ObamaCare Will Force Millions More Into Medicaid, And DENY Them The Right To Buy Private Insurance

It will deny them because ObamaCare-compliant plans will simply be too expensive for them to afford, and those will be the only ones available. 

John Goodman tried to warn us over two years ago, here:

"While defenders of the new law have chattered endlessly about people who are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions (turns out there are only 12,500 of them) almost no one seems to have noticed that 16 million people are not only going to be forced into Medicaid, they are effectively going to be denied the right to buy any private insurance — whether or not they have a pre-existing condition."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But today it is coming true.

For example, in one county in Michigan an older, married, full-time worker with one child still in the home must make at least $19,530/year to get a tax credit to make the bargain basement Bronze plan monthly health insurance "affordable" for his family, but go below that threshold and he loses the subsidy entirely and ends up in Medicaid whether he likes it or not. That means he must make almost $9.39/hour, almost $2/hour above the Michigan minimum wage of $7.40/hour, or he's out of luck.

A single parent in the same situation must make no less than $15,510 to stay out of Medicaid and get the subsidy.

There were almost 61 million Americans making less than $20,000/year in 2011, and nearly 50 million making less than $15,000, meaning many of them will be forced into Medicaid under ObamaCare if they are not among the 70.4 million already in Medicaid in 2011, already 46.5% of all wage earners in the country that year.

Two kinds of insurance, ObamaCare and its crappier forerunner Medicaid, and one unhappy nation.

Inequality! Obama Delays ObamaCare Penalties For Big Business, But Not For You.

Time reports here:

The delay deprives the federal government of a year of penalties that would have been paid by companies that do not meet the law’s requirements, with as yet unknown budgetary effects. Republicans had warned of a downturn in hiring as a result of the mandate.

The so-called individual mandate is unaffected by the rule change. That provision requires the vast majority of Americans to purchase insurance or pay a penalty, with tax credits provided to those who can’t afford coverage.

Democrat Senate Wants Your Taxes To Go Up, Won't Vote On Obama's Plan

Story and video here, quoting Mitch McConnell on what the Senate refused to vote on:

"[W]e didn’t just put together a bill that included [Obama's] $2 trillion tax increase – we also added the almost $400 billion in new tax stimulus measures he wanted as well. This bill contained a continuation of the payroll tax holiday, a 10 percent credit for new wages that will go to businesses big and small, and it included a fix to one of the many flawed provisions of Obamacare – an expansion of a tax credit for businesses that no one uses. This proposal reflected exactly what was in the President’s budget and his various submissions to Congress."

Let's Face It, Republicans Helped Create "The Takers"

It's time for a reality check. Republicans bear heavy responsibility for creating "the takers", the infamous 47% of households who pay no taxes.

The real reason Mitt Romney lost the election is because he couldn't get Reagan Democrats to turn out for him enthusiastically, people for whom dissing the whole idea behind the tax credit programs expanded by Reagan and Bush 43 to subsidize working families just like them sounded foreign coming from the mouth of a Republican candidate for president. I refer to the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit.

Reagan had made the former his answer to welfare dependency, and George W. Bush further expanded it and also doubled the latter, to the point that now, as the Tax Policy Center says here:

[T]he Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit . . . are the major reason many low-income working families avoid the income tax. About one-third of those who don’t pay are families with kids.

This New York Times graphic, using Tax Foundation data, shows how the percentage of non-taxpaying filers had grown by over 50% since 1986 through the end of the Bush presidency, and now under Obama has really ramped up another 50% so that since the time of the 1986 tax reform twice as many filers have no federal tax liability as did twenty-five years ago. If Obama has doubled down on anything, they were Republican ideas to begin with. To paraphrase an old saw, We sold them the rope they're hanging us with. 

What once seemed like benign Reagan era social props have grown into major federal welfare transfer payment programs for the lower and middle classes in America, which is why liberals like Tim Noah here deliberately don't focus on them in analyzing the takers, "the 47%". To do so mutes their point that these people still pay the regressive payroll tax, which the EITC offsets. But practiced long enough, these lower wage workers getting EITC payments every year until retirement will collect Social Security without having really contributed to it themselves, transforming it, for them, from a contribution based pension into pure welfare.

Democrats are more than happy to have Republicans do this dirty work for them in expanding the federal welfare state instead of just acting as they do in more somnolent times as mere tax collectors for it. During the next five years, these direct subsidies to families are projected to cost the Treasury over $90 billion each year. In 2011 alone there were over 26 million EITC claims costing the taxpayers nearly $59 billion. 

This issue goes to the heart of Mitt Romney's problem with the Republican Party: He had the temerity to point out the dependency practiced by too many Republicans. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney and the country, he had no constituency for this message, or at least not enough of one to get him over the top.

More than ever I suspect that this way of thinking is what was behind Mitt Romney's interest in "rectitude" in "equalizing" taxes when he was governor of Massachusetts, but also accounts for his statements distancing himself from the Reagan record in the 1990s when he ran against Sen. Ted Kennedy, just when Rep. Newt Gingrich was about to unleash The Contract With America. Reagan might have been an anti-communist conservative, but a fiscal conservative he was not, at least not in practice. That's what was really important to Romney at the time and obviously still animates him. But not his party which has made zero progress toward fiscal conservatism and has gone the other way.

Say what you will about Romney's social liberalism, it was his fiscal conservatism which alienated him not just from Democrats, but also from anyone receiving a big tax refund every spring.

A famous Democrat once said, "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party left me." But a fiscal conservative can't say the same of the Republican Party . . . in living memory it's never been there.

(graphic here)

Top Tax Loss Expenditures Projected For 2011-2015

From the Joint Committee on Taxation's January 2012 projection, here are the top individual categories of lost tax revenue, commonly referred to as tax loss expenditures (the revenue value of tax deductions, tax exclusions, and tax credits), for the five year period from 2011, annualized:

1. Healthcare, healthcare insurance, long term care insurance = $ 145 billion

2. Mortgage interest = $ 93 billion

3. Dividends, long term capital gains = $ 91 billion

4. 401k plans = $ 75 billion

5. Earned income credit = $ 59 billion

6. Pension plans = $ 53 billion

7. State, local income, sales, personal property taxes = $ 46 billion

7. Capital gains at death = $ 46 billion

8. Cafeteria plan benefits = $ 40 billion

9. Untaxed Social Security and Railroad Retirement = $ 38 billion

10. Charitable giving = $ 37 billion

11. State and local government bonds = $ 36 billion

12. Medicare Part A = $ 35 billion

13. Child tax credit = $ 34 billion

14. Life insurance and annuities = $ 30 billion

15. Medicare Part B = $ 27 billion

16. Capital gains on sale of primary residence = $ 25 billion

17. Property taxes on real property = $ 23 billion

Red = housing related ($ 118 billion)

Green = health related ($ 247 billion)

Blue = investment related ($ 137 billion)

Yellow = retirement related ($ 196 billion)

Purple = social welfare related ($ 130 billion)

Black = state and local government related ($ 105 billion)                                    

Romney Is Half Right: One Tax Proposal Is New, And Alarming

And it is amazing no one has taken this seriously:

"My plan is not like anything that's been tried before. My plan is to bring down rates, but also bring down deductions and exemptions and credits at the same time so the revenue stays in, but that we bring down rates to get more people working."

Romney is threatening to reduce the value of exemptions and credits which exist under the existing tax code.

This amounts to major fiddling which the preoccupation with "deductions" obscures.

Deductions we have lost before, as in the 1986 tax reform. That he wants to reduce the value of more deductions is bad enough. But the truly alarming thing is the proposal to do the same to exemptions, and to a lesser extent to credits. That is new, and alarming.

That can only mean the whole set of assumptions involving the system of personal exemptions, and perhaps also the time-honored "married filing jointly" status itself, and credits such as the Earned Income Credit and the Child Tax Credit and the like. I can well imagine a President Mitt Romney eliminating the favoritism of the tax code toward married people, and toward their housing and their children, to make gay and unmarried people equal to them in the tax code. Remember, in Massachusetts Gov. Romney had a reputation, deserved, for being a tax equalizer.

I also expect he will propose capping the value of deductions and credits by using something like Martin Feldstein's plan, in order to preserve the deductions and credits for lower income individuals but phasing them out as one climbs the income ladder. In other words, the progressive tax code stays, but progressivity of tax deductibility goes out the window. That may be fair to a liberal like Romney, but it isn't maintaining progressivity, it is steepening it.

Mitt Romney is not a social conservative. And if he gets his way with the tax code, I suspect he's going to prove it, unless conservatives in the US House stop him.

Good luck, America. You're going to need it.

When The Weekly Standard Says Romney's Not Conservative, You Know He Is

It's the right's "pot calling the kettle black moment" of the campaign:

Plenty of conservatives are pushing back against the worldview espoused by Mitt Romney in his "arrogant and stupid' [sic] remarks at a private fundraiser earlier this year.

When representatives of National Review, The Daily Caller, The American Spectator and The Weekly Standard agree that Romney has sinned, you know he's finally done something right.

Rush Limbaugh and Red State counsel Romney to pile it on because they know that most Americans agree with Romney that handouts through the tax code are wrong, even if they don't quite understand the arithmetic.

But the aforementioned conservative establishment fuddy-duddies rebuke him, here, where you will find not a single mention of the specific handouts which Republicans have used as a form of welfare for the lower tax bracket filers, namely the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit of the tax code. Taxpayers use those credits, which are refundable, to offset any income tax they may owe and receive any remaining balance in the form of tax refunds. Usually those "refunds" are substantial balances due because they file under the 10 and 15 percent tax brackets where they pay little tax relative to higher earners in the first place, amounting to hundreds and even thousands of dollars in tax "refunds" which are no refunds at all, just handouts. This is the slimy work of liberalism on display, capturing a definition and gutting it, demonstrating for all to see that the so-called conservatives of the Republican Party are no conservatives at all because they participate in the ruse.

When just 17 percent of the American people still use paper and pencil to figure their taxes, it is not surprising how little understanding there is on this issue. Most people hire a tax-preparer or use something like TurboTax, and consequently have no mathematical understanding for the reason they are getting so much money back. But if so-called conservatives really were conservative, they would be explaining this to you, and not little ole obscure me.

Gov. Mitt Romney Is Exposing The Liberalism Of Presidents Reagan And Bush

Gov. Mitt Romney is forcing us to consider seriously how Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush got carried away by liberal impulses and got us into troubles.

I think Romney was not a fan of Ronald Reagan in the 1990s because he realized Reagan's program was fiscally irresponsible, cutting taxes while increasing military spending to defeat Soviet Communism. The result was the largest increase in the US public debt since WWII. As a business man who can read a spread sheet, Mitt Romney can recognize fiscal insanity when he sees it.

Now a leaked video of a private fundraiser Romney addressed in Florida in May is being attacked by the left in recent hours. It shows Mitt Romney not too happy with the liberal consensus which uses the tax code as a form of welfare, primarily through the mechanism of tax credits combined with statutory tax rates which nullify income tax liability. This was not a bug in the law. It was a feature intended all along. Romney is signaling that he's not entirely on board with this form of liberalism.

The idea of getting people off welfare was an ingenious one under Reagan, effectively rebating their Social Security contributions when they went to work, instead of collecting a check directly from the federal government while unemployed. But it was fundamentally a compromise with liberalism, and the Earned Income Tax Credit later took on a life of its own, being notably expanded under Bill Clinton and under George W. Bush. Combined with the Child Tax Credit, the two credits represent transfer payments far in excess of the cost of the mortgage interest deduction, the drumbeat against which gets louder by the day. To take away the mortgage interest deduction would yield the government about $80 billion a year in new revenue. But eliminating the two tax credits would end a direct federal government expenditure in excess of $110 billion a year.

If you want to know in what world liberals like Nancy Pelosi under a liberal president like Barack Obama would find it thinkable to consent to a deliberate underfunding of Social Security, liberalism's signature program, by rolling back payroll taxes to help the working poor during the Great Recession, look to Ronald Reagan, who did basically the same thing for poor people through the EITC way back in the 1980s. In making Social Security contributions rebateable to the working poor, Reagan was nothing if not a liberal trendsetter.

Another innovation and accommodation with liberalism by Ronald Reagan was EMTALA, part of the tax reform of 1986, which made it the law that emergency rooms had to provide services regardless of ability to pay. That unfunded mandate costs approximately only $50 billion a year today. I say "only" because lying about the severity of that problem became the heart of the healthcare debate which gave us ObamaCare. The Heritage Foundation may have authored the idea of the individual healthcare mandate in 1989, but once again it was Ronald Reagan who paved the way and provided the cover for accommodating what eventually became ObamaCare's liberal tyranny.

Romney's remarks also question George Bush's two-state solution to peace in Israel, which is nothing but another unrealistic aspiration of liberalism which thinks you can put a chicken and a hungry snake in the same pen and enjoy a quiet Sunday afternoon. To this Romney wisely prefers the unsteady truce of the status quo. In doing so his realism is shining through.

Mitt Romney's looking better all the time, and conservatives should reconsider whether voting for him is such a bad idea after all. 

Both Political Parties Are Greedy Liberals Eyeing Your Tax Credits And Tax Deductions

The partisan and liberal New York Times must think we can't read out here in fly-over country. "Tax reform" is now code for "tax increase".

The drumbeat to raise your taxes continues, here, an "absolute necessity":

Both parties agree on the absolute necessity of reforming the addled, inefficient American tax code. That means eliminating much of the underbrush of credits, loopholes and expenditures and then reducing marginal tax rates. Of course, the devil is in the details. Just about every tax expenditure has a powerful interest group behind it. That is part of the reason why neither party has gotten specific about what they would put on the chopping block, and both anticipate a drawn-out fight during the tax reform process.

Marginal tax rates are much easier to raise and frequently are raised, which is why the credits and deductions have to go: as long as the deductions and credits remain they suppress revenues when taxes are inevitably raised after a "reform". That's exactly what happened in 1993 after the broadly lower rates achieved in the 1986 tax reform were swept away by Bill Clinton. The deductions sacrificed in 1986 never returned.

Liberals in both parties intend to do this to the American people again.

There's nothing wrong with the current code that spending cuts couldn't fix: especially on defense and social welfare which both have dramatically increased under Bush and Obama.

Notice The Subtle Anti-Reaganism Of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)

TARP Republican

Sen. Tom Coburn comes to bury Caesar, not to praise him, here:

"The last time Congress reformed the tax code was 26 years ago, which preceded the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history."

What's wrong with that? you say.

Well, that statement dates the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history from after 1986, ignoring that it actually began much earlier as a result of Reagan's stimulative tax cuts in the early 1980s. Now why would a Republican ignore that? Maybe because he's a Bush Republican who hates voodoo economics, the ungrateful louts who never defended the Gipper against the left's attacks then and still won't.

What's worse is that Sen. Coburn goes on to pretend that Reagan viewed tax credits with scorn like Martin Feldstein does:

Reagan’s key economic advisers such as Martin Feldstein persuasively argue that tax extenders are spending by another name. If tax carve-outs for green industry, rum makers, Eskimo whaling captains, and more, were on the other side of the ledger – such as in President Obama’s stimulus bill – they would be derided as spending, and rightly so.

Actually, Reagan defended spending through the tax code, for example, through the Earned Income Credit which he expanded considerably in the very 1986 tax reform Coburn praises, to get people off of welfare and into work.

Martin Feldstein may have been Reagan's economic advisor, but he was a deficit hawk who often collided with Reagan over spending, and left the service of the president after only two years, in 1984.

To rewrite the history of Ronald Reagan as Coburn does is completely dishonest.

Top Ten Tax Loss Expenditures 2011 From The Joint Committee On Taxation

10. Exclusion of benefits under cafeteria plans ................................................................$31 billion

10. Exclusion of untaxed Social Security and Railroad Retirement benefits ....................$31 billion

  9. Exclusion of capital gains at death .............................................................................$38 billion

  8. Deduction of state and local government income taxes, sales and property taxes ......$42.4 billion

  7. Pension plan contributions .........................................................................................$42.7 billion

  6. 401 K plan contributions ............................................................................................$48.4 billion

  5. Tax credit for children under 17 .................................................................................$56.4 billion

  4. Earned income tax credit ............................................................................................$59.5 billion

  3. Mortgage interest deduction ........................................................................................$77.6 billion

  2. Reduced rates of tax on dividends and long term capital gains ...................................$90.5 billion

  1. Exclusion of employer contributions for health care, health/long term care insurance.$109.3 billion

Welfare Practised Through The Tax Code Is Liberalism, Not Conservatism

This is why those who call Ronald Reagan a conservative are wrong, because the intent of his tax policies has been all along to practise welfare through the tax code and thereby create a whole class of people at the bottom half in the country who are dependent on the federal government on April 15th, have no stake in policy and thus in politics because they do not pay for it, and are as a result ungrateful, unmotivated to climb higher, and are increasingly a nation apart from the Americans who do pay for it:

"Reagan and succeeding Republicans abolished federal income taxes on the working poor and on what the Left calls the working class, and they almost abolished them on the middle class.

"It began with the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which grew out of then-Governor Ronald Reagan's famous testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 1972. Reagan proposed exempting the working poor from all Social Security and income taxes as an alternative to welfare, with the credit serving as a way to offset payroll taxes for low-income workers. ...

"[B]y 2007, after 25 years of Reaganomics and before President Obama was even elected, the bottom 40 percent of earners, on net and as a group, paid less than 0 percent of federal income taxes, according to official IRS data, as reported recently by the Congressional Budget Office. Instead of paying at least some income taxes to help support the federal government, the federal government paid them cash through the income tax code. That same year, the middle 20 percent, the true middle class, paid less than 5 percent of all federal income taxes."

So Peter Ferrara now, here, defending Romney's tax plan as more of the same.

These policies, now accepted by both Democrats and Republicans alike, have turned Social Security into pure welfare because a large majority of the people eventually receiving it will have effectively received refunds of everything they've put into it long before they start drawing it. Temporary reductions of contributions to Social Security during the recent financial crisis, advocated by Democrats in complete control of the government, have only underscored the point.

If nothing else it is another flip for Romney, who famously characterized himself as an independent and not in the mold of Reagan-Bush during his race for Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts in 1994.

"Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

Who knows, maybe the flipper will flop after he's elected. Stranger things have happened. After all, many of us on the right feared Obama in 2008 because we thought he was a commie. Little did we know he was a fascist.

He Endorsed Obama And Now Warns About Our Enemy The (Fascist) State

It seems that fascism is becoming something of a meme over at Forbes.

Lawrence Hunter weighs in here against Walter Williams' categorization of Social Security under "handouts" and the recipients of it under "thieves":

... the modern fascist welfare state in America ... is every bit as real and destructive as he describes. ...

Food Stamps, The Women, Infants and Children (WIN) program, Medicaid, agricultural subsidies and price supports, most refundable tax credits, federal deposit insurance, all are examples of federal government “handouts;” Social Security is not; it is a government-mandated Ponzi Scheme—a “giveback”—and there is a huge difference. ...

"[W]orkfare” [is] a dodgy transaction between politicians and public employees/contractors and government subsidized-employers where government gives swag to bureaucrats, contractors and subsidized workers in exchange for their political backing and protection. ...

“Workfare” is the ultimate replacement of the private sector by the government where jobs are created and wages, salaries, benefits and pensions are paid or subsidized to strengthen the fascist welfare state. ...

Allowing one’s rage at the state (especially with respect to Social Security) to muddle one’s understanding of precisely how the state operates and what it is that makes the modern welfare state so vigorous and robust is a mistake that actually strengthens it. The vast majority of people support the modern fascist welfare state precisely because these distinctions [between handouts, givebacks and workfare] are real and matter to people. ...

[T]he modern fascist welfare state is a universal prisoners’ dilemma. The rational strategy when stuck in such a vicious game is to betray everyone else caught in the clutches of the government operating the game in the hope that you can minimize the damage government does to you. ...

[L]ibertarians like my friend Walter Williams have it upside down and backwards when they call Social Security a handout and seniors thieves for insisting on their monthly check. The problem isn’t that everyone is a thief in a fascist welfare state; it is that most everyone is a victim of the criminal enterprise called government and must defend themselves against the state—res publica culpa.


Lawrence Hunter became infamous in 2008 for endorsing Obama, here, primarily over opposition to Bush's foreign adventurism.

The whole thing is not a little ironic. Mr. Hunter allowed his rage at Bush to muddle his thinking about Obama v. McCain and pick the wrong guy. Can anyone seriously argue that the fascist welfare state would have strengthened in the exponential way it has under Obama under a president John McCain, who understood the prisoner's dilemma in fact, not just in theory?

The state? Res publica culpa.

Lawrence Hunter? Mea maxima culpa.

Sean Hannity's Libertarianism Is Stupid

The radio ad for Sean Hannity's program runs incessantly, featuring him saying, "Society doesn't need to put its seal of approval on the choices people make."

This in reference to same sex marriage.

He obviously doesn't appreciate how the government already puts its seal of approval on people's choices, and has done so for a very long time.

The most obvious social example is marriage itself, which receives a healthy tax preference in the form of the tax code's filing status "married filing jointly" . . . since the end of the Second World War! This isn't just a seal of approval. It's actually a financial encouragement to marry.

Or consider the child tax credit, which you aren't going to get without having children. With it, the government encourages the having of children.

Or the earned income credit, which you don't get unless you have some earned income. It's government's way of encouraging people who don't work at all to get a job and get work experience, on the assumption that they will move up the ladder eventually to positions which pay too much to receive the credit.

All of these things the government encourages to promote social stability in the form of nuclear families, home ownership, work, and population growth, all of which are essential to . . . tax revenue.

Giving same sex partners the same rewards as heterosexual unions ignores the fact that the former are naturally incapable of growing the population. Government has no interest in promoting the ineffectual.

"Be it then, as Sir Robert says, that anciently it was usual for men to sell and castrate their children, Observations, 155. Let it be, that they exposed them; add to it, if you please, for this is still greater power, that they begat them for their tables, to fat and eat them: if this proves a right to do so, we may, by the same argument, justify adultery, incest and sodomy, for there are examples of these too, both ancient and modern; sins, which I suppose have their principal aggravation from this, that they cross the main intention of nature, which willeth the increase of mankind, and the continuation of the species in the highest perfection, and the distinction of families, with the security of the marriage bed, as necessary thereunto."

-- John Locke

The Atlantic's Lies About Tax Loss Expenditures

The latest lazy lies attacking the so-called privileges of the so-called middle class come from one Linda Killian at The Atlantic here:

"The three largest expenditures in the tax code are all things many middle-class Americans take advantage of -- tax-free employer-provided health insurance, the home mortgage interest deduction and tax-free 401(k) retirement accounts. ... The tax exemptions for home mortgage interest cost the government more than the entire budget of the Department of Housing and Urban Development according to Steuerle [an Urban Institute economist]."

These are NOT the three largest. They rank 1, 3 and 6, not 1, 2 and 3.

If Linda Killian had bothered to read the Joint Committee on Taxation's latest report on the subject, she would have known that.

Here are the top ten tax loss expenditures for 2011, according to this committee of the US Congress:

$109.3 billion  Employer provided health insurance and related

$ 90.5 billion  Reduced tax rates on dividends and capital gains

$ 77.6 billion  Owner-occupied mortgage interest deduction

$ 59.5 billion  Earned income credit

$ 56.4 billion  Credit for children under 17 aka Child Tax Credit

$ 48.4 billion  401K-type plans

$ 42.7 billion  Pension plans aka union retirement plans

$ 42.4 billion  State/local income, sales and property tax deduct.

$ 38.0 billion  Exclusion of capital gains at death

$ 31.0 billion  Exclusion of benefits under cafeteria plans

$ 31.0 billion  Exclusion of untaxed Social Security and RR benes.

Who benefits from the top three? It's hardly a middle class phenomenon . . . today.

Rich and poor and everyone in between gets health insurance when they are employed by an employer, not just the middle class. And they don't pay tax on that "income." But the size of this break is bound to decline dramatically in coming years, if ObamaCare is not struck down or repealed. Fewer employers will be providing coverage, choosing to pay lower fines instead. Other companies will deliberately downsize in order to escape the requirements under the law, making employer-provided insurance less common than it is today. The net effect may very well be that employer-provided health insurance becomes more and more an upper class phenomenon.

Reduced rates of taxation on dividends and capital gains primarily benefit the rich in America. Could that be why Killian overlooked it entirely? It certainly doesn't fit her narrative against the middle class, does it? But this category is the real number 2 in the list of tax loss expenditures.

Working class and middle class people who are lucky enough to have joined the investor class are investing primarily through tax-deferring vehicles like union pension plans and 401K plans, which rank number 7 and 6 in Congress' accounting of tax loss expenditures. It is questionable, however, for pensions and 401Ks to appear in this list of tax loss expenditures at all. Eventually the deferred money will become income, and it will be taxed.

But the more important point is that everyone in this bottom 66 percent of wage earners by definition makes less than $100,000 per year and by and large very few of them are playing around in the stock market, where fat cats like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and Mitt Romney derive their unearned income, taxed at the non-permanent lower rates under the Bush tax legislation of 2001-2003. Were these rates permanent, however, this tax loss expenditure wouldn't even make the list.

Contrast that with something which is more or less permanent: the exclusion of income from Social Security taxation. The current income ceiling after which income is not so taxed is almost $107,000 per year. In 2010 just under $2 trillion in ordinary wages and salaries made by the rich escaped the Social Security tax. The tax loss expenditure of that? $125 billion, higher than anything in the Joint Commission's report. And it all went to the rich.

Third is the ever popular whipping boy of the tax reform crowd, the mortgage interest deduction. It should worry average Americans who struggle on the crumbs which fall from their masters' tables that our betters want to make it harder for us to own four walls and a little garden and a tree. 100 million out of 150 million wage earners in 2010 made less than $40,000 per year. Try buying a house on that.

Democrats and Republicans have successfully conspired to attack Social Security for the first time by de-funding it temporarily and haven't yet been electrocuted by the once-feared third rail of politics, so I fully expect them to keep trying on mortgage interest.

Four years ago the mortgage interest deduction was more like $88 billion, so with the collapse of housing we have witnessed a decline in the amount of mortgage interest being paid, and so deducted. $10 billion less. The reason for this is two-fold. One, fewer homeowners. Two, refinanced mortgages at lower rates. With home ownership already under severe stress, it is astonishing that liberals of both parties continue to attack it under the guise of tax fairness. What it really is, is statists greedily looking for more revenue.

I say they can all go to hell.

Romney in 2009 Openly Favored Tax Penalties To Make People Buy Health Insurance

Romney's op-ed from USA Today is reproduced here.

The relevant portion below is argued in opposition to strong efforts at the time, particularly in the US House under Nancy Pelosi, to pass a healthcare reform bill which included the public option, or government insurance.

Romney's idea, as with RomneyCare in Massachusetts, was to shun the public option in favor of mandated purchase of privately supplied health insurance, under penalty of a tax, which is what we got with the Senate version of healthcare reform now known to us as ObamaCare, under which the tax is called a fine in order for the president to be able to claim that he does not raise taxes on ordinary Americans:

"Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn’t have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn’t cost the government a single dollar."

As many have been maintaining, Romney's reasoning shows no essential disagreement with ObamaCare. Romney favors government compulsion in healthcare.

The Next Bailout: Think Fed Leverage at 53:1 is Bad? Try the FHA at 417:1.

So says Fortune (link), or else it's curtains for Ginnie Mae:

The second catalyst [for government support of housing to decline] is the FHA, which looks increasingly like it will need a bailout. In its annual report to Congress, released a few weeks ago, the FHA reported estimated economic net worth of $2.6 billion backing $1.078 trillion insurance in force, for a capital ratio of just 0.24% (or 417x leverage). One year ago, the capital ratio was 0.50%, and in 2007 it was 6.4%.  The FHA's annual report claims it's adequately capitalized, but this conclusion relies on home prices not falling at all from here. ...

The government will have to pony up to recapitalize the FHA. FHA mortgages are fed into Ginnie Mae MBS, and Ginnie Mae MBS are explicitly backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. So if the FHA runs out of funds, the government will have little choice but to step up. To do otherwise would be a default – not out of the question these days, but not very likely either.

FHA and VA loans fill void left by private lending

Dr. Housing Bubble weighs in with the big picture (link):

The trend for lower home prices has been baked in for nearly a year now. Last summer we had a mini burst of buyers thanks to artificial tax credits and low interest rates. I still view the current market as being designed for the nothing down leverage happy mentality that is present in our society. You have a large number of buyers purchasing homes with 3.5 percent down FHA mortgages and the default rates are soaring in this category. ...



Over half a decade ago I knew the bigger issue would be the cognitive dissonance that would linger from a post-bubble world. Many now realize that what occurred in the housing market was a once in a lifetime spending binge induced by debt. Yet some still think those days are only around the corner. The global debt crisis will not allow that. This is why most of the mortgage market is now dominated by the government. How many foreign governments or investors are going to trust Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley when they drop by their door steps with new mortgage backed securities? I think some have learned their lessons well and the data reflects this.


The housing market was bound to have a day of reckoning and it looks like it is slowly unraveling. It was simply impossible to have a shadow inventory growing with banks just ignoring the reality. We are now going into year five of the housing bubble bursting. You have millions of those in foreclosure who have not made a payment in one to even two years.


Ultimately the burden falls largely on the middle class. The Federal Reserve has a primary mission to protect banks. That is their bottom line. They are not looking out for the best interest of homeowners or working Americans. For the cost of the bailouts and shadow loans, they could have paid off close to every mortgage in the country. Yet even principal reductions were never on the radar because to do that, it would be to admit a financially broken system. Instead they opted to give out $7.7 trillion in backdoor loans to banks and forced the public to deal with “free market” solutions. An interesting situation no doubt but the problems we are now facing are based on this two-tiered system.



Confounded Interest points out (link) just how high the FHA default rates are:

As of October 2011 17.02% of FHA loans were at some stage of delinquency. The serious delinquency rate is 9.05%.


Clearly another government sponsored enterprise is repeating the mistakes of the past as we speak, having destroyed its capital base with non-performing loans swelling its balance sheet. FHA obviously should require down payments which are much higher than 3.5 percent in order to strengthen its bottom line, but it's probably too late to avoid bailing it out for the mistakes it has already made.

Michael Barone Joins The Liberal Chorus Attacking Progressive Taxation

You heard me right, the liberal chorus attacking the progressive tax code, in this case the progressive tax code's deductibility provisions which are . . . well, progressive.

Barone and other liberal Republicans like Pat Toomey, Gang of Sixers and Gang of Twelvers do it on the grounds that the deductions for mortgage interest and state and local taxes help the $100K+ set more.

Nevermind "the rich" already pay the vast majority of the taxes. They want to make them pay even more because . . . well, they don't really need the money, and government does! And maybe liberals will like us more.

Talk about ceding the moral high ground to the left. Who would want to go to all the trouble of becoming rich just so that they can have the privilege of paying even more of the taxes?

Nevermind that the poor own one of the biggest "tax loss expenditures" in the form of transfer payments for the Earned Income Credit and the Child Tax Credit: $109 billion. Compare that to the mortgage interest deduction's tax loss cost to the Treasury : $88 billion.

Here is Barone:

[T]he big money you can get from eliminating tax preferences comes from three provisions that are widely popular.

The three are the charitable deduction, the home mortgage interest deduction, and the state and local tax deduction. ...


[T]he vast bulk of the "tax expenditures" -- the money the government doesn't receive because taxpayers deduct mortgage interest payments from total income -- goes to high earners . . ..


Well why shouldn't they under a progressive tax system? 


There's really no difference between Michael Barone and Republican advocates for "tax reform" and Democrats like Peter Orszag, for example, who makes an argument for similarly flattening deductibility for the rich by limiting their traditional deductions enjoyed by everyone across the income spectrum. What this amounts to is an admission that the progressive deductibility which we have now does NOT go hand in hand with the tax code's progressive taxation.

The current arrangement may not seem fair to flat taxers, but it is internally consistent. If you pay progressively more in taxes, your deductions should justly be progressively worth more to you. And so they are. If you pay progressively less in taxes, your deductions should justly be worth less to you, progressively. And so they are.

Proposals to limit deductions for one class of taxpayers amount to destroying the internal coherence of the progressive tax code itself. It is nothing less than an attack on the idea of progressivity and its fair unfairness, all in the name of extracting even more from the pockets of successful people.

Sheer nincompoopery. 

Annual Cost to the Taxpayers of Earned Income and Child Tax Credits is $109 Billion

So admits the liberal Tax Policy Center, here:

Each year the earned income tax credit (EITC) and the child tax credit (CTC) deliver more than $109 billion of cash assistance, mostly to families with children.

There's corporate welfare, and then there's . . . well . . . welfare!

By contrast, the mortgage interest deduction costs the Feds about $88 billion in lost tax revenue annually.

And the rich don't pay Social Security taxes on any compensation beyond $107,000 in wages and salary each year. I estimate that loss to the Treasury at about $100 billion annually.

So, Solomon, which is worse?

Phyliss Schlafly Likes Herman Cain's Corporate Tax Reforms

As reported here:

We should reduce or eliminate taxes on businesses that employ Americans producing goods and services inside our own country, while increasing taxes on the profits that corporations earn by outsourcing or manufacturing overseas.

Above all, we should eliminate the foreign tax credit, a self-destructive provision that allows corporations to pay China, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia the money they would otherwise owe the U.S. government. Let's also cut out the deductions that U.S. corporations take for hiring foreigners to do work that Americans can do. ... 

Of Republican presidential candidates, only Herman Cain and Rick Santorum understand that what corporations need is lower taxes on their operations inside the United States rather than on the profits they earn in other countries.