by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Obamacare futures continue to worsen in recent weeks. A couple of weeks ago, UnitedHealth Group chose to exit the majority of Obamacare exchanges because it expects roughly 2/3 billion in losses. Next, Aetna announced that it might break even this year, but called for Congressional fixes to ensure sustainability in the marketplace.
The immediate fix, however, will be another round of premium rate hikes — with some expecting to be more than 10%. However, timing may play a key in the November elections; the rate hikes will hit when Obamacare open enrollment begins on November 1, just days before the presidential and Congressional elections. If high premium rate hikes happen as expected, voters may express their resentment at the ballot box.
Some notes on the current state of insurers and exchanges:
**”Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, which dominate many state exchanges, saw profits plummet by 75 percent between 2013 and 2015, according to an analysis by A.M. Best Co. A chief reason for the financial woes: “the intensity of losses in the exchange segment.””
**Health Care Service Corp., which operates Blue plans in five states, dropped out of New Mexico’s exchange for this year after regulators refused to approve rate hikes as big as the company sought. In Texas, Illinois and two other states where HCSC does business, medical costs for individual customers exceeded premiums by more than $1.3 billion last year.
**Just over half of the 23 nonprofit startups seeded with Obamacare loan dollars have collapsed after hemorrhaging red ink. The 11 surviving plans continue to struggle, with more than $400 million in combined losses last year.
**New York-based Oscar, the much ballyhooed, tech-savvy startup bankrolled with billions in venture capital dollars, is sputtering. Medical costs for Oscar’s individual customers in New York, where it has the most customers, outstripped premiums by nearly 50 percent last year, according to financial filings.
**Just 28 percent of HealthCare.gov customers for 2016 were between the ages of 18 and 34, significantly below the 35 percent threshold typically considered necessary for a balanced marketplace.
Health and Human Services has yet to put out fresh numbers on the amount of enrollees who have actually paid premiums. The enrollment numbers were already widely off the mark from the predicted CBO numbers calculated when Obamacare was passed. Though many think Obamacare is an issue that has expired with the American electorate, it is certain to become more important in the days leading up to election day in November.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, TAXES
The great Don Boudreaux a friend of mine, made mention of this picture last week over on his superb blog, Cafe Hayek. The picture is apparently a favorite among Trump supporters.
“What to say? Perry Potts Eidelbus, a Facebook friend, describes it as “a distillation of economic ignorance into pure form.” Indeed. It’s much like Trump himself: the very image of economic ignorance.
Trump is doing now from the political right what Paul Krugman has done so successfully over the past decade and a half from the political left, which is the following: boisterously assuring people that their untutored instincts about the economy are indeed accurate – telling people that what they immediately see in economic affairs and policies is all that there is to see in economic affairs and policies (that is, that there is no ‘unseen’ whose reality can be perceived and understood only by looking beyond that which is immediately obvious). According to this bastardized, pandering version of economics, actual consumable goods (such as are pictured here) are reckoned to be costs, while toil is reckoned to be a benefit. The economic problem is not rooted in scarcity, it is rooted in abundance. Social benefactors, therefore, are those who promise to deny to us the fruits of the economy’s abundance (along with, by the way, our economic freedoms) as they bestow upon us ever-greater scarcity that will bless us with the need for more toil.
The photo shown here is, in short, itself an intellectual cargo ship loaded down with countless tons of economic ignorance.”
by | ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
In an interview a week before Election Day, President Obama declared that if he won again, it would be mandate for making cuts, but also for raising taxes on the highest income earners.
Reviewing Election Day exit poll data, however, tells a different story.
Looking at the voting patterns broken down by income earning amounts (based on 2011 total family income), there are only TWO categories out of six that Obama won more than 50% of the vote. Those are:
Under $30,000: Obama 63% Romney 35%
$30,000 – $49,999: Obama 57% Romney 42%
The other four out of the six categories had Romney with over 50% of the vote. Those are:
$50,000 – $99,999: Obama 46% Romney 52%
$100,000 – $199,999: Obama 44% Romney 54%
$200,000 – $249,999: Obama 47% Romney 52%
$250,000 or more: Obama 42% Romney 55%
The electorate that voted from Obama – voters whose households earned under $50,000 – are also the same citizens who pay the least amount of taxes. The voters who already pay the most in taxes voted for Romney.
The only “mandate to raise taxes”, therefore, comes from the population of taxpayers who prefer others to pay more in tax so they can continue to pay less. The only clear lesson from the election is that President Obama has created class warfare as it has never been seen before.
(crossposted at redstate.com/alanjoelny)
by | CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Class warfare proved to be the winner in this election cycle as it was a key component of Obama’s policies and re-election rhetoric. The components of such a tactic were easily recognized: 1) the political opponent (Romney) will hurt those among us who are most vulnerable (elderly, poor, etc); 2) the political opponent (Romney) does not care about the “middle class”; 3) the political opponent (Romney) wants to benefit those most advantaged (the rich/elite).
The third point of this strategy was the one that resonated most with Obama supporters; he continuously and intentionally railed against “millionaires and billionaires”, and talked about “the wealthy paying their fair share” in order to create a divide and separate that particular fiscal population from the rest of “mainstream America”.
Besides the obvious baseness of such an argument coming from the President of the United States, it is critically important to note the amount of true millionaires and billionaires are so few in number, that taxing them more – as Obama plans to do – will not help with any significant deficit reduction. His assertion was pure dishonest political speech; you cannot possibly create enough revenue from the millionaire/billionaire population even if you were to tax them at 100%. Our fiscal situation is so dire in this country that an increased tax on this group in any large or small amount solves nothing in the long-term.
Unfortunately, none of this mattered to Obama. He intentionally threw the labels around so that they conveniently fit whatever emotive language would coerce voters and supporters to rally behind his outrageous monetary policies. It was classical class-warfare: antagonizing lower socio-economic groups against the “rich”. Simultaneously, he added record numbers of citizens to entitlement rolls, thereby creating a further divide. And it worked to win.
Obama has stated his intent to raise the marginal rates on the top income earners, (aka the “rich”, “wealthy”, or “top 2%”). Yet history shows us that higher tax rates results in less – not more – tax collections. Democrats like to wax poetic about the high rates of 70% and even 91%. What they fail to comprehend or deliberately don’t explain is that at those times, there were an enormous amount of tax shelters such as real estate, so that people could legally lower that taxable income and would not have to actually pay the outrageous tax rates.
With the IRC reforms of 1986, Reagan reduced the tax rates to 28% in exchange for getting rid of the tax shelters. As a result, the amount of federal income collected was more at 28% and a clean tax code than at 91% and tax shelters, because at 28%, it really wasn’t worth the time, cost, and effort to hide money. We need comprehensive tax reform, but not the type that Obama is pushing. His policies of more “tax credits” (which is government spending run through the tax code) and marginal rate increases hampers our recovery. If the federal tax rates are going to rise again – and they will – in addition to state and local tax hikes, the tax burden in this country will be staggering. People will do one of two things: 1) start finding ways not to pay it like they did when the rates were outrageous or 2) stop working and investing so much because it’s just going to get taken away from them. When that happens, the economy worsens — and it is already suffering enough.
Blindly vilifying the rich was simply a tactic Obama used to pit classes against one another for political gain. But putting it into practice? Imposing higher taxes on that segment of the population most able to invest in and aid our recovery is true economic ignorance. Why take additional money from those taxpayers who have been able to create wealth and employment successfully and give it to the government and politicians who have proven their ability to mismanage and squander income? What worked to win the White House, will not work to win the economy back.
(crossposted at redstate.com/alanjoelny)
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, POLITICS, TAXES
Krauthammer does a fine analysis on the importance of this election from a ideological perspective.
The commentary first appeared in the Washington Post on November 1. I have reposted it in its entirety below.
“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” That was Barack Obama in 2008. And he was right. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
It is common for one party to take control and enact its ideological agenda. Ascendancy, however, occurs only when the opposition inevitably regains power and then proceeds to accept the basic premises of the preceding revolution.
Thus, Republicans railed for 20 years against the New Deal. Yet when they regained the White House in 1953, they kept the New Deal intact.
And when Nixon followed LBJ’s Great Society — liberalism’s second wave — he didn’t repeal it. He actually expanded it. Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), gave teeth to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and institutionalized affirmative action — major adornments of contemporary liberalism.
Until Reagan. Ten minutes into his presidency, Reagan declares that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Having thus rhetorically rejected the very premise of the New Deal/Great Society, he sets about attacking its foundations — with radical tax reduction, major deregulation, a frontal challenge to unionism (breaking the air traffic controllers for striking illegally) and an (only partially successful) attempt at restraining government growth.
Reaganism’s ascendancy was confirmed when the other guys came to power and their leader, Bill Clinton, declared (in his 1996 State of the Union address) that “the era of big government is over” — and then abolished welfare, the centerpiece “relief” program of modern liberalism.
In Britain, the same phenomenon: Tony Blair did to Thatcherism what Clinton did to Reaganism. He made it the norm.
Obama’s intention has always been to re-normalize, to reverse ideological course, to be the anti-Reagan — the author of a new liberal ascendancy. Nor did he hide his ambition. In his February 2009 address to Congress he declared his intention to transform America. This was no abstraction. He would do it in three areas: health care, education and energy.
Think about that. Health care is one-sixth of the economy. Education is the future. And energy is the lifeblood of any advanced country — control pricing and production, and you’ve controlled the industrial economy.
And it wasn’t just rhetoric. He enacted liberalism’s holy grail: the nationalization of health care. His $830 billion stimulus, by far the largest spending bill in U.S. history, massively injected government into the free market — lavishing immense amounts of tax dollars on favored companies and industries in a naked display of industrial policy.
And what Obama failed to pass through Congress, he enacted unilaterally by executive action. He could not pass cap-and-trade, but his EPA is killing coal. (No new coal-fired power plant would ever be built.) In 2006, liberals failed legislatively to gut welfare’s work requirement. Obama’s new Health and Human Services rule does that by fiat. Continued in a second term, it would abolish welfare reform as we know it — just as in a second term, natural gas will follow coal, as Obama’s EPA regulates fracking into noncompetitiveness.
Government grows in size and power as the individual shrinks into dependency. Until the tipping point where dependency becomes the new norm — as it is in Europe, where even minor retrenchment of the entitlement state has led to despair and, for the more energetic, rioting.
An Obama second term means that the movement toward European-style social democracy continues, in part by legislation, in part by executive decree. The American experiment — the more individualistic, energetic, innovative, risk-taking model of democratic governance — continues to recede, yielding to the supervised life of the entitlement state.
If Obama loses, however, his presidency becomes a historical parenthesis, a passing interlude of overreaching hyper-liberalism, rejected by a center-right country that is 80 percent nonliberal.
Should they summon the skill and dexterity, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan could guide the country to the restoration of a more austere and modest government with more restrained entitlements and a more equitable and efficient tax code. Those achievements alone would mark a new trajectory — a return to what Reagan started three decades ago.
Every four years we are told that the coming election is the most important of one’s life. This time it might actually be true. At stake is the relation between citizen and state, the very nature of the American social contract.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
