Home
News Grid
Local News
- Briefs
- Obituaries
Green Hawk
Business
Politics
School Zone
- Kids Speaking Up
Nonprofits
Missing Pets
Multimedia
- Photo of the Day
- Pictures in the News
Arts
Movies
- Times
- Reviews
Outdoors
Sports
News Releases
Columnists
- Leslie Dinaberg & Zak Klobucher
- Capt. David Bacon
- Paul Burri
- Bill Cirone
- Russell Collins
- Hal Conklin & Denny Wayman
- Karen Dwyer
- Jeff Harding
- Joan Mayer
- Hospice of Santa Barbara
- Karen Telleen-Lawton
- Ken Williams
- Carrie Wilson
Blogs
- Hawks Nest
- Craig Smith
- calbuzz
- The Daily Capitalist
- Miller-McCune News
- City 2.0
- Cliff Redding
Opinions
- Lou Cannon
- Michael Barone
- Debbie Brasket
- Susan Estrich
- Jim Hightower
- Tam Hunt
- Larry Kudlow
- Michelle Malkin
- Robert Scheer
- Harris Sherline
- Mark Shields
Classifieds
Advertise
Donate
Partners
- Presidio Sports
- Santa Barbara Surfer
- SBParent.com
- Partners in Education
- United Way of Santa Barbara County

Michael Barone: Democrats Win Lobbyists But Lose Basic Reforms

Deals on health-care and carbon-control bills leave them far short of their intended goals and threaten to increase voters' cynicism

By Michael Barone | Published on 10.01.2009

As Sen. Max Baucus tries to squeeze a health-care bill out of the Senate Finance Committee, and as Sens. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry race to meet their latest deadline to introduce a bill to reduce carbon dioxide, some Democrats wonder whether their congressional leaders and the president who has deferred to them have sought only limited changes rather than more fundamental reform on both health insurance and carbon emissions.

Michael Barone

On health care, the House committees and Baucus and Christopher Dodd in the Senate health committee decided to build a makeshift addition to the health-insurance system that grew out of a tax-law decision made during World War II. That decision was to give a preference to employer-provided health insurance: The cost of insurance would be deductibles for employers and would not be counted as income for employees.

The system insulates health-care consumers from costs, with the result that insurance costs have recently crowded out wage increases. As Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden has pointed out, the tax preference is steeply regressive. High-earning employees with gold-plated, employer-provided health insurance get deductions that are worth many thousands of dollars.

Those without employer-provided health insurance, or low-earners who are among the 40 percent of earners who do not pay income tax, get exactly zero. If a Republican Congress had designed such a system, it would be attacked as a favor to the rich, and rightly so.

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama attacked John McCain’s proposal for equalizing the tax treatment of employer-provided and nonemployer-provided health insurance, and so it would be embarrassing for him to advocate such a change (though no more embarrassing than reversing the position he took last March on the war in Afghanistan).

There is, however, a ready vehicle for such a reversal, and one with bipartisan support. It’s a bill sponsored by Wyden and Republican Bob Bennett to provide equal tax treatment of health insurance and to provide more choices for consumers.

In addition, Wyden has an amendment in the Finance Committee to allow those with employer-provided insurance to get vouchers to buy insurance from the health exchanges available to those without employer-provided plans. They could buy cheaper policies and pocket the savings from expensive employer-provided options.

Labor unions, a strong Democratic constituency, want to maintain the current system because they have obtained very expensive policies for their members. But with only 8 percent of private-sector workers in unions, it seems clear that basic reforms such as Wyden’s would do more for low-earners and ordinary Americans than the Democrats’ plans.

On carbon controls, Democrats pushed through the House a bill larded with exceptions for politically well-positioned lobbies and with provisions for discouraging carbon emissions that are phased in years from now. Elaine Kamarck, one of Vice President Al Gore’s top aides during President Bill Clinton’s years, points out that a far more effective policy would be the flat-out carbon tax that Gore has long proposed. Many environmental group leaders agree.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama promised to reduce the influence of lobbyists. But on health insurance and carbon emissions, congressional Democrats and the Obama White House have been making dozens of deals with lobbyists. Those deals have left them far short of their intended goals and threaten to increase voters’ cynicism.

More fundamental reforms — eliminating the tax preference for employer-provided insurance, imposing a carbon tax — would leave voters and consumers free to adjust to change as they please, rather than trapped in systems constructed by adept lobbyists.

For those of us who are skeptical of government control of the health-insurance market, the Wyden-Bennett bill falls short of opening up the marketplace. And for those of us skeptical of the need for imposing massive costs on economic activity in order to prevent future environmental damage predicted by some but not all experts, imposing a carbon tax seems hugely unwise.

But at least those proposals address major issues in a relatively clear-cut way and tend to minimize the advantage that well-placed insiders can gain in closed-door Washington meetings. The Democrats are having trouble passing convoluted and plainly imperfect health-care and carbon-control bills. Maybe they would be better off going back to basics.

— Michael Barone is a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report and principal coauthor of The Almanac of American Politics. Click here to contact him.

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.

» local on 10.02.09 @ 05:31 AM

Mr. Barone has this backwards. If you look at the money contributed to members of the finance committee from health insurance companies it was more than double to those who voted against the public option. Eventhough 65% of the people want a public option or GOP representatives are bought and paid for by the insurance companies and will not take care of the people. I hope everyone states healthy. Read your policies carefully because the insurance companies have created many loopholes they will trigger if your illness or injury cost them money and profits. Those lifecaps or invented pre-existing conditions are their mechanism for paying themselves extremely well. The CEO of United Healthcare made over $600 million in the past couple of years.