November, 13 2017, 02:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Michelle Bazie,202-408-1080,bazie@cbpp.org
The House Republican Tax Plan Is Fiscally Irresponsible
The tax bill approved by the House Ways and Means Committee on November 9 is fiscally irresponsible. The bill would cost nearly $1.5 trillion over the decade, according to Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates. But provisions in the bill that would phase in slowly or expire after several years obscure the bill's true cost and would almost certainly drive the ultimate cost even higher.
WASHINGTON
The tax bill approved by the House Ways and Means Committee on November 9 is fiscally irresponsible. The bill would cost nearly $1.5 trillion over the decade, according to Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates. But provisions in the bill that would phase in slowly or expire after several years obscure the bill's true cost and would almost certainly drive the ultimate cost even higher.
Further, the costs would continue beyond the ten-year window shown in the official cost estimates, adding substantially to the nation's debt burden. A new analysis by Penn Wharton economists that also takes into account the bill's effects on the economy and the interest burden from higher debt levels estimates that it would add roughly $3 trillion to the debt between 2018 and 2037.
Current Fiscal Outlook Doesn't Support House Bill's Irresponsible Tax Cuts
Today's tax debates are taking place in a substantially different fiscal environment than when past tax cuts were debated. Compared to 1981, when the Reagan tax cuts were passed, and 2001, when the Bush tax cuts were enacted, revenues today are lower and the debt held by the public is considerably higher, measured as a percent of the economy. (See Figure 1.)
In 2001, the federal government was running a surplus, the federal debt was shrinking, and large surpluses were forecast for the coming decade. Today's fiscal outlook is the opposite.And the budget outlook is vastly different, particularly compared to when the 2001 Bush tax cuts were being considered.[1] In 2001, the federal government was running a surplus, the federal debt was shrinking, and large surpluses were forecast for the coming decade. Today's fiscal outlook is the opposite: deficits are growing and the debt is projected to rise from today's 77 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 91 percent in 2027, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), due to rising health care and other costs associated with the retirement of baby boomers, as well as the significant ongoing costs of the Bush tax cuts. (See Figure 2.)
Despite these looming fiscal pressures, congressional Republican leaders have abandoned their earlier pledges to pursue revenue-neutral tax reform. Instead, they're aggressively advancing a costly tax cut. Together, the bill's revenue loss and associated debt service costs would add $1.7 trillion to deficits and debt between 2018 and 2027, and would bring the debt to 97 percent of GDP by 2027.
Bill's True Cost Is Higher Than Advertised
The bill's cost is almost certainly understated in these estimates, however, because two of its major provisions would sunset (i.e., end) in 2023, in order to artificially hold down the bill's cost so that it complies with the rules established in the fiscal year 2018 congressional budget resolution, which restrict the size of the tax cut in this bill to $1.5 trillion over ten years.[2] These two provisions are:
A new $300 non-refundable tax credit for non-child dependents. This provision helps protect many middle-income people from facing a tax increase due to other provisions in the bill, such as the elimination of the personal exemption. But under the bill, this provision is slated to expire in 2023. That's a major reason that the number of people facing tax increases would rise over time, according to the JCT estimates. In response, Chairman Brady and other Republican lawmakers have said explicitly that policymakers would come back and extend the provision before it expires[3] -- essentially acknowledging that the scheduled expiration of this tax credit in 2023 is a budget gimmick.
A generous deduction for business investments. The bill would let businesses deduct the cost of certain investments -- such as in factories and equipment-- in the year in which they're made, instead of following the current practice of deducting their cost over time as the factories and equipment wear out (i.e., as they "depreciate" or decline in value). This provision, known as "full expensing," would start immediately but then expire in 2023. With full expensing removed, businesses would pay more in tax than they would otherwise, as they couldn't deduct depreciation costs on investments they've already fully expensed. That's one of the main reasons that the JCT estimates show the bill's business provisions causing a tax increase on businesses in 2023.[4] Policymakers would very likely extend this provision, just as they have extended similar so-called "temporary" provisions that give businesses more generous deductions for investments in buildings and equipment.[5]
While there are no JCT estimates of the cost of extending these two provisions, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that continuing them after their expiration in 2023 would add roughly $400 billion to the cost of the bill over the decade.[6] These additional costs and the associated debt service would boost the debt-to-GDP ratio to 99 percent by 2027.
House Bill's Tax Cuts Would Have Substantial Long-Run Effects
The bill's cost will continue beyond 2027, adding to the nation's debt for years to come, a new analysis by economists at the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model finds.[7] The Bush tax cuts -- which were first enacted in 2001 and then mostly made permanent following the "fiscal cliff" debate at the end of 2012 -- provide an important lesson, as they represent a permanent loss of revenue that continues to add to the debt. (See box.) The cost of the Bush tax cuts, as amended, from 2001-2018 accounts for about one-third of the entire $15 trillion debt held by the public in 2018, we estimated in a 2013 study.[8]
Supporters of the House tax bill often claim that its positive effects on the economy will counter its large revenue losses, effectively removing any impact on the deficit. But the Penn Wharton estimates conclude otherwise. They estimate that the bill would increase the size of the economy above current projections by between 0.33 percent and 0.83 percent by 2027 -- meaning it would only add between 0.04 percent and 0.1 percent to economic growth each year, on average. Further, the Penn Wharton study concludes that "this small boost fades over time, due to rising debt. By 2040, GDP may even fall below current policy's GDP."[9] Even after taking the bill's growth effects into account, Penn Wharton finds it would add roughly $3 trillion to the debt in the next ten-year period (2028-2037) beyond the official budget window.
Other estimates, such as those by the Tax Foundation, show higher economic growth effects from the House bill than Penn Wharton.[10] But the Tax Foundation's estimating model relies on assumptions that are well outside the economic mainstream. [11] For instance, the Tax Foundation makes very aggressive assumptions about how certain tax changes affect decisions to work, save, and invest and thereby generates outsized estimates of the responses to various tax policy changes. It also ignores any impact of unpaid-for tax cuts on budget deficits and debt; in contrast, CBO and JCT assume, based on the empirical evidence, that higher deficits lead to a reduction in national savings and investment, ultimately lowering future economic output compared to what it otherwise would be. Yet even with these larger growth effects, the Tax Foundation still shows that the bill would fall far short of paying for itself, adding $1 trillion to deficits over the first ten years. (President Trump's Council of Economic Advisers also claims that a tax cut like the House bill would have large growth effects, particularly on workers' wages, but mainstream economists have sharply criticized those estimates as being highly implausible.[12])
Long-Run Effects of Tax Bills in the House and Senate
The tax bill is being considered under the special budget "reconciliation" process, but different rules apply to reconciliation bills in the House and Senate. In particular, certain rules, named after former Senator Robert Byrd, apply to Senate consideration of reconciliation bills.a
For example, while both houses have the same reconciliation instruction directing that the bill cannot cost more than $1.5 trillion over the 2018-2027 period, the two chambers face different requirements in the period after 2027. In the House, there are no restrictions on revenue losses after the ten-year window. But, in the Senate, one part of the Byrd rule prohibits an increase in the deficit in any year after 2027. Thus, the House bill as it now stands -- which has large revenue losses beyond the ten-year window, as the Penn Wharton analysis shows -- would violate the Senate's Byrd rule, which requires 60 votes to waive.
The Senate will need to take steps to address these out-year costs to avoid a Byrd-rule violation. The 2001 Bush tax cuts faced the same out-year problem, and policymakers chose to finesse it by sunsetting all of the provisions in the bill before the end of the ten-year window. That sunset, however, was an artificial constraint on the long-run cost of the Bush tax cuts. Policymakers subsequently continued the vast majority of the tax cuts on a permanent basis, rather than let them expire. When assessing the cost of any tax-cut bill that includes sunsets purely to comply with budget rules, history suggests that a much clearer picture of the bill's long-run effects requires assuming that policymakers will extend most or all the provisions beyond their sunset dates and likely make them permanent.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is one of the nation's premier policy organizations working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals.
LATEST NEWS
'Two Genocidaires v. the World': US, Israel Oppose Lifting Cuba Blockade
"The world has spoken—it's time for the U.S. to listen and lift the blockade."
Oct 30, 2024
The United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday once again overwhelmingly urged the U.S. government to end its decadeslong blockade on Cuba, with just the United States and Israel voting against the measure and Moldova abstaining.
The UNGA's other 187 members present voted to adopt the nonbinding resolution on "the necessity of ending the economic, commercial, and financial embargo imposed by the United States" against the Caribbean island.
This is the 32nd straight year that the U.N. body has approved a resolution against the embargo that began in 1962.
"The U.S. and Israel stand isolated as the only two votes against," Democratic Socialists of America's International Committee said after the Wednesday vote. "The world has spoken—it's time for the U.S. to listen and lift the blockade."
Though a few other nations have
opposed the resolution over the years, Michael Galant of Progressive International and the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that this vote was "two genocidaires v. the world."
Israel faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its yearlong assault of the Gaza Strip, which has killed at least 43,163 Palestinians and injured another 101,510, according to local officials in the Hamas-governed enclave. The U.S. Congress and Biden administration have given Israel billions of dollars in weapons and opposed U.N. cease-fire resolutions.
CodePink's Medea Benjamin responded to the Wednesday vote with a video shared on social media, saying that Israel "loves blockades, because it's doing its own blockade of Gaza," and "is dependent on the United States to carry out its genocide."
"Now this is not just some idle vote," she said of the approved resolution. "This blockade that the U.S. maintains is a form of economic warfare. It's no exaggeration to say that now, when there is an economic crisis in Cuba, the U.S. blockade, which keeps Cuba from using the financial markets, from having normal trade with countries all over the world, is actually leading to deaths, leading to people going hungry, leading to people lacking food and medicine that are essential for their lives."
"And that's why the United States must be condemned for this ongoing horrific, inhumane, and illegal blockade," Benjamin added.
Cuba's representative delivered similar remarks to the UNGA on Wednesday. As
Reutersreported:
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez said in a speech before the assembly that what is often referred to as the U.S. trade embargo is a "blockade" because the web of laws and regulations complicate financial transactions and the acquisition of goods and services not just from the United States but internationally.
"The blockade against Cuba is an economic, financial, and trade war which qualifies as genocide," said Rodriguez, charging the U.S. policies were deliberately aimed at promoting suffering among the Cuban people to force change in the government.
Some international observers praised the countries who did condemn the blockade. Middle East expert Assal Rad declared, "This is the real international community."
Manolo De Los Santos, a founder of the People's Forum and a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, said that "this overwhelming consensus is in contrast with the indifference of the United States, which continues to deny any responsibility for sanctions while tightening its stranglehold on Cuba."
Earlier this month, the People's Forum published a letter in The New York Times to U.S. President Joe Biden, warning that he has "exactly 90 days to reverse" former Republican President Donald Trump's "brutal policy on Cuba."
Biden was vice president a decade ago when then-President Barack Obama "opened a hopeful new chapter in U.S.-Cuba relations by taking the first steps toward normalization," the letter details. "People in both countries were optimistic that Cuba and the United States could become neighbors rather than Cold War enemies. However, Trump dismantled that policy, imposing pain and suffering on the Cuban people."
"Removing the state sponsors of terrorism designation would allow Cuba to engage in financial transactions and restore its electrical grid, as well as address shortages of food and medicine to alleviate the immense hardship faced by the Cuban people, who have endured over 62 years of economic strife under the embargo," the letter adds. "It's time to act. Let Cuba live!"
Biden faced similar pressure in August, when hundreds of legal experts and groups called on him "to comply with existing international law by ending the use of broad unilateral coercive measures" particularly in "cases such as Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela."
The U.N. vote comes as early voting is underway for the November 5 election in which Trump is facing Biden's vice president, Kamala Harris.
Neither campaign provided details on each candidate's position when contacted by Reuters earlier this week, though Morgan Finkelstein, national security spokesperson for Harris, said that the Democrat "stands with the people of Cuba as they fight for their rights after decades of repression and economic suffering at the hands of the communist regime" and "will stand up to all authoritarians—including the very leaders that Trump has praised and embraced."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Details Record-Breaking Health Threats of Climate Crisis, Fossil Fuel Subsidies
"No individual or economy on the planet is immune from the health threats of climate change," said a lead researcher.
Oct 30, 2024
Over $1 trillion spent each year on subsidizing fossil fuel production must be redirected to public health efforts, said the experts behind a new annual report monitoring progress on the climate and global health.
The 2024 Report of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change, published Tuesday in The Lancet by the Lancet Countdown at Universiy College London (UCL), found that delayed action on the climate emergency is exposing people across the globe to record-breaking threats, with 10 of 15 indicators showing that specific health threats have reached "concerning new levels."
"This year's stocktake of the imminent health threats of climate inaction reveals the most concerning findings yet in our eight years of monitoring," said Marina Romanello, executive director of the Lancet Countdown and a senior research fellow at UCL. "Once again, last year broke climate change records—with extreme heatwaves, deadly weather events, and devastating wildfires affecting people around the world."
With 2023 named the hottest year on record earlier this year by the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service, the researchers behind the new report found that the average person experienced an additional 50 days of dangerously hot weather that would not have happened without fossil fuel extraction heating the planet.
Heat-related deaths among people over age 65 reached the highest level ever recorded, 167% higher than in the 1990s and more than double the 65% increase that was expected if temperatures hadn't changed since then.
An additional 151 million people across 124 countries experienced moderate or severe food insecurity last year, an increase that was associated with extreme drought that affected almost half of global land area.
"We must cure the sickness of climate inaction—by slashing emissions, protecting people from climate extremes, and ending our fossil fuel addiction."
Changing climate conditions across the globe and the flooding that has come with more frequent hurricanes and tropical storms are also fueling a rise in the transmission of infectious diseases like dengue fever, according to the Lancet Countdown, and warmer coastal waters contributed a record-high number of cases of the bacterial infection vibriosis last year.
"The mosquitoes that spread infections like dengue fever epidemics are reaching new countries, and gradually moving north," said Anthony Costello, a professor at UCL Institute for Global Health and co-chair of the countdown.
But despite those indicators and others, said Romanello, "we see financial resources continue to be invested in the very things that undermine our health."
Researchers expressed optimism about rising investments in renewable energy, but warned that new fossil fuel investment accounted for more than a third of new energy spending in 2023, and 84% of world governments continue to subsidize fossil fuel production despite clear warnings from scientists that oil and gas extraction have no place on a pathway to limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C.
Governments are "in effect paying an estimated $1.4 trillion dollars per year to worsen the crisis," reportedThe Hill.
Meanwhile, "only 68% of countries reported high-to-very-high implementation of the legally mandated capacities to manage health emergencies in 2023," according to the Lancet Countdown. Just 35% of countries reported having early warning healthcare systems for heat-related illness.
"No individual or economy on the planet is immune from the health threats of climate change," said Romanello. "The relentless expansion of fossil fuels and record-breaking greenhouse gas emissions compounds these dangerous health impacts and is threatening to reverse the limited progress made so far and put a healthy future further out of reach."
Total carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion reached nearly 40 gigatonnes last year, a 1.1% increase from 2022, contributing to high levels of air pollution as well as changing climate conditions.
"National-level net subsidies exceeded 10% of national health spending in 55% of the countries, and 100% in 27% of them," reads a visual summary of the report. "These funds could be redirected towards supporting the transition to clean energy sources, protect vulnerable populations from soaring climate change risks, and enable a healthy future."
Redirecting fossil fuel subsidies "would provide the opportunity to deliver a fair, equitable transition to clean energy and energy efficiency, and a healthier future, ultimately benefiting the global economy," said Romanello.
Released less than two weeks before world governments are set to convene in Azerbaijan for the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29), where climate finance is expected to be a key issue, the report calls for "new strategies and finance for implementation" in order to protect global public health from climate disasters.
"These must acknowledge climate change's effects on health and related systems, assess risks and vulnerabilities, and incorporate resilience to shocks," reads a joint brief by the Lancet Countdown and Médecins Sans Frontières, also called Doctors Without Borders. "Adequate, predictable, and unified climate finance for adaptation and technical support is urgently needed to enable ministries of health and their implementing partners to adopt forward-thinking strategies, integrate anticipatory actions, and enhance flexibility and agility in their operating models."
U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said the report shows "we must cure the sickness of climate inaction—by slashing emissions, protecting people from climate extremes, and ending our fossil fuel addiction—to create a fairer, safer, and healthier future for all."
To shift resources toward a "zero-emissions future," said Costello, "people's health must be put front and center of climate change policy to ensure the funding mechanisms protect well-being, reduce health inequities and maximize health gains, especially for the countries and communities that need it most."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Warn of 'Rampant' Medicare Advantage Abuses as Trump's GOP Aims to Boost For-Profit Plans
"Many of these plans are a maze of prior authorization word salad designed to deny seniors the coverage they're already paying for," said Sen. Ron Wyden.
Oct 30, 2024
A trio of leading congressional Democrats expressed alarm Wednesday about increasingly widespread abuses and care denials by for-profit Medicare Advantage insurers as allies of GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump aim to massively expand the for-profit program.
"We are writing to express our concerns on ongoing problems with Medicare Advantage (MA) that seem to be getting worse," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), and Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter to Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
"We are concerned that in many instances MA plans are failing to deliver, compromising timely access to care, and undermining the ability of seniors and Americans with disabilities to purchase the coverage that’s right for them," the Democratic lawmakers continued. "We continue to hear alarming reports from seniors and their families, beneficiary advocates, and healthcare providers that MA plans are falling short, and finding a good plan is too difficult."
Wyden, Pallone, and Neal pointed specifically to MA plans' growing use of prior authorization, a complex, barrier-ridden process whereby doctors must demonstrate a proposed treatment is medically necessary before the insurer will cover it.
The process is notorious for harming patients—sometimes fatally—but 99% of MA enrollees are required to obtain prior authorization for at least some medical services, according to the health policy research group KFF.
"Overuse of prior authorization is not only harmful to patients, it hinders healthcare providers' ability to offer best-in-class service," the congressional Democrats wrote, pointing to MA plans' increasing use of artificial intelligence-backed algorithms to decide whether to accept or deny patients' coverage claims.
The lawmakers also voiced concerns about MA plans' deceptive marketing practices—which are particularly dangerous to people with disabilities, as they could potentially be duped into enrolling in an MA plan that doesn't meet their health needs.
"We call on CMS to use every regulatory, oversight, and enforcement tool at the agency's disposal to rein in rampant misuse of prior authorization, simplify the experience of choosing a Medicare plan, and put an end to rampant marketing abuses," the lawmakers wrote.
The Democrats' call for a crackdown on MA abuses stands in stark contrast to a plan put forth by Project 2025, which has proposed making Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option for the nation's seniors—a change that one critic said would mean "destroying Medicare as we know it" while providing a huge boon to private insurance companies.
Though Trump has attempted to distance himself from Project 2025, some 140 people who served in his first administration helped craft the far-right agenda, and one architect of the proposals said earlier this year that the Republican nominee is "very supportive of what we do."
The Guardian's Jessica Glenza reported this past weekend that "one of Republicans' only healthcare policy specifics involves further privatizing" Medicare by boosting Medicare Advantage, privately run plans that have proven significantly more costly than traditional Medicare without obvious improvements in quality of care—leading some experts to call for the program's abolition.
Glenza noted that Project 2025's healthcare proposals were authored by Roger Severino, who previously served as Trump's director of the Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Just over half of the Medicare-eligible population in the U.S. is currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, according to KFF.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, a nonpartisan congressional agency, has estimated that the federal government will spend $83 billion more funding MA plans in 2024 than it would have paid to cover the same patients under traditional Medicare.
A recent analysis by the Center for American Progress (CAP) projected that "if making MA the default option for enrollees were to expand the proportion of Medicare beneficiaries in MA to 75%... wasteful spending could approach an eye-popping $2 trillion over 10 years."
"Project 2025 would put more control in the hands of profit-driven corporations by making MA the default enrollment option for Medicare beneficiaries," CAP concluded. "Corporations, not doctors or patients, would be able to control what care an even greater number of enrollees can and cannot receive, while enriching their bottom lines and threatening Medicare's future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular