This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Senator Thune voted against expanding SCHIP because it would expand the program beyond its original intent. The senator says the reauthorizing legislation would extend coverage to people who can afford health insurance would get coverage, and it would turn into "government-run, socialized medicine" (Cold War ended 16 years ago, yet certain reactionaries still cry "Red!" for political points -- fascinating).
I'm pleased to see that Senator Thune is willing to take a brave stand against such wealthy freeloaders (I'm somewhat serious: voting against any bill with "Children" in the title is risky; that's why politicians on both sides of the aisle play games with the titles of legislation). Thune is on the right track: it's not poor folks, but those darn wealthy people looking for ways to use and abuse the system for their personal advantage. (That is what the good senator is saying, isn't it?)
Serendipitously, a man who reads ten times more than the Madville Times does, neighbor Gerry Lange, forwards a wealth of information from the Progressive States Network on affordable housing programs. (I know, I know, "progressive" is rebranding for "liberal" -- just read the article! ;-) ) The federal government subsidizes homeowners to the tune of $150 billion dollars per year (see Adam Carasso, C. Eugene Steuerle, and Elizabeth Bell, "Making Tax Incentives for Homeownership More Equitable and Efficient," Urban Institute, June 2005, p. 1), $80.9 billion of which takes the form of mortgage and real estate tax deductions (Carasso et al., p. 6). One major problem with these subsidies, says J. Mijin Cha, is that they "are so skewed to helping upper-income home owners." Cha continues:
The highest-earning 20% of families receive 82% of the benefits from the federal mortgage and real estate tax deductions, while the bottom 60% of families receive just 4% of those tax benefits. These tax benefits are worth almost four times what all other federal programs spend on subsidizing housing for lower-income renters and owners.
Boy, talk about a program expanding beyond its original intent! We certainly have an interest in promoting home ownership. Among other benefits, "Owning a home also correlates with greater educational attainment, greater likelihood of being married, better family outcomes, higher salaries, greater wealth, and increased ownership of other assets" (Carasso et al, p. 2). But why hand out that money to people who can afford their own houses?
Senator Thune (perhaps seeking a better smokescreen?) says he further opposes the SCHIP reauthorization because he doesn't want to pay for the increased funding through an unreliable and unhealthy tobacco tax:
"In order for the program to work and to be financed ... you have to get more people smoking," Thune said Friday. "It's wrong to finance a program by encouraging people to engage in something that only adds to the cost of health care in a dramatic way." [Faith Bremner, "Thune Opposed Child Health Bill Because It's Too Big," That Sioux Falls paper, 2007.08.04]
How considerate. Well, if a better funding source would ease the Senator's concerns, the Madville Times is happy to propose an alternative funding mechanism perfectly consistent with Thune's expressed fiscal conservatism: eliminate the mortgage and real estate tax deductions for upper-income homeowners! Let's get out the back of the envelope:
- Top income quintile makes $78,646/yr (Carasso et al., Appendix, Table 2), close to the $82,000 income Thune warns is too darn much to deserve SCHIP and was enough to make him vote against the whole bill.
- Top quintile gets 81.9% of the federal homeownership tax benefits.
- Total federal homeownership tax benefits = $80.9 billion.
- Total tax subsidy received by richest quintile for homeownership: $66.3 billion per year
- Maximum amount Bush would increase SCHIP funding: $5 billion
- Amounts by which Senate and House would increase SCHIP funding: $35-$50 billion over five years.
I leave it to Senator Thune (and my loyal readers) to figure out how to resolve those facts into a coherent Republican policy stance. But boy, I think I should get a tax break for doing all this work for the Senator. How about it, Senator Thune? You paid Jon Lauck $27,000 to help you beat Daschle; how about a little love for the Madville Times for actual policy problem-solving?
Madville Times... will research for cheeseburgers... or health insurance.
Just a comment here. Apparently in this new SCHIPS legislation a person is a "child" until age 24! Now I will admit that many people act like children at age 24 (and even older), but a person age 24 is no child - period. Maybe you can explain, Corey, why a 24-year-old GROWN UP indivdiual would be covered by this legislation.
ReplyDeleteA person is considered grown up enough to join the military at 18, grown up enough to smoke at 18, drink at 21, marry without parental permission at a much younger age than 24, etc. This alone would be enough for me to vote against this obviously flawed bill.
If you want to subsidize a 24-year-old "child," that's your right. Personally, I think a little personal responsibility on the 24-year-old's part is in order here.
I'm waiting for something to load on my computer here at work ;) so I'll chime in on this one.
ReplyDeleteNonnie, this article helps explain the reasoning behind the age 24 policy in the SCHIP legislation.
From the article: "There are misconceptions that young adults don't have health insurance by choice," said Sara Collins, lead author and Assistant Vice President for the Future of Health Insurance at The Commonwealth Fund. "However, affordability and access to coverage are real barriers for many young people who lack access to employer coverage. Even the cost of basic coverage on the individual insurance market can amount to a large share of a low or moderate income."