We Can’t Afford the MaxTax
The newspapers (and some Senators) have apparently discovered what I pointed out a week ago. The MaxTax is completely unaffordable for the middle class.
Near the top of the list for the panel’s Democrats is worry that health insurance subsidies will not be sufficiently generous nor available to enough people despite the fact that the bill would legally require most people to obtain coverage. Beyond premiums, some Democrats are concerned that Baucus’s proposal would not do enough to protect middle-class families from high healthcare expenses.
"It’s very clear, at this point in the debate, the flashpoint is all about affordability,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). “I personally think there’s a lot of heavy lifting left to do on the affordability issue.”
The healthcare bills already approved by three House committees and another Senate committee offer more generous subsidies – but at a higher cost to taxpayers.
“We’re doing our very best to make an insurance requirement as affordable as we possibly can, recognizing that we’re trying to get this bill under $900 billion total,” said Baucus, who has been courting Republican support for his measure in an attempt to guarantee that a healthcare bill can achieve the 60 votes or more needed to avoid a Senate filibuster.
“I’m going to work even harder to address any legitimate affordability concerns. I knew they were there,” Baucus said.
Just as a reminder, here are the numbers I came up with last week–showing that if a middle class family had a significant (but not catastrophic) medical event under MaxTax, it might be left with as little as $7,215 to pay transportation, utilities, school, clothing, and debt.
Here’s a very rough budget for that family making $67,000 (I’m not an accountant, so tell me where my assumptions are wrong).
Federal Taxes (estimate from this page): $8,710 (13% of income)
State Taxes (using MI rates on $30,000 of income): $1,305 (2% of income)
Food (using "low-cost USDA plan" for family of four): $9,060 (13.5% of income)
Home (assume a straight 30% of income): $20,100 (30% of income)
Bad Max Tax: $20,610 (31% of income)
Total: $59,785 (89% of income)
Remainder for all other expenses (including education, clothing, existing debt, transportation, etc.): $7,215 (or 11% of income)
(Note, there was a lot of discussion about the Federal tax figure–including whether it would be lower once you account for writing off these medical costs. Since it’s a CBO number that accounts for that kind of deduction now, I think it is probably close to real.)
Of course, Baucus is going to insist on these bankruptcy-inducing figures, because he promised a bill that would cost less than $900 billion. But in his obstinance, he’s ignoring two other options. To put a cap on what insurance companies can charge. Or, to keep these costs lower by introducing a public option.
Which I guess demonstrates where Baucus’ priorities lie: in the insurance company profits, and not middle class survival.
Thanks for this post EW and for doing the math. Glad a few are waking up and smelling the coffee.
Did you read EW? Eli Lilly eyes 5500 in job cuts in order to save $1bn a year.
Gee, a public option could potentially reduce those job cuts.
An ad box just popped up from UnitedHealthcare. It states they are the number one provider for small business.
Interesting ad to see here.
You can head on over to the Google Public Policy Blog and search for their explanation of how ads are sold; I think those are Google ads and I’m assuming that United Health Care probably has a contract for any time certain keywords related to ‘health care costs’ are listed on a page.
I agree with your analysis. It is not a good idea.
Another bad idea is having the insurance changes happen before any kind of public option or co-op or exchange is set up. The insurance changes are for sure going to add to the total of health care costs–you can’t add pre-existing, no co-pays, etc. without adding more cost. With no cost lowering mechanism in place until 2013, that leaves all at the mercy of the insurance carriers in the mean time.
I really think more thought needs to be put into this thing before going ahead. Yes, the big ideas have been thought about for years, but not the details and logistics.
The Max Tax and the disconnect in time between insurance changes and beginning of any option are two examples.
Bring 50,000,000 new payers into the system and your worries would most likely melt like snow in spring. That’s what Baucus’s plan would do, and that’s why it’s a huge gift to HealthCos.
Fundamentally, people don’t seem to grasp that most health care contracts in the US are sold under what are essentially monopolistic conditions. People don’t actually have many choices — and some people with pre-existing conditions have no viable options whatsoever.
Baucus claims to ’solve’ health care by making sure everyone has insurance b/c he’ll require everyone to buy it.
That assumes that the key problem is the failure of people to all buy health insurance.
The real problem — the reason that everyone can’t buy ‘affordable’ health insurance — is because the healthCo’s function as monopolies.
The underlying problem is the issue of monopolistic conduct.
If these healthCo’s weren’t monopolies, they could not get away with paying their CEO’s as much as $25,000,000 per year.
No competitive outfit could get away with that kind of excess on CEO salaries; that’s one tip-off that these are monopolies.
The Wyden-Bennet Bill is the only one that I’m aware of in the Senate that addresses the underlying issue of monopolies.
Unfortunately, Baucus’s pseudo-solution simply appears to create even larger monopolies, which is why I don’t trust it. And Snowe’s ‘public option trigger’ is simply a way of papering over the fact that you’re turning a blind eye while monopolies continue to grow ever bigger; hardly an act of moral courage (!).
Monopolistic behavior is the underlying problem.
Even price caps won’t deal with that.
The only thing that addresses monopolistic conditions is to introduce actual, viable competition.
The Wyden-Bennet plan is the only thing that I’ve seen in the Senate that appears to address that very real, very serious problem.
If your neighbor has swine flu and no medical coverage, you can have a Cadillac plan and still be at greater risk than if everyone is covered.
IMHO, health care doesn’t fit a market model anyway, but evidently the heads in the Senate would explode over that much economic clarity. Since that’s where we are, you’d at least hope they can get their heads around the concept of breaking up monopolies.
I agree with some of what you say.
But, I don’t think it will actually bring in 50 million, and second, whoever it does bring in will also be a good dose of higher cost/higher risk people. And, if that brought down costs and premiums without any option, that doesn’t jive with the reasoning behind needing the option.
So, I think it will make it go up without any option around. And, these things always turn out worse than expected.
The second point I get from your post is the drift that this is a very complicated thing. Which is why I say the big idea has been discussed and talked about for a long time, but these details, mechanisms and logistics have not really been discussed and vetted at all. Or very little. And each Rube Goldberg proposal (Yes, I am exaggerating there, I more mean a hint of Rube Goldberg) ends up with pitfalls when exposed to a lot of informed eyes.
I think it can be done, but it really needs careful thinking and then vetting to expose and correct weaknesses–such as the Max Tax.
I think all your points are astute, and they concern me as well.
I suppose that my main concern is the fact that the minute you assume that health care delivery falls within a ‘biz model’, you’ve shot yourself in the foot at the outset.
But I agree that there has to be a lot of attention to how it actually works. As for costs, if this was thought out well enough, then it would create a lot of jobs. IMHO, we don’t pay enough recreation people, nutritionists, or others related to ‘wellness’, and we need a lot more jobs focused on helping people exercise, eat reasonably, and feel better.
Imagine if there were daily yoga or aerobics classes at local fire stations or schools around this nation — people could drop in for free on their way to or from work, and chat on the way in to class. You’d be paying part-timers to offer fitness in a simple, effective way that more people could benefit from — and the cumulative benefits would add up over time.
If you get your ‘ticket’ punched 3 or more times/week, then why not get a modest reduction on your health care costs? (Yes, there could be problems with ‘cheating’ but those are solvable.)
Not all jobs created have to be ‘family jobs’, more part-time jobs would fit a lot of lifestyles and make communities more cohesive.
Instead, we’ve limited the concept of ‘health care’ to basically the processes involved in negotiating prices for physician services, meds, and hospital services. That’s still a ’sickness model’, not a wellness model. And it’s locked into a market system, which is good for ’shareholders’ but doesn’t improve overall public health.
A cap would be useful, but run against the tide of both GOP and Blue Dog hatred for Nixonian price controls, which I don’t believe were very effective.
As you point out, a far better option would be a public option. That plays into the Right’s rhetoric (true, it’s more honored in the breach) that their mythic version of capitlalism lives and dies on open competition, replete with each player having equivalent, perfect knowledge. That’s a fantasy that doesn’t and never did exist, and is one of the problems in viewing life through a model (mathematical or conceptual).
But it also raises another point, which is open, digital disclosure of rates charged so that consumers can choose wisely, as an ancient knight might say. Choosing wisely also requires comparable disclosure of all key elements in an insurance contract – its caps, exclusions, waivers, its cancellability, transportability, etc.
A credible public option, properly administered, funded and overseen, would win hands down in an open competition with fair disclosure. As many have pointed out here, that’s precisely the kind of competition the privates don’t want and which Blue Dogs Obama and Rahm appear to have already bargained away. But it may be possible to get it back or to keep the fight going longer.
What digby said.
Except, of course, that it was dday who said it.
(Or did you mean to link to something else?)
Err. I thought it was Digby saying it. It seemed like a cogent presentation over there.
But “what Digby said” might have become a standby for “I don’t have anything original to add but want to get a comment up on the thread.”
What constitutes a sellable insurance contract needs several bouts of enhanced regulation. Perhaps that could be done at some secret location besides the White House or Las Vegas, somewhere less secret, where picking up the tab for a few empty commercials won’t be seen as quite such a boon to the health care needing public.
Nixon prolonged the Vietnam War in order to use its settlement as a re-election tool in 1972. How many died for that? George Bush went to war in order to enact neocon policies here and abroad, and to further fund and empower the surveillance state. Viewed from that narrow, brutally selfish perspective, it makes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan domestic political success, regardless of the pain and misery he inflicted and his bankruptcy of our treasury and goodwill.
Will Obama and Rahm rest their re-election on further empowering insuresters (and earlier, banksters)? Or will they rest them on traditional Democratic priorities of empowering the people who elect them by making them healthier and more secure? Blue Dog ‘Bama and Rahm may want the former; insistent pushing and forced disclosure of bad deals may help keep us from the edge they seem intent on pushing us toward.
Most of the media commenters that I’ve seen seem to think it will be 1994 all over again if the GOP manages to ‘kill’ health care.
They’re not looking at the demographics of the nation, and also the demographics of Obama’s most fervent supporters: young people. I have the very strong sense that the 20-somethings and 30-somethings are beyond ‘fed up’ with this kind of GOP-Dem tantrum-throwing.
If you are in your 20s today, you’re looking at a possibility of a 50% liklihood of contracting some form of cancer in your lifetime. You’re being asked to bail out the banks that sent you too damn many credit card offers in the first place, and you have to figure out how to deal with college — or education (technology programs, certification programs) — that are going to cost you a greater portion of your wealth than your parents paid.
I think the GOP is walking right off the gangplank.
I seriously doubt the 20-somethings that I hear are all that unusual, and they have zero time and patience with this ongoing tit-for-tat.
The GOP is acting suicidally.
And too many in the media don’t seem to get that fact; they take all their analogies from the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s, which was economically and demographically remarkably different from what we’re looking at going forward.
Many 20 somethings are without insurance…many have “starter jobs” that do not provide good insurance. This is huge. They may not be sick now but most of them are smart enough to know that they are one medical emergency away from starting out their lives in financial ruin.
I do think that fear is very real for them…they are feeling this one.
Your perspective synchs with what I’ve seen.
If you have access that enables you to view online video, you might find this of interest from earlier today.
One more reason the GOP is walking off the gangplank to oblivion. What are they offering the 20-somethings, apart from racist screeds, a complete clusterf*ck on pollution and environmental regs, using tax money to bail out banksters, huge war debt, and no medical?
If I wasn’t watching this play out, I’d find it hard to believe that a national political party could actually be this suicidal.
Howard Dean seems to be more astute about these demographic attitudes than any other public speaker that I’ve seen, FWIW.
This just hit me, so FWIW:
GOP: The AIG of political parties.
We profit; you pay. And pay. And pay.
Baucus seems to have enculturated by the GOP mindset. Appalling.
ROTL, I generally agree with your analysis here, but I wonder about the continuing enthusiasm of people in their 20s and 30s for Obama. It seems to me that his actions thus far have not been very helpful to them, and that his actions on health care reform have also not shown that he supports their interests rather than those of the insurance companies. If they don’t stick with him they could be important constituencies for a third party.
And, FWIW, does anyone believe Spineless Harry Reid isn’t (a) looking, on the one hand, at his poll numbers and, on the other, at the pay his former senatorial colleagues get for lobbying and (b) thinking that tanking the remaining year-plus of his term in favor of future lobbying clients might not be such a bad idea for his wallet? And a lot lighter lifting, too?
Would you really want Harry Reid to lobby for you? Harry Reid could not talk an alcohoic into taking a drink.
No, people would be volunteering to drink so they could ignore Harry.
But think of all those middle-class 401(k)’s that will benefit.
Anybody have a link to the actual bill draft that Baucus supposedly released today?
I can’t find it here, fwiw:
Nor here (again, fwiw).
Maybe it’ll be posted tomorrow.
I’ve seen reports that it actually wont’ come until Monday.
While I was trying to find the info for TarheelDem, I read somewhere that it would be “later this week”. Of course, your info is probably much fresher.
O/T (Old Topic).
Secretive spending on US intelligence disclosed
15 Sep 2009 17:49:48 GMT
By Adam Entous
WASHINGTON, Sept 15 (Reuters) – “Intelligence activities across the U.S. government and military cost a total of $75 billion a year, the nation’s top intelligence official said on Tuesday, disclosing an overall number long shrouded in secrecy.
“Dennis Blair, the U.S. director of national intelligence, cited the figure as part of a four-year strategic blueprint for the sprawling, 200,000-person intelligence community.
“In an unclassified version of the blueprint released by Blair’s office, intelligence agencies singled out as threats Iran’s nuclear program, North Korea’s “erratic behavior,” and insurgencies fueled by militant groups, though Blair cited gains against al Qaeda.”
That divides out to $375,000 per person, so way more than half the budget goes to non-agency service personnel (contractors), computers, airplanes, fuel, buildings, etc. fwiw
But, via Jonathan Cohn, here’s some more details. Note those numbers are for 2013, so they don’t accord with what I’ve got here. But we would have to increase all the other estimates accordingly, as well, if we were to use 2013 dollars.
Shitski, it’s beginning to look like the fucking IRS Code…
A whole cottage industry will spring up.
I wonder how much of the government’s role in these health care reforms that Max Tax and Obama plan to outsource to the privates? Why should mercenaries be limited to guns when they can monopolize butter, too?
Excellent point [email protected] Thanks for elaborating it. The monopoly starts with all employees, sometimes thousands or tens of thousands of them, of an employer having to use the same insurance provider and its “in service networks” (under penalty of finding care too expensive to use). It extends to large municipal and state markets and interstate regions. With that market power comes deals (and sometimes kickbacks) from drugs and medical device companies, testing labs, hospitals and medical professionals – and the shutting out of those professionals who refuse to get with the program and those professionals, chiropractors, for example, who those inside the program want to exclude.
We need more competition, but individual consumers will never know enough to drive it. Obtaining it will require the involvement of a large player like a public insurer, which doesn’t have a stake in any one game so much as it does in changing the game.
Shit doesn’t stick to Republicans. Look at the Newtster, Vitter, Santorum, Rove. It’s the Democrats who will be acting suicidally if they pass bad legislation that achieves little except to enact legally mandated subsidies for existing, unreformed insurers and what they sell. It is they who will pay the price for it. In one fell swoop they will manage to tar and feather themselves, health care reform, the notion of government as reformer, and the middle class. An own goal that will look to a Buddhist monk like self-immolation.
Is it even worthwhile trying to do this kind of analysis for the House bill, or it such a non-starter that it would be a waste?
My understanding (take with a truck’s worth of salt) is that the House plans are in fact viable; that’s Grassley’s excuse, for instance, for acting like a spoiled child and stomping his feet in refusing to even consider a Public Option for health care.
Grassley and McConnell seem to be saying that no GOP Senator can possibly (as in Drama Queen ‘possibly!’) vote for a Senate bill b/c then it would go to reconciliation, where those lib’rul House Dems will slip in a Public Option.
This from a man who turned a blind eye to a gutted SEC, supported invading Iran, and didn’t have the balls to separate himself from Sarah Palin’s ‘death panels’ claims.
I gather that the bill that passed through the House Comm on Commerce, etc, etc is possibly pretty decent and still contains some whiff of Public Option, but I’d have to double-check the facts on that b/c it’s been a few days…
Meanwhile, I’m with EOH: the GOP is self-destructing on this one, and they don’t know it. Weird to watch.
Ian did it. It works out to $4,000, which is still shitty, but probably make or break for these families. It’d give them a whopping $11,000 to spend on everything ELSE.
There are punishments for acting against your country in time of war and disaster. Mr. Baucus is asking for them to be put to the test. War Profiteers are often summarily executed when the proof of their deeds comes to light. People being killed or billed so he can personally make money on every one of their payments is repulsive, and illegal. It is called bribery.
Senator Baucus; You are under arrest for Bribery, conspiracy to commit fraud, selling your vote in the senate to a company paying you directly for that vote for their monetary benefit and yours. I expect you to surrender to state or federal authorities immediately or you will be taken into custody by any number of people considering your crimes are both state and federally mandated. Since your crimes involve murder of your own constituents, there is a warning of your danger to the community posted and you are considered armed and dangerous as a result of the murder charges pending.
You have 24 hours to turn yourself in. A tribunal will be convened to consider the charges against you. You are not entitled to a court hearing in this manner as it is not proscribed for treason in a manner as heinous as you have committed. You are now considered an enemy combatant and an agent of a foreign power trying to usurp the role of the senate of the United States of America and will be taken in to custody accordingly.
Did I missing anything important while I’ve been off camping and fishing in the Boundary Waters?
Hmmm…looks like the same ol’ stuff of the public getting rolled by the Beltway Banditos to me.
Sort of, except it may be that the public — what with the One Year Anniversary of the Meltdown, and finding out that all those toxic assets are still on the books — may be getting seriously pissed off about the ongoing banditry.
So I suppose you’re back with some Big Fish Tales?
And even bigger mosquito tales. *g*
Why they were so big, they had to take off and land on aircraft carriers.
Those moquitoes were as big as elephants. And the elephants…you don’t want to know! *g*
Them mosquitos and no-see-ums may be needing some Keith Richards like blood transfusions themselves ya know. Think of the poor buggies! Welcome home MD!
The mosquitoes were bad! The ginormous biting black flies were bad! But the friggin’ worst were those no-see-ums!
It wasn’t too bad when out on the lakes, but when portaging or otherwise on shore during the day, one had best make sure to roll sleeves all the way down, tuck pants into socks, and don the mosquito-netted hat.
Leaving any skin unprotected was guarenteed to get you chewed on, and chewed good!
A campfire at night with its smoke helped, but even then one wore the mosquito-netted hat until the temp went down below biting levels.
Or at least until the peppermint schnaps took effect. *g*
And this is what counts as “vacation” in the “northern tier”?
Count me out.
And we Minnesotans even go fishing in winter.
Talk about fun. What’s not to like standing in the middle of a frozen lake during a blizzard at 20 below and catching eelpout, a fish so ugly that even its mother would toss it back?
Other than that, we’re mostly normal. *g*
Oh, you had B52 mosquitoes!
And they were carpet-bombing day and night. *g*
I’ve mashed some in the past. Messy! (It was too full of blood to escape.)
Well, not really, but a couple of commenters noted your absence and started to worry.
Can you at least leave a note to tell us where you’ve gone in case we need to find you?
Jeebus. Just because you’re retired doesn’t mean you can go leaving the community in the lurch!!
Hope you had fun!!
Lurch was here, and I missed him? Oh noes! LOL!
Note to self: Leave note next time. On refrigerator? Under pillow? Slip under blog door?
Another note to self: Find out where to leave note. *g*
Hey, welcome back!
I was just asking about you the other day!
(re EW @ 44 – I confess, I was one of those commenters!)
Tis nice to be welcomed back. Bug bites and all. *g*
WaPo joins in
although they frame it as ‘addressing GOP fears’ – oy
OT – Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair has another declaration (4 page PDF) up at EFF on the Al Haramain case in which he continues to hem and haw about that “inaccuracy contained in a prior submission by the Government”:
And I wonder if the following statement of DNI Blair is not an “admission against interests” in the government’s case:
OT — OMG what is happening with the Wilson censure vote? Massive movement to Not Voting column. Who’s getting punk’d here?
OT still — Back to Yeas now, and the time’s been extended…?
O/T (Old Topic) Oh-noes.
Obama supports extending Patriot Act provisions
By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer – 42 mins ago
WASHINGTON – “The Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, the Justice Department told Congress in a letter made public Tuesday.”
O/T. Depression taking its toll?
NY investment manager found dead in Mass.
President and CEO of investment manager Rockefeller & Co. found dead in Mass.
By Mark Pratt, Associated Press Writer
On Tuesday September 15, 2009, 1:08 pm EDT
BOSTON (AP) — “James S. McDonald, president and chief executive of investment management firm Rockefeller & Co., has died of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound, Massachusetts authorities said Tuesday.
“McDonald, 56, was found in his vehicle at about 3 p.m. Sunday behind a car dealership in Dartmouth, about 50 miles south of Boston, said Gregg Miliote, a spokesman for the Bristol district attorney’s office.”
*droning on …* It’s not the Public Option, it’s The Public Solution. “Public” is the ONLY way out of this mess.
I don’t see the deduction for social security – seven percent of income if I remember right, and if you own a home there is real estate taxes – one to two percent of property value.
Quick comment before reading the previous comments:
Thanks for beating this drum, Marcy. Obama’s staff need to know that he’s going to have trouble re-electing the people who vote for this bill, unless he addresses the affordability option among others.
What the hexx can one expect from a bill written by Republicans and industry lobbyists? When will the WH get it that the public option is the one thing that can make the plan affordable?
Bob in AZ
O/T (Old Topic) From the “Soooo, how’s that werking out for ya?” Dept.
U.S. says banks getting help cut lending in July
Tue Sep 15, 2009 5:53pm EDT
WASHINGTON, Sept 15 (Reuters) – “The U.S. Treasury Department said on Tuesday that banks receiving government bailout funds cut their new lending by 10 percent in July.”
Badmaxtax on crax. sorry.. couldn’t resist.
It seems to me that any reformed insurance system should have rates that are highly means-qualified and graduated? The requirement to obtain coverage is necessary, but the subsidy for what mandatory coverage costs has to be highly means-adjusted. The poor and lower middle class should be able to obtain coverage (whether from a public or a private plan) at VERY subsidized rates (nearly free, subsidized in turn by fairly expensive coverage for households with higher incomes and perhaps even with an asset test). If they still refuse to pay, then they should be fined, but the fines should be proportional to what that coverage would’ve cost them in the first place (which is very little). It seems to me that a highly graduated and means-qualified system should be the very first thing this plan does – make healthcare affordable for the people who can least afford it. I hate to say it, but people like me, who have small families or are single householders and have somewhat higher incomes, should continue to pay what we (and our employers) pay today.
In case us DFHs didn’t already get the memo – the rules are different for Democrats.
Even when Democrats are making the rules.
And who the hell picked Douglas Elmendorf as head of the CBO anyway?
Which I guess demonstrates where Baucus’ priorities lie: in the insurance company profits, which would make all of us medieval class non-survival. This is what they really want!
Spencer Ackerman is upstairs!
And If You Talk About The Evil That The Government Does, The Patriot Act’ll Track You To The Type Of Your Blood
The only thing I see wrong with your figures is that I think your tax levels are a little low. I usually estimate 20-22% withholding (which includes SSI & Medicare as well as Federal taxes) from my paycheck (and come within spitting distance of the actual total). I do get some back at the end of the tax year, but it isn’t anywhere near 7% of my income.
If you use my figure of keeping 78%, your family at $67,000 gets to keep $52,260 after withholding and then we go from there. TX doesn’t have an income tax (we make up for it in property and other various regressive taxes instead), so lets leave that out for now but keep your other figures as they seem in line with the real world to me. Add in $9,060 for food, $21,100 for house note (I’m assuming PMI is included), and Bad Max Tax of $20,610.
By my calculations, that means we’ve spent $64,510 and haven’t begun paying for cars, gasoline, school supplies for the kids, utilities, existing debt and so on. I don’t think that can be done for $2,490 (electricity in most parts of TX in the summer is between $400 and $750 per month for July, August and September, and believe me, you don’t really want to try and live here without AC, especially if you work on computers all day like me). I estimate that I spend $4,000 for electricity for a year, and we haven’t even begun on water & sewer, natural gas, Internet access (required for people who work from home, so not optional), auto payment, auto insurance(!), gasoline and more.
Actually, the projected federal tax is too high. It doesn’t properly take into account the elevated itemized deductions that will result from the Bad Max Tax.
Does anyone recall that we threw $700 billion down that rathole known as TARP?
So we’re whining over $900 billion, for something that would benefit the entire COUNTRY, not just a handful of ultra over-compensated executives?
And that is over 10 years! Friggin’ peanuts!
This will not improve your mood, but go here for more info on the TARP wealth transfer (from us to “Them”). If you get the mag, following this article is an entire one on Paulson (a number one barf stimulus for me), and there’s also one by Levi Johnston (of Sarah P. “fame”).
Succeeding new Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, Elmendorf joined the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as the struggling economy commanded much of Congress’ time. Like Orszag, he comes from the liberal think-tank the Brookings Institution, and was the former director of the Hamilton Project, which focuses on economic policy at Brookings.
Elmendorf plans to continue what Orszag began as CBO head, including contributing to the CBO “Director’s Blog” and evaluating health-care reform’s impact on the national budget. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate Robert C. Byrd (D-WestVa.) selected Elmendorf after getting recommendations from the House and Senate Budget Committees.
The House and Senate switch who takes charge in selecting a new CBO director; Pelosi took the lead in selecting Elmendorf.“Pelosi and Spratt Statement on New Director of the Congressional Budget Office” Press Release, Dec. 30, 2008(1)“Pelosi and Spratt Statement on New Director of the Congressional Budget Office” Press Release, Dec. 30, 2008 ___________________whorunsgov.com
Douglas W. Elmendorf – WhoRunsGov.comJul 16, 2009 … Douglas W. Elmendorf is an important figure in US politics. Distilled, up-to-date, and accurate information on Douglas W. Elmendorf.
http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Douglas_W._Elmendorf – Cached – Similar
The middle class can not afford healthcare now. I am really worried that my family is going to be priced out of our healthcare if we have to pay much more.
The idea that private corporate profit has to be protected by law has a name doesn’t it?
“The idea that private corporate profit has to be protected by law has a name doesn’t it?”
LindaR, keep driving that point home. Please!