayer dollars BTW. If it is so great, why isn't the private sector jumping in both feet. Something is very wrong here. Truth be known none of these alternatives are really cleaner or more efficient. All these regulations, taxes, and fines is going to dry up domestic production and refining and we will be more dependent than ever on foreign sources. We need to use what we have to get where we want to go. Unless of course, we would prefer to go back to horse and buggy, candlelight, and fires. Don't forget to follow the directive on light bulbs issued by POTUS. Seems with this administration we will never have to make another choice about anything. Written by Sharon
on 6/30/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
if the price of oil is cheaper there's more dollars out there for the exploration of alternative fuels by energy companies. Written by tony G
on 6/30/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
More drilling offshore and in Alaska is simply not the answer. There isn't enough oil out there and it only delays the real solution to the energy and pollution problems we face. Clean coal is more of a symbol than reality. Written by David Quidd
on 6/30/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
What's typical of Washington is that if someone is taking a "principled" stance against a bill that will cost the taxpayers too much money, they can be bought by those who favor the legislation with even more taxpayer dollars. No need to wonder why we have so much debt is there? Written by kpf
on 6/29/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
After last weeks vote on Cap and Trade it's more than obvious some folks in the House do not have the knowledge to be voting on anything at all. Written by Tony G
on 6/29/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The alternative is to drill in our offshore waters and Alaska, and use more natural gas and clean coal to generate electricity without applying artificial "cap and trade" taxes to make these sources of energy more expensive then they actually are while simultaneously allowing alternative sources of clean energy to be developed without subsidizing them to make them seem cheaper then they really are. In other words, let the true prices and free choices of a free people determine which energy sources get used instead of trying to influence what we use for energy with government initiated price gimmicks. That plus building more nuclear power plants will provide the most energy for the cheapest price. In the preceeding sentence both the words "most" and "cheapest" are significant to any with even the slightest understanding of economics. Written by kpf
on 6/29/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Where's your alternative Mr. Juneau. Congress has failed to act for too long on these issues. Written by David Quidd
on 6/29/2009
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
