Friday, June 12, 2009

Rangel: Health-Care Reform Needs $600 Million in New Taxes and Will Cost $1 Trillion

OK, it's not as famous as the other campaign promise of "read my lips, no new taxes." But does anyone remember this?



"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
--Sen. Barack Obama, campaigning in Dover, Del., on Feb. 4, 2009

Well, you can pretty much toss that aside. House Democrats and administration officials are now working on the details of their proposed health-care industry overhaul; and the effect on your wallet is going to be significant.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Charles Rangel, Democrat from New York, told Laura Litvan of Bloomberg that the cost of the overhaul will exceed $1 trillion. That figure will come from a combination of $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

Rangel also said the measure’s cost will reach beyond the $634 billion Obama proposed in his budget request as a down payment for the policy changes.

How the legislation will read in the end is anybody's guess. There are two 700-page public verisons of the bill right now, and the over/under on the number of people who have actually read through all of both bills is three. But media reports say House and Senate Democrats are working on legislation forcing all Americans to have health insurance, prohibit insurers from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions and place other restrictions on the industry.

Another component of the legislation is the establishment of an online exchange for individuals to purchase insurance. Reports say it would require employers to provide health benefits to workers or pay a penalty. In addition, some Democrats want a federal program to expand coverage to the uninsured.

One could already predict the reactions. For instance, businesses are planning their strategy in opposition, as described by Patrick Yoest of Dow Jones Newswires:

The employer groups, which include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business, have organized meetings Friday to discuss health-care legislation written by Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

According to a person with knowledge of the meetings, the groups will brief other business organizations on "what we have been advocating for and against, and where that process has taken us, based on the draft bill."

The groups meeting could play a major role in determining how difficult it will be for Democrats to pass that legislation.

Following the meetings, "a coalition may emerge to reinforce, to push back on some things or, to advance other issues in tandem," said the person.

In a statement Thursday in a hearing of the Senate Health panel, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was highly critical of the committee's bill.

"The Chamber is gravely concerned by the process and the product thus far," the statement said. "As badly as reform is needed, we cannot support reform just for the sake of reform."

Shawn Tully of Fortune magazine had this analysis:
The crucial question about Obama's agenda has always been whether it really will slow the disastrous rise in health-care spending, or actually increase it while hiding the real costs of the new system. On analyzing the bills, the conclusion is inescapable: Obama promises Americans what appears to be a bargain by heavily subsidizing their premiums. But the only way to pay for what's really outrageously expensive coverage will be huge tax increases, especially on the same middle class that's being wooed as the chief beneficiary of reform.

The plans contain four proposals that will substantially weaken the ability of the market, already limited by burdensome regulation, to restrain medical spending.

First, they will impose rich, standard packages of benefits, with low deductibles, for all Americans. Those policies, typically containing everything from in-vitro fertilization to mental health benefits, are usually far more expensive than anything most people would pay for with their own money.

Second, the plans would impose on a federal level the doctrine of community rating, in which all customers have to be offered the same rates, regardless of their health risks. Community rating forces young people to pay far more than their actual cost, a main reason for today's 46 million uninsured, while it subsidizes older patients.

Third, Obama would ban consumers from buying private insurance across state lines, perpetuating the price differences in today's fragmented market, instead of allowing all Americans to shop anywhere for the best deals.

Fourth, both plans propose what's known as a "public option," or a Medicare-style plan that would compete with the private offerings. The previous three proposals would make the private plans extremely expensive. With the same subsidies, the Medicare-style plan could put them out of business.

Before we get into the specifics of each problem, it's important to note that Obama's health-care plan is not included in his 2010 budget. The administration pledges that his health-care plan won't expand the deficit because it will be entirely paid for by tax increases. But even if the deficit stays the same, spending and taxes will be far from the same. By most estimates, Obama's plan will cost more than $200 billion a year by 2019. All told, government outlays as a share of GDP are projected to reach 26% by that point, up five percentage points from when Obama took office.


He examines the cost to Americans in detail, and it's well worth your five minutes to jump over on the link to read them. But his conclusion is this:
The demand for everything from knee surgery to mental health counseling will soar. But the government will keep a lid on prices, so Americans, for the first time, will be faced with rationing. The hospitals and physicians simply won't be able to satisfy the unhinged demand for the services that look like a bargain.

The lines will grow. And so will the spending, and the taxes. And that's what Obama isn't telling you.

In light of all the criticism, Obama is on the offensive, using the tool he knows best: face-to-face communication with the American public. Here is what he had to say in Green Bay, Wis., on Thursday, as reported by Philip Elliott of the Associated Press:

Undertaking an aggressive new effort to push a major health-care measure through Congress by August, Obama rebuked critics from both the right and left -- conservatives who say his support for creating a government-sponsored insurance option alongside private coverage would send the country toward an unsustainable nationalized plan, as well as liberals who are concerned he won't go far enough to mandate universal coverage.

Obama said the question of what to do about health coverage, which has vexed Washington for decades, has reached near-emergency status.

"I know there are some who believe that reform is too expensive, but I can assure you that doing nothing will cost us far more in the coming years," Obama said. "Our deficits will be higher. Our premiums will go up. Our wages will be lower, our jobs will be fewer and our businesses will suffer."

By the way, his report quotes the cost as $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Inland Press Survey: Some Newspaper Employees Got Raises

There's been a run of bad news for journalists the past few months, but here is something that is surprisingly good news, at least for those who still have jobs: The Inland Press Association reported today that newspaper wages increased an average 2.1 percent from 2008 to 2009.

The Newspaper Compensation Study, which data from more than 400 newspapers throughout the United States and Canada, reported that journalists in online positions and in graphics were the beneficiaries of the largest salary gains. Interactive producers saw 13 percent increase. New and alternative business development salaries increased by about 5 percent.

The study discovered that beginning reporters and editorial page editors saw no salary increase.

The association's executive director, Ray Carlsen, said in a statement that, "The study is the industry standard for planning and explaining compensation decisions. It's especially valuable for newspapers dealing with work force transitions and changing government politics."

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

North Korea: Nuclear Arms Can Be Used as a 'Merciless Offensive Means'

North Korean issued its usual incendiary rhetoric today referring to their nuclear arsenal. But today it came with a twist.

For the first time, North Korea used the term "offensive" in describing how it might use its nuclear arsenal.

"Our nuclear deterrent will be a strong defensive means...as well as a merciless offensive means to deal a just retaliatory strike to those who touch the country's dignity and sovereignty even a bit," said the commentary, carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

Seoul's Yonhap news agency also reported that South Korea had doubled the number of naval ships around the disputed sea border with the North. That was the scene of skirmishes in 1999 and 2002.

Globe to Implement Wage Reductions Next Week

Here is the statement from the New York Times Co. regarding the Guild's rejection of accepting $10 million in concessions:

We are disappointed that in a very close vote of 277 to 265 the Boston Newspaper Guild did not ratify the Globe’s final proposal. As we have stated, the $10 million in cost savings from this multifaceted proposal is essential to The Boston Globe’s financial future.

This evening we have sent a letter to the Guild stating that as a result of the rejection of this proposal, we have reverted to our alternative Final Record Proposal which provides for a 23% wage reduction for all Guild members. This will secure the $10 million in costs savings needed from the Guild, and will allow the Globe to reach the targeted $20 million in savings needed from all our major unions.

Since the parties are at an impasse, the Globe will implement the wage reduction effective next week. We have told the Guild that we are available to meet any day this week to review implementation of the pay cut.

We regret having to take this action, but have no financially viable alternative.

Monday, June 8, 2009

Boston Globe Guild Rejects Plan for $10 Million in Concessions


Boston Globe Guild employees, by a vote of 277 to 265, narrowly rejected a proposed package of wage and benefit cuts today, despite a threat from the newspaper’s owner, The New York Times Co., that such a rejection could precipitate a unilateral, 23 percent cut in pay.

The Boston Newspaper Guild, which represents 700 editorial, advertising and business employees, was faced with the choice of accepting $10 million in annual wage and benefit concessions or risking even deeper pay cuts and the possible closure of New England's most prestigious newspaper. Management says said that a provision to reopen the guild contract gave owners the right to impose the 23 percent pay cut if the wage and benefit cuts were rejected. Union officials say the company was bluffing.

The rank-and-file with the newspaper's six other unions have already approved a total of a little more than $10 million in concessions.

The New York Times Co., which owns the Globe, said it needed a total of $20 million in annual savings from Globe unions - half from the Guild - to avoid shutting down the 137-year-old newspaper.

It was a choice of two bad options, as described by Richard Perez-Pena writing in The New York Times.
“We have two really lousy options,” said Michael A. Paulson, a reporter, who said in late afternoon that he was still undecided. “One is to accept a package that we think is unfair and excessively onerous,” he said, while the alternative might be more painful, and would mean “another battle with the company.”

Two months ago, the company threatened to close The Globe unless unions agreed to $20 million a year in wage and benefit concessions, and to give up lifetime job guarantees for about 400 employees. Of that savings, the company sought $10 million from the guild, by far the largest union, representing about 670 workers, most of them in the newsroom, with others in advertising and other departments.

A guild official said that voting turnout was huge, with more than 500 members having voted by 6 p.m. [Eastern.]

Alexandra Marks of The Christian Science Monitor wrote about the vote from the 35,000-foot level:

But hovering over the debate is a larger question: Is there a future for a traditional, major metropolitan newspaper?

"Certainly, there's nobody in the union who thinks, 'OK, if we approve this deal, we make the sacrifices now, but we're guaranteeing our survival and there's smooth sailing,' " says Mark Jurkowitz, associate director of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism in Washington. He's also a former ombudsman at the Globe. "What we're seeing here is that: 'Even if we accept this offer, what is the future of the paper?' That's the big unknown that's hovering over this."

Photo of Boston Globe rally on April 24, 2009.

Sunday, June 7, 2009

Sunday Morning's News Show for June 7

If you were enjoying the start of summer with a backyard barbque and missed them, here is a recap of the Sunday morning news shows.

Boston Globe Drivers OK $2.5 Million in Cuts; Guild Votes Monday

The Boston Globe delivery truck drivers on Sunday approved $2.5 million in wage and benefit cuts, the newspaper reports, leaving the Boston Newspaper Guild as the last union to vote on concessions.

The New York Times Co., owners of the Boston Globe, are seeking $20 million in cuts. It says without the cuts, it would be forced to close New England's most prestigious newspaper.

So far, cuts approved by rank-and-file members of six unions equal a little more than $10 million. Guild employees will vote on an additional $10 million in concessions on Monday.

Members of Teamsters Local 259, which represents 200 truck drivers, approved the measure 89 to 69. It's the second time in six months drivers have approved $2.5 million in cuts.

"This local stepped up not only to save their jobs, but the jobs of everyone who works at the Boston Globe," Ralph Giallanella, the union’s secretary-treasurer was quoted as saying.

TThe New York Times says that the Globe, New England's largest newspaper, faces to lose about $85 million this year.

The Boston Newspaper Guild is the paper’s largest union and is made up of more than600 editorial, advertising and business office workers.