thefiscaltimes--2020-01-14--More Than 2 Million Adults Fall Into Medicaid ‘Coverage Gap’

The Affordable Care Act enabled states to expand their Medicaid programs to include millions of low-income adults , but as of today 14 states have declined to do so ( see this tracker for more details on state expansions . )
As a result , 2.3 million people in those non-expanding states fall into a Medicaid “ coverage gap ” in which they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to receive tax credits in the Obamacare marketplaces .
A new analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation explains that , “ because the ACA envisioned low-income people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not provide financial assistance to people below poverty for other coverage options . ''
Who falls in through that crack ?
“ By definition , people in the coverage gap have limited family income and live below the poverty level , ” the Kaiser analysis says .
“ They are likely in families employed in very low-wage jobs , employed part-time , or with a fragile or unpredictable connection to the workforce .
Given limited offer rates of employer-based coverage for employees with these work characteristics , it is likely that they will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the employer-based system.
” As the chart below shows , more than 90 % of those falling into the Medicaid gap live in the South , and a third live in just one state , Texas .

The Affordable Care Act enabled states to expand their Medicaid programs to include millions of low-income adults, but as of today 14 states have declined to do so (see this tracker for more details on state expansions.)
As a result, 2.3 million people in those non-expanding states fall into a Medicaid “coverage gap” in which they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to receive tax credits in the Obamacare marketplaces. A new analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation explains that, “because the ACA envisioned low-income people receiving coverage through Medicaid, it does not provide financial assistance to people below poverty for other coverage options."
Who falls in through that crack? “By definition, people in the coverage gap have limited family income and live below the poverty level,” the Kaiser analysis says. “They are likely in families employed in very low-wage jobs, employed part-time, or with a fragile or unpredictable connection to the workforce. Given limited offer rates of employer-based coverage for employees with these work characteristics, it is likely that they will continue to fall between the cracks in the employer-based system.”
As the chart below shows, more than 90% of those falling into the Medicaid gap live in the South, and a third live in just one state, Texas.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-13--Trump and Bloomberg Clash Over Health Care

Following the release of a new ad from Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg that accuses President Trump of being a “ destroyer ” when it comes to health care , the president claimed in a tweet Monday that he had , in fact , strengthened the health care system , which includes preserving the protections for people with pre-existing conditions that were put into place by the Affordable Care Act .
Trump proclaimed that through his actions , health care in the U.S. has now been “ brought to best place in many years , ” while promising that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress in 2020 , he will make health “ the best ever , by far.
” And he said that he would “ always protect your Pre-Existing Conditions , the Dems will not !
” Bloomberg quickly replied , pointing out that the Trump administration is currently supporting a lawsuit that would invalidate the ACA in its entirety and thereby eliminate its protections for people with pre-existing conditions .
So who ’ s right and who ’ s wrong ?
Here ’ s a roundup of comments that point to a clear verdict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The president is touting his health record .
So we looked at what he 's done .
His claim to have protected people with pre-existing conditions & expanded access to care ?
One expert said it 's ‘ misleading , if not comical.
’ Another called it ‘ astounding.
’ ” – Shefali Luthra , Kaiser Health News • “ Trump ’ s tweet is either a big lie , illustrates his profound confusion about health care policy , or some combination thereof.
” – Aaron Rupar , Vox • “ Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with covering preexisting conditions , he and congressional Republicans tried in 2017 to pass legislation repealing the ACA that would have eroded those consumer protections.
” – Jonathan Oberlander , health policy professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill • “ This is brazen lying .
Democrats *got* the protections for people with pre-existing conditions , in Obamacare .
Trump has tried to get bills passed that would weaken the protections , is supporting a lawsuit to overturn the whole law , has presented no plan for if the suit succeeds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courts to throw out the entirety of the Affordable Care Act , including the protections for pre-existing conditions , it specifically asked the courts to declare the protections for pre-existing conditions unconstitutional.
” – Daniel Dale , CNN • “ This is a bald-faced lie .
Having changed its position , the Justice Department is now actively asking the federal courts to throw out the entire ACA—including , more than a little cynically , the ( entirely constitutional ) requirement that insurers cover pre-existing conditions.
” – Steve Vladeck , professor at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • “ Rather than amplify a baldfaced lie just going to reiterate the truth : Republicans , including Donald Trump , have engaged in an unrelenting campaign to rip health insurance , including protections for preexisting conditions , from tens of millions of people .
... As we speak , the Trump administration is trying to convince the courts to declare the entirety of Obamacare unconstitutional , leaving nothing but chaos in its place.
” – Ezra Klein , Vox Why tell such an obvious lie ?
Vox ’ s Rupar suggests that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a powerful weapon for Democrats in the election this fall and is trying to muddy the waters to obscure his administration ’ s record , which includes rising uninsured numbers and the anti-ACA lawsuit that could eliminate health insurance for 20 million people .
On Friday , the administration bolstered that theory when it asked the Supreme Court to postpone any decisions on the ACA case until after the election , thereby removing the threat that Trump could get exactly what he ’ s asking for – the effective repeal of Obamacare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protections for people with pre-existing conditions .

Following the release of a new ad from Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg that accuses President Trump of being a “destroyer” when it comes to health care, the president claimed in a tweet Monday that he had, in fact, strengthened the health care system, which includes preserving the protections for people with pre-existing conditions that were put into place by the Affordable Care Act.
Trump proclaimed that through his actions, health care in the U.S. has now been “brought to best place in many years,” while promising that if voters give him reelection and a Republican Congress in 2020, he will make health “the best ever, by far.” And he said that he would “always protect your Pre-Existing Conditions, the Dems will not!”
Bloomberg quickly replied, pointing out that the Trump administration is currently supporting a lawsuit that would invalidate the ACA in its entirety and thereby eliminate its protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
So who’s right and who’s wrong? Here’s a roundup of comments that point to a clear verdict in Bloomberg’s favor:
“The president is touting his health record. So we looked at what he's done. His claim to have protected people with pre-existing conditions & expanded access to care? One expert said it's ‘misleading, if not comical.’ Another called it ‘astounding.’” – Shefali Luthra, Kaiser Health News
“Trump’s tweet is either a big lie, illustrates his profound confusion about health care policy, or some combination thereof.” – Aaron Rupar, Vox
“Not only did President Trump have nothing to do with covering preexisting conditions, he and congressional Republicans tried in 2017 to pass legislation repealing the ACA that would have eroded those consumer protections.” – Jonathan Oberlander, health policy professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
“This is brazen lying. Democrats *got* the protections for people with pre-existing conditions, in Obamacare. Trump has tried to get bills passed that would weaken the protections, is supporting a lawsuit to overturn the whole law, has presented no plan for if the suit succeeds. ... Before the Trump administration asked the courts to throw out the entirety of the Affordable Care Act, including the protections for pre-existing conditions, it specifically asked the courts to declare the protections for pre-existing conditions unconstitutional.” – Daniel Dale, CNN
“This is a bald-faced lie. Having changed its position, the Justice Department is now actively asking the federal courts to throw out the entire ACA—including, more than a little cynically, the (entirely constitutional) requirement that insurers cover pre-existing conditions.” – Steve Vladeck, professor at the University of Texas School of Law
“Rather than amplify a baldfaced lie just going to reiterate the truth: Republicans, including Donald Trump, have engaged in an unrelenting campaign to rip health insurance, including protections for preexisting conditions, from tens of millions of people. ... As we speak, the Trump administration is trying to convince the courts to declare the entirety of Obamacare unconstitutional, leaving nothing but chaos in its place.” – Ezra Klein, Vox
Why tell such an obvious lie? Vox’s Rupar suggests that Trump is worried that health care could be a powerful weapon for Democrats in the election this fall and is trying to muddy the waters to obscure his administration’s record, which includes rising uninsured numbers and the anti-ACA lawsuit that could eliminate health insurance for 20 million people. On Friday, the administration bolstered that theory when it asked the Supreme Court to postpone any decisions on the ACA case until after the election, thereby removing the threat that Trump could get exactly what he’s asking for – the effective repeal of Obamacare, which would include the elimination of protections for people with pre-existing conditions.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-16--Trump Tax Cuts Have Saved 6 Big Banks $32 Billion

The six biggest U.S. banks have saved $ 32 billion in taxes , including $ 18 billion last year , @ @ @ @ @ 2017 Trump tax cuts , Yalman Onaran reports at Bloomberg News .
The average effective @ @ @ @ @ , Bank of America , Citigroup , Wells Fargo , Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley @ @ @ @ @ 2019 from 20 % the year before .
“ Because banks used to pay higher @ @ @ @ @ industries , they were among the biggest beneficiaries , ” Onaran writes .
The tax @ @ @ @ @ record profits of $ 120 billion last year .
Onaran notes that the bank profits @ @ @ @ @ billion before the tax cuts .

The six biggest U.S. banks have saved $32 billion in taxes, including $18 billion last year, as a result of the 2017 Trump tax cuts, Yalman Onaran reports at Bloomberg News.
The average effective tax rate for JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley fell to 18% in 2019 from 20% the year before. “Because banks used to pay higher tax rates than many other industries, they were among the biggest beneficiaries,” Onaran writes.
The tax savings helped the banks post record profits of $120 billion last year. Onaran notes that the bank profits had never topped $100 billion before the tax cuts.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-14--Trump Wants to Divert Military Funds to His Wall Again

President Trump is planning to shift $ 7.2 billion in Pentagon funds toward construction of border barriers this year — more than his administration reprogrammed last year and five times what Congress authorized for 2020 , The Washington Post ’ s Nick Miroff first reported : “ Trump took $ 2.5 billion from military counterdrug programs for border barrier construction in 2019 , but this year his administration is planning to take significantly more — $ 3.5 billion .
Trump administration officials also are planning to take $ 3.7 billion in military construction funding , slightly more than the $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The move would bring the total amount of federal funds allocated to border fencing to $ 18.4 billion under Trump , who made the border barrier a priority during his campaign for the presidency in 2016 .
He also pledged to make Mexico pay for the barrier , delighting crowds at his rallies.
” Administration officials reportedly cautioned that the final totals could still change .
One eye on the election : The plans are part of an administration effort to “ show major progress ” on Trump ’ s signature campaign promise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times reports .
The administration recently announced that it had completed 100 miles of barriers along the southern border , well short of the 450 miles the president has repeatedly pledged to put up by the end of this year .
The funding plans would reportedly give the government enough money to complete nearly 900 miles of fencing by spring 2022 , though a large portion of that would likely replace existing barriers .
As CQ defense policy reporter Andrew Clevenger notes , the Pentagon projects that have seen their funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic regions — and that ’ s likely to be the case again this year .
“ Once the Pentagon identifies which MilCon projects are being halted to come up with $ 3.7B , it 's a safe bet that most of the $ $ will come from Dem-controlled areas , ” Clevenger tweeted .
“ And swing states that POTUS needs to carry to win re-election will probably avoid the worst of it.
” More pushback from lawmakers , including Republicans : The administration ’ s shifting of Pentagon funds has angered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ object to what they call an abuse of power and encroachment on their constitutional power of the purse .
“ Having failed to get his way in Congress , it appears President Trump is now once again forcing service members and their families to pay for his wall by cancelling even more vital military construction projects , ” House Democratic appropriators said in a statement .
Some Republicans , while more subdued , also voiced concerns .
“ I wish they ’ d get the money somewhere else , instead of defense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alabama told reporters on Tuesday .
`` But I do support building the wall.
” Other Republicans said Democrats had forced Trump to redirect the money by refusing to provide additional border funding .
Challenges have failed : Lawmakers and the courts opened the door to this second round of reprogramming of Pentagon funds .
Congress twice voted to terminate Trump ’ s national emergency declaration , but each time failed to come up with enough votes to override a presidential veto .
And the 2020 spending deal passed by Congress in December @ @ @ @ @ @ @ border barriers , placed no limitation on Trump ’ s ability to redirect military money slated for other purposes .
Legal challenges to Trump ’ s border wall also have failed to stop construction .
A federal appeals court last week allowed the administration to tap $ 3.6 billion in military construction funds for the border barrier , reversing a lower court decision that halted use of the funds and called Trump ’ s national emergency declaration unlawful .
The Supreme Court had previously allowed the administration to proceed with construction using $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ litigation in that case continued .
The Trump administration reportedly felt empowered to redirect larger amounts of money this year following the latest court decision .
The bottom line : The administration ’ s plans are sure to reignite the debate over the president ’ s money grab — and they likely signal that the border wall will once again play a central role in Trump ’ s election campaign .
“ It 's not surprising that the White House is moving forward with this method to pay for a major campaign issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked before , and Congress has thus far not mustered the collective will to stop it .
”

President Trump is planning to shift $7.2 billion in Pentagon funds toward construction of border barriers this year — more than his administration reprogrammed last year and five times what Congress authorized for 2020, The Washington Post’s Nick Miroff first reported:
“Trump took $2.5 billion from military counterdrug programs for border barrier construction in 2019, but this year his administration is planning to take significantly more — $3.5 billion. Trump administration officials also are planning to take $3.7 billion in military construction funding, slightly more than the $3.6 billion diverted in 2019.
“The move would bring the total amount of federal funds allocated to border fencing to $18.4 billion under Trump, who made the border barrier a priority during his campaign for the presidency in 2016. He also pledged to make Mexico pay for the barrier, delighting crowds at his rallies.”
Administration officials reportedly cautioned that the final totals could still change.
One eye on the election: The plans are part of an administration effort to “show major progress” on Trump’s signature campaign promise ahead of the 2020 election, The New York Times reports. The administration recently announced that it had completed 100 miles of barriers along the southern border, well short of the 450 miles the president has repeatedly pledged to put up by the end of this year. The funding plans would reportedly give the government enough money to complete nearly 900 miles of fencing by spring 2022, though a large portion of that would likely replace existing barriers.
As CQ defense policy reporter Andrew Clevenger notes, the Pentagon projects that have seen their funding halted or delayed have disproportionately been in Democratic regions — and that’s likely to be the case again this year. “Once the Pentagon identifies which MilCon projects are being halted to come up with $3.7B, it's a safe bet that most of the $$ will come from Dem-controlled areas,” Clevenger tweeted. “And swing states that POTUS needs to carry to win re-election will probably avoid the worst of it.”
More pushback from lawmakers, including Republicans: The administration’s shifting of Pentagon funds has angered members of Congress, many of whom object to what they call an abuse of power and encroachment on their constitutional power of the purse. “Having failed to get his way in Congress, it appears President Trump is now once again forcing service members and their families to pay for his wall by cancelling even more vital military construction projects,” House Democratic appropriators said in a statement.
Some Republicans, while more subdued, also voiced concerns. “I wish they’d get the money somewhere else, instead of defense," Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby of Alabama told reporters on Tuesday. "But I do support building the wall.” Other Republicans said Democrats had forced Trump to redirect the money by refusing to provide additional border funding.
Challenges have failed: Lawmakers and the courts opened the door to this second round of reprogramming of Pentagon funds. Congress twice voted to terminate Trump’s national emergency declaration, but each time failed to come up with enough votes to override a presidential veto. And the 2020 spending deal passed by Congress in December, which allocated $1.375 billion toward border barriers, placed no limitation on Trump’s ability to redirect military money slated for other purposes.
Legal challenges to Trump’s border wall also have failed to stop construction. A federal appeals court last week allowed the administration to tap $3.6 billion in military construction funds for the border barrier, reversing a lower court decision that halted use of the funds and called Trump’s national emergency declaration unlawful. The Supreme Court had previously allowed the administration to proceed with construction using $2.5 billion in Pentagon counter-drug funding while litigation in that case continued.
The Trump administration reportedly felt empowered to redirect larger amounts of money this year following the latest court decision.
The bottom line: The administration’s plans are sure to reignite the debate over the president’s money grab — and they likely signal that the border wall will once again play a central role in Trump’s election campaign. “It's not surprising that the White House is moving forward with this method to pay for a major campaign issue,” Clevenger tweeted. “It worked before, and Congress has thus far not mustered the collective will to stop it.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-17--Chart of the Day: Medi-Cal's Major Growth

“ Medi-Cal had a big decade , ” writes Harriet Blair Rowan at Kaiser Health News .
“ The number @ @ @ @ @ state ’ s health insurance program for low-income residents swelled by 5.5 million from 2010 @ @ @ @ @ covers 1 in 3 Californians and 40 % of children .
The program ’ s @ @ @ @ @ of state and federal money — tops $ 100 billion , more than the entire @ @ @ @ @ ”

“Medi-Cal had a big decade,” writes Harriet Blair Rowan at Kaiser Health News. “The number of Californians enrolled in the state’s health insurance program for low-income residents swelled by 5.5 million from 2010 to 2019. It now covers 1 in 3 Californians and 40% of children. The program’s annual budget — a combination of state and federal money — tops $100 billion, more than the entire state budget of Florida.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-15--Three Fiscal Takeaways from the Democratic Presidential Debate

The Iowa caucuses are less than three weeks away and the top four Democratic presidential contenders are tightly bunched in state polling , so the stakes were high at Tuesday night ’ s primary debate , the candidates ’ last chance to make a major splash before Iowans gather on February 3 .
Yet the debate turned out to be a listless affair , largely devoid of fireworks — and of answers or moments that might change the wide-open dynamics of the race .
Still , there were some substantive differences highlighted in the exchanges as the candidates tackled issues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran and the Middle East , to climate change , trade and electability .
( You can read the transcript at the Des Moines Register . )
Here are three fiscal takeaways : They ’ re still fighting about health care .
“ Medicare-for-all has come up so much in these debates that bringing it up often elicits groans from people who cover these things .
Little of it seems new anymore , ” The Washington Post ’ s Aaron Blake writes .
Sen. Bernie Sanders , asked about the price tag for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would cost less than the status quo — though , as the Associated Press noted in a fact check , there ’ s no guarantee that ’ s true .
Moderates including former vice president Joe Biden pushed back , again insisting that their plans to build on Obamacare by adding a public option are a better way to expand health coverage and lower costs .
And Sen. Amy Klobuchar again suggested that the debate over Medicare for All isn ’ t real given that the single-payer plan has no clear path to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a step further , ” the Post ’ s Blake notes , “ pointing to concrete things she ’ s done and would do , including on drug importation and a bipartisan bill on lowering drug prices .
And she pointed to 137 things she ’ s said she can do in the first 100 days as president without Congress.
” Sen. Elizabeth Warren similarly emphasized that she would seek “ to get as much as help to as many people as quickly as possible , ” including by using executive power to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talked up her plan to encourage competition in the pharmaceutical industry by letting the federal government make its own generic drugs .
And she turned the health care issue against President Trump : “ [ W ] e Democrats may argue among each other about the best way to do health care , but we 're going to be up against a Republican incumbent who has cut health care for millions of people and is still trying to do that .
I 'll take our side of the argument any day.
” Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ A round of debate questions about free and lower-cost child care and schooling was actually about one of the bigger philosophical splits in the Democratic field : Is the social safety net only for poorer people , or is it for everyone ?
” Matt Pearce says at the Los Angeles Times .
Politico ’ s Ryan Lizza sums up the differences between the candidates when it comes to means-testing benefits ( requiring those with higher incomes to pay more ) : “ Sanders is the most consistent , arguing for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ categories with the least amount of means testing .
His argument is that for government programs to enjoy wide popularity they need to be available to all Americans regardless of income .
Buttigieg and Klobuchar , who , for instance , frequently attack free college plans as subsidizing tuition for millionaires , are on the other side of the spectrum.
” A few candidates talked about deficits and debt .
“ Color me flabbergasted that not one but two of the six candidates on stage tonight , Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D–Minn .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ said—out loud , even—that they intend to reduce the deficit , ” Reason Editor at Large Matt Welch writes .
The comments about deficits and debt came after CNN moderator Abby Phillip asked Sanders how he would keep his spending proposals “ from bankrupting the country.
” Sanders insisted that his plan would not bankrupt the country and would instead improve the lives of working-class families and the middle class .
Klobuchar responded by again calling for building on the Affordable Care Act .
“ If you want to be practical and progressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan and not a pipedream , you have to show how you 're going to pay for it , ” she said .
She then brought up her plan to cut the deficit .
Buttigieg suggested that Democrats should own the issue of fiscal responsibility : “ Look , our party should no longer hesitate to talk about the issue of the debt and the deficit .
Now , we 've got a dramatically better track record on it than Republicans do .
In my lifetime , it 's almost invariably Republican presidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a trillion dollars under this president.
” Warren also mentioned the debt , though somewhat offhandedly , in making a case for her wealth tax : “ We need to be willing to put a wealth tax in place , to ask those giant corporations that are not paying to pay , because that 's how we build an economy and , for those who want to talk about it , bring down the national debt.
” That discussion , overall , didn ’ t go far enough for some budget hawks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and deficits and paying for policy proposals , ” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget tweeted .
“ This is encouraging , but we need a detailed discussion about rising national debt in this campaign and how the candidates will budget .
”

The Iowa caucuses are less than three weeks away and the top four Democratic presidential contenders are tightly bunched in state polling, so the stakes were high at Tuesday night’s primary debate, the candidates’ last chance to make a major splash before Iowans gather on February 3.
Yet the debate turned out to be a listless affair, largely devoid of fireworks — and of answers or moments that might change the wide-open dynamics of the race. Still, there were some substantive differences highlighted in the exchanges as the candidates tackled issues ranging from foreign policy, especially regarding Iran and the Middle East, to climate change, trade and electability. (You can read the transcript at the Des Moines Register.)
Here are three fiscal takeaways:
They’re still fighting about health care. “Medicare-for-all has come up so much in these debates that bringing it up often elicits groans from people who cover these things. Little of it seems new anymore,” The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake writes. Sen. Bernie Sanders, asked about the price tag for his Medicare-for-All plan, argued that it would cost less than the status quo — though, as the Associated Press noted in a fact check, there’s no guarantee that’s true.
Moderates including former vice president Joe Biden pushed back, again insisting that their plans to build on Obamacare by adding a public option are a better way to expand health coverage and lower costs. And Sen. Amy Klobuchar again suggested that the debate over Medicare for All isn’t real given that the single-payer plan has no clear path to passing Congress. “Klobuchar then went a step further,” the Post’s Blake notes, “pointing to concrete things she’s done and would do, including on drug importation and a bipartisan bill on lowering drug prices. And she pointed to 137 things she’s said she can do in the first 100 days as president without Congress.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren similarly emphasized that she would seek “to get as much as help to as many people as quickly as possible,” including by using executive power to lower prescription drug prices. She also talked up her plan to encourage competition in the pharmaceutical industry by letting the federal government make its own generic drugs. And she turned the health care issue against President Trump: “[W]e Democrats may argue among each other about the best way to do health care, but we're going to be up against a Republican incumbent who has cut health care for millions of people and is still trying to do that. I'll take our side of the argument any day.”
Democrats differ on government benefits for the rich. “A round of debate questions about free and lower-cost child care and schooling was actually about one of the bigger philosophical splits in the Democratic field: Is the social safety net only for poorer people, or is it for everyone?” Matt Pearce says at the Los Angeles Times.
Politico’s Ryan Lizza sums up the differences between the candidates when it comes to means-testing benefits (requiring those with higher incomes to pay more): “Sanders is the most consistent, arguing for the largest welfare state across all those categories with the least amount of means testing. His argument is that for government programs to enjoy wide popularity they need to be available to all Americans regardless of income. Buttigieg and Klobuchar, who, for instance, frequently attack free college plans as subsidizing tuition for millionaires, are on the other side of the spectrum.”
A few candidates talked about deficits and debt. “Color me flabbergasted that not one but two of the six candidates on stage tonight, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg said—out loud, even—that they intend to reduce the deficit,” Reason Editor at Large Matt Welch writes.
The comments about deficits and debt came after CNN moderator Abby Phillip asked Sanders how he would keep his spending proposals “from bankrupting the country.” Sanders insisted that his plan would not bankrupt the country and would instead improve the lives of working-class families and the middle class.
Klobuchar responded by again calling for building on the Affordable Care Act. “If you want to be practical and progressive at the same time and have a plan and not a pipedream, you have to show how you're going to pay for it,” she said. She then brought up her plan to cut the deficit.
Buttigieg suggested that Democrats should own the issue of fiscal responsibility: “Look, our party should no longer hesitate to talk about the issue of the debt and the deficit. Now, we've got a dramatically better track record on it than Republicans do. In my lifetime, it's almost invariably Republican presidents who have added to the deficit, a trillion dollars under this president.”
Warren also mentioned the debt, though somewhat offhandedly, in making a case for her wealth tax: “We need to be willing to put a wealth tax in place, to ask those giant corporations that are not paying to pay, because that's how we build an economy and, for those who want to talk about it, bring down the national debt.”
That discussion, overall, didn’t go far enough for some budget hawks. “Several candidates did mention the debt and deficits and paying for policy proposals,” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget tweeted. “This is encouraging, but we need a detailed discussion about rising national debt in this campaign and how the candidates will budget.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-13--Trump’s ‘Four Pinocchio’ Tax Claim

Trump’s ‘Four Pinocchio’ Tax Claim

President Trump routinely lies or makes exaggerated , unsupported and misleading claims .
The Washington Post ’ s most recent tally of such statements topped more than 15,400 over Trump ’ s first 1,055 days in office , with the rate of falsehoods accelerating rapidly .
The Post ’ s fact checker , Glenn Kessler , added one more to the list Monday , highlighting a recent Trump claim about his tax cuts that might have slipped under the radar amid growing questions about the administration ’ s shifting rationales for killing Iranian general Qasem Soleimani .
The claim : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last Monday , Trump said , “ [ W ] e 're actually taking in more revenue now than we did when we had the higher taxes because the economy 's doing so well.
” The fact check : Kessler awards this one Four Pinocchios , the rating designation reserved for the biggest whoppers .
“ The way the federal budget works is often a mystery to Americans .
But it shouldn ’ t be to the president of the United States , ” he writes .
The explanation : Yes , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up , but they were projected to rise before the tax cuts .
“ Inflation and population growth over time raise the cost of programs , while even a slowly growing economy will result in more taxes being collected , ” Kessler explains .
But revenue has fallen significantly from what was projected before the tax cuts went into effect , a key factor driving the deficit higher .
An analysis done for the Post by Richard Kogan , a former White House budget official who is now senior fellow at the left-leaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finds that , after adjusting for population growth and inflation , revenues rose by an annual average of 3.5 % over fiscal years 2009 through 2017 .
From fiscal 2017 through 2025 , revenues are projected to rise by an average 1.4 % a year .
The economy , meanwhile , is expected to grow at roughly the same rate over time : 1.3 % a year , after adjusting for population growth and inflation , compared to 1.4 % annual growth from 2009 through 2017 .
“ Trump gets virtually everything wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Revenue has not increased because of the tax cut or because of the economy , ” Kessler concludes .
“ If anything , revenue estimates have slightly declined for 2019 and 2020 since the passage of the tax cut .
And revenue growth is sharply down in the period after the tax cut , compared with the period before it.
” The bottom line : Kessler somewhat generously suggests that the president needs to brush up on budget policy .
But given that Trump still falsely claims — as he did again in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut was the biggest in U.S. history , it ’ s hard to imagine that some tax and budget tutorials would prevent the president from repeating assertions he thinks will benefit him politically .

President Trump routinely lies or makes exaggerated, unsupported and misleading claims. The Washington Post’s most recent tally of such statements topped more than 15,400 over Trump’s first 1,055 days in office, with the rate of falsehoods accelerating rapidly. The Post’s fact checker, Glenn Kessler, added one more to the list Monday, highlighting a recent Trump claim about his tax cuts that might have slipped under the radar amid growing questions about the administration’s shifting rationales for killing Iranian general Qasem Soleimani.
The claim: In a radio interview with Rush Limbaugh last Monday, Trump said, “[W]e're actually taking in more revenue now than we did when we had the higher taxes because the economy's doing so well.”
The fact check: Kessler awards this one Four Pinocchios, the rating designation reserved for the biggest whoppers. “The way the federal budget works is often a mystery to Americans. But it shouldn’t be to the president of the United States,” he writes.
The explanation: Yes, the government’s nominal revenues have gone up, but they were projected to rise before the tax cuts. “Inflation and population growth over time raise the cost of programs, while even a slowly growing economy will result in more taxes being collected,” Kessler explains. But revenue has fallen significantly from what was projected before the tax cuts went into effect, a key factor driving the deficit higher.
An analysis done for the Post by Richard Kogan, a former White House budget official who is now senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, finds that, after adjusting for population growth and inflation, revenues rose by an annual average of 3.5% over fiscal years 2009 through 2017. From fiscal 2017 through 2025, revenues are projected to rise by an average 1.4% a year. The economy, meanwhile, is expected to grow at roughly the same rate over time: 1.3% a year, after adjusting for population growth and inflation, compared to 1.4% annual growth from 2009 through 2017.
“Trump gets virtually everything wrong in his framing of this factoid: Revenue has not increased because of the tax cut or because of the economy,” Kessler concludes. “If anything, revenue estimates have slightly declined for 2019 and 2020 since the passage of the tax cut. And revenue growth is sharply down in the period after the tax cut, compared with the period before it.”
The bottom line: Kessler somewhat generously suggests that the president needs to brush up on budget policy. But given that Trump still falsely claims — as he did again in the Limbaugh interview — that his tax cut was the biggest in U.S. history, it’s hard to imagine that some tax and budget tutorials would prevent the president from repeating assertions he thinks will benefit him politically.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-17--US Will Issue 20-Year Bonds as It Seeks to Finance Rising Debt

The Treasury Department said late Thursday that it will begin issuing 20-year bonds in the first half of this year as it seeks to fund a deficit expected to top $ 1 trillion a year for the foreseeable future .
The Treasury explored a range of new offerings , including 20-year , 50-year , and 100-year bonds .
“ Institutional investors have been clamoring for more longer-dated , risk-free securities that offer some nominal yield , amid a global total of $ 11 trillion of debt with negative rates , ” Bloomberg News reporter Saleha Mohsin writes .
But many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultra-long options .
The government now sells 10-year notes and 30-year bonds .
In choosing to add the 20-year securities , Treasury said Thursday that it anticipated strong demand for them .
Treasury last issued 20-year bonds in 1986 , before it switched to 30-year securities instead .
Mohsin notes that previously issued 30-year Treasury bonds with 20 years left to maturity yield about 2.15 % , roughly two percentage points more than Japanese or German 20-year bonds .
“ The 20-year bond fits more easily into the existing market structure , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ICAP in New York , told Bloomberg .
“ This is a way of taking advantage of long-term interest rates that are low by historical standards without introducing a wild-card such as an ultra-long bond , which would have had more growing pains.
” Other bond investors echoed those sentiments , noting that 20-year bonds would be more useful than the ultra-long 50- or 100-year offerings Treasury had considered .
The Treasury Department said its goal was to expand the federal government ’ s borrowing capacity while keeping costs down .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least possible cost to taxpayers over time , and we will continue to evaluate other potential new products to meet that goal , ” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement .
Bloomberg columnist Brian Chappatta writes that , after twice reviewing the idea of ultra-long bonds as a way to take advantage of historically low interest rates , Mnuchin decided to play it safe .
“ And it was the right call , ” Chappatta argues .
“ There was simply no way to know for sure that the government could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monthly or quarterly auctions in any kind of reasonable size.
” Treasury ’ s latest decision , he adds , suggests that the U.S. may never turn to ultra-long bonds .
If Mnuchin couldn ’ t justify extending maturities now , “ when the federal government is running $ 1 trillion annual deficits and the 30-year U.S. yield is just a few months removed from an all-time low , it seems unlikely the department will ever give the green light , ” Chappatta says .
“ And that ’ s just fine with @ @ @ @ @

The Treasury Department said late Thursday that it will begin issuing 20-year bonds in the first half of this year as it seeks to fund a deficit expected to top $1 trillion a year for the foreseeable future.
The Treasury explored a range of new offerings, including 20-year, 50-year, and 100-year bonds. “Institutional investors have been clamoring for more longer-dated, risk-free securities that offer some nominal yield, amid a global total of $11 trillion of debt with negative rates,” Bloomberg News reporter Saleha Mohsin writes. But many on Wall Street had lobbied against the ultra-long options.
The government now sells 10-year notes and 30-year bonds. In choosing to add the 20-year securities, Treasury said Thursday that it anticipated strong demand for them. Treasury last issued 20-year bonds in 1986, before it switched to 30-year securities instead. Mohsin notes that previously issued 30-year Treasury bonds with 20 years left to maturity yield about 2.15%, roughly two percentage points more than Japanese or German 20-year bonds.
Why not longer-term bonds?
“The 20-year bond fits more easily into the existing market structure,” Lou Crandall, chief economist at Wrightson ICAP in New York, told Bloomberg. “This is a way of taking advantage of long-term interest rates that are low by historical standards without introducing a wild-card such as an ultra-long bond, which would have had more growing pains.”
Other bond investors echoed those sentiments, noting that 20-year bonds would be more useful than the ultra-long 50- or 100-year offerings Treasury had considered.
The Treasury Department said its goal was to expand the federal government’s borrowing capacity while keeping costs down. “We seek to finance the government at the least possible cost to taxpayers over time, and we will continue to evaluate other potential new products to meet that goal,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement.
Bloomberg columnist Brian Chappatta writes that, after twice reviewing the idea of ultra-long bonds as a way to take advantage of historically low interest rates, Mnuchin decided to play it safe. “And it was the right call,” Chappatta argues. “There was simply no way to know for sure that the government could successfully place 50- or 100-year bonds at monthly or quarterly auctions in any kind of reasonable size.”
Treasury’s latest decision, he adds, suggests that the U.S. may never turn to ultra-long bonds. If Mnuchin couldn’t justify extending maturities now, “when the federal government is running $1 trillion annual deficits and the 30-year U.S. yield is just a few months removed from an all-time low, it seems unlikely the department will ever give the green light,” Chappatta says. “And that’s just fine with the Treasury market.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-16--Trump Administration Broke the Law by Withholding Ukraine Aid: Watchdog

At the heart of the impeachment trial of President Trump that got underway today in the Senate lies a question of budget authority : Just why did the president and his administration place a hold on congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine ?
The Government Accountability Office , a nonpartisan watchdog agency that reports to Congress , said Thursday that , in withholding the aid , the White House Office of Management and Budget violated the law — specifically , the 1974 Impoundment Control Act , which was enacted to ensure that funds are spent as directed by lawmakers .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law , ” the GAO said it its legal decision .
The Nixon-era Impoundment Control Act lays out the specific processes under which the president can defer or withhold funds appropriated by lawmakers .
It requires the president to send a special message to Congress detailing the proposed amount to be held or cut and the reasons for the desired change .
GAO said that the White House never sent such a message and did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch , ” the report says .
“ Here , OMB has failed to meet this burden.
” The White House had asserted that its actions were lawful because the hold was just a “ programmatic delay ” and not a deferral .
But the watchdog agency rejected that claim .
“ OMB told GAO that it withheld the funds to ensure that they were not spent ‘ in a manner that could conflict with the President ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Armstrong , general counsel at the GAO , said in a statement .
“ The law does not permit OMB to withhold funds for policy reasons.
” Some OMB officials had objected to the hold , questioning whether it was proper , and at least two officials resigned in part due to concerns about the aid money .
The money in question : The GAO report focuses on $ 214 million in withheld security assistance funds , part of a congressionally appropriated $ 250 million Defense Department military aid package for Ukraine for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still pursuing more information regarding a similar hold on $ 141.5 million in funding for Ukraine provided through the State Department .
It added that the White House budget office and State Department had provided very little information regarding those funds , and warned that it considers “ a reluctance to provide a fulsome response to have constitutional significance ” as it affects the agency ’ s ability to perform its role “ essential to ensuring respect for and allegiance to Congress ’ constitutional power of the purse.
” The White House quickly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagree with GAO 's opinion , ” Rachel Semmel , the OMB 's communications director , said in a statement .
OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the president 's priorities and with the law . ''
And Russ Vought , acting director of the budget office , tweeted that the administration “ complied with the law at every step.
” Why it matters : GAO ’ s opinion doesn ’ t carry any immediate legal consequences for the White House given that the funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no reason for the agency to sue to get the money unfrozen .
But the report undercuts Trump ’ s defense that the hold was within his legal authority .
Combined with new documents and allegations from Lev Parnas , an associate of Rudy Giuliani , Trump ’ s personal attorney , the report gives Democrats new ammunition — both to say that the administration violated the law and to pressure Republican leaders to allow witnesses and new evidence in the Senate impeachment trial .
`` This bombshell legal opinion from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a doubt , that the Trump Administration illegally withheld security assistance from Ukraine , ” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen ( D-MD ) , who requested the GAO report last month .
“ The GAO ’ s independent findings reinforce the need for the Senate to obtain all relevant documents and hear from key fact witnesses in order to have a fair trial . ''
Several Republicans have reportedly said that the GAO opinion doesn ’ t change their views .
“ The GAO report identifies the OMB , not the president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not for political reasons , ” Sen. John Cornyn ( R-TX ) said .
“ I think we ’ re going to hear some more about it but I don ’ t think that changes anything.
” Read more at The Washington Post , The New York Times or Roll Call .

At the heart of the impeachment trial of President Trump that got underway today in the Senate lies a question of budget authority: Just why did the president and his administration place a hold on congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine?
The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan watchdog agency that reports to Congress, said Thursday that, in withholding the aid, the White House Office of Management and Budget violated the law — specifically, the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which was enacted to ensure that funds are spent as directed by lawmakers.
“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the GAO said it its legal decision.
The Nixon-era Impoundment Control Act lays out the specific processes under which the president can defer or withhold funds appropriated by lawmakers. It requires the president to send a special message to Congress detailing the proposed amount to be held or cut and the reasons for the desired change. GAO said that the White House never sent such a message and did not meet the requirements for a deferral. “The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch,” the report says. “Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden.”
The White House had asserted that its actions were lawful because the hold was just a “programmatic delay” and not a deferral. But the watchdog agency rejected that claim.
“OMB told GAO that it withheld the funds to ensure that they were not spent ‘in a manner that could conflict with the President’s foreign policy,’” Thomas H. Armstrong, general counsel at the GAO, said in a statement. “The law does not permit OMB to withhold funds for policy reasons.”
Some OMB officials had objected to the hold, questioning whether it was proper, and at least two officials resigned in part due to concerns about the aid money.
The money in question: The GAO report focuses on $214 million in withheld security assistance funds, part of a congressionally appropriated $250 million Defense Department military aid package for Ukraine for 2019. The agency said it was still pursuing more information regarding a similar hold on $141.5 million in funding for Ukraine provided through the State Department.
It added that the White House budget office and State Department had provided very little information regarding those funds, and warned that it considers “a reluctance to provide a fulsome response to have constitutional significance” as it affects the agency’s ability to perform its role “essential to ensuring respect for and allegiance to Congress’ constitutional power of the purse.”
The White House quickly disputed the GAO conclusion. "We disagree with GAO's opinion,” Rachel Semmel, the OMB's communications director, said in a statement. OMB uses its apportionment authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the president's priorities and with the law." And Russ Vought, acting director of the budget office, tweeted that the administration “complied with the law at every step.”
Why it matters: GAO’s opinion doesn’t carry any immediate legal consequences for the White House given that the funds were ultimately released, so there’s no reason for the agency to sue to get the money unfrozen. But the report undercuts Trump’s defense that the hold was within his legal authority. Combined with new documents and allegations from Lev Parnas, an associate of Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, the report gives Democrats new ammunition — both to say that the administration violated the law and to pressure Republican leaders to allow witnesses and new evidence in the Senate impeachment trial.
"This bombshell legal opinion from the independent Government Accountability Office demonstrates, without a doubt, that the Trump Administration illegally withheld security assistance from Ukraine,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who requested the GAO report last month. “The GAO’s independent findings reinforce the need for the Senate to obtain all relevant documents and hear from key fact witnesses in order to have a fair trial."
Several Republicans have reportedly said that the GAO opinion doesn’t change their views. “The GAO report identifies the OMB, not the president, and said it was for policy reasons, not for political reasons,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said. “I think we’re going to hear some more about it but I don’t think that changes anything.”
Read more at The Washington Post, The New York Times or Roll Call.


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-15--Why A Growing Number of Economists Say the Government Needs to Spend More

While some Democratic candidates embraced the importance of addressing the debt and deficit in Tuesday ’ s debate , the topic seems to lack the urgency it once had .
One reason , says Heather Long of The Washington Post , is that many experts are changing their minds about the threat posed by the nation ’ s rising debt .
In fact , Long reports after attending a recent meeting of the American Economic Association , there is a growing consensus among academic economists that the U.S. should be borrowing more money , not less , though with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used to boost productivity and growth .
“ Many top economists are coming around to the belief that it ’ s acceptable , even preferable , for the United States government to spend more money , even if it means increasing the nation ’ s $ 23 trillion debt , ” Long wrote Tuesday .
The persistence of low interest rates and the growing sense that the U.S. needs to invest more in public goods have a lot to do with the change in outlook .
Former Federal Reserve chief Janet Yellen is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , telling Long that , “ In a world of low real rates , there ’ s also a strong case for programs to invest in infrastructure , education , research and development , climate change mitigation — namely investments that would elevate potential growth.
” The issue will be particularly important when the economy slides into the next recession .
Some experts worry that today ’ s trillion-dollar deficits and rising debt will limit the government ’ s ability to respond to an economic downturn , but more economists are saying there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to maneuver .
“ Even under current conditions , I think we can afford to increase federal spending or cut taxes to stimulate the economy if there ’ s a downturn , ” Yellen said .
“ Chronic low interest rates create additional fiscal space .
”

While some Democratic candidates embraced the importance of addressing the debt and deficit in Tuesday’s debate, the topic seems to lack the urgency it once had. One reason, says Heather Long of The Washington Post, is that many experts are changing their minds about the threat posed by the nation’s rising debt.
In fact, Long reports after attending a recent meeting of the American Economic Association, there is a growing consensus among academic economists that the U.S. should be borrowing more money, not less, though with the important caveat that the money should be used to boost productivity and growth.
“Many top economists are coming around to the belief that it’s acceptable, even preferable, for the United States government to spend more money, even if it means increasing the nation’s $23 trillion debt,” Long wrote Tuesday.
The persistence of low interest rates and the growing sense that the U.S. needs to invest more in public goods have a lot to do with the change in outlook. Former Federal Reserve chief Janet Yellen is among those who have revised their views, telling Long that, “In a world of low real rates, there’s also a strong case for programs to invest in infrastructure, education, research and development, climate change mitigation — namely investments that would elevate potential growth.”
The issue will be particularly important when the economy slides into the next recession. Some experts worry that today’s trillion-dollar deficits and rising debt will limit the government’s ability to respond to an economic downturn, but more economists are saying there will still be plenty of fiscal room to maneuver. “Even under current conditions, I think we can afford to increase federal spending or cut taxes to stimulate the economy if there’s a downturn,” Yellen said. “Chronic low interest rates create additional fiscal space.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-01-15--The Problem With Health Care ‘Choice’

The Problem With Health Care ‘Choice’

Defenders of the current U.S. health care system often argue that it offers the best range of “ choice ” for consumers , but a former industry executive says that claim is misleading .
Wendell Potter , a former vice president for corporate communications at Cigna , says in an op-ed in The New York Times Tuesday that “ choice ” is a talking point concocted by public relations operatives ( including Potter himself ) seeking to prevent significant reforms of the health care system .
The problem , Potter says , is that the U.S. health care system actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here ’ s how Potter says it really works : “ The truth , of course , is that Americans now have little ‘ choice ’ when it comes to managing their health care .
Most can ’ t choose their own plan or how long they retain it , or even use it to select the doctor or hospital they prefer .
But some reforms being discussed this election , such as ‘ Medicare for all , ’ would provide these basic freedoms to users .
In other words , the proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quo , not less .
“ My advice to voters is that if politicians tell you they oppose reforming the health care system because they want to preserve your ‘ choice ’ as a consumer , they don ’ t know what they ’ re talking about or they ’ re willfully ignoring the truth .
Either way , the insurance industry is delighted .
”

Defenders of the current U.S. health care system often argue that it offers the best range of “choice” for consumers, but a former industry executive says that claim is misleading.
Wendell Potter, a former vice president for corporate communications at Cigna, says in an op-ed in The New York Times Tuesday that “choice” is a talking point concocted by public relations operatives (including Potter himself) seeking to prevent significant reforms of the health care system.
The problem, Potter says, is that the U.S. health care system actually provides little choice for most participants. Here’s how Potter says it really works:
“The truth, of course, is that Americans now have little ‘choice’ when it comes to managing their health care. Most can’t choose their own plan or how long they retain it, or even use it to select the doctor or hospital they prefer. But some reforms being discussed this election, such as ‘Medicare for all,’ would provide these basic freedoms to users. In other words, the proposed reforms offer more choice than the status quo, not less.
“My advice to voters is that if politicians tell you they oppose reforming the health care system because they want to preserve your ‘choice’ as a consumer, they don’t know what they’re talking about or they’re willfully ignoring the truth. Either way, the insurance industry is delighted.”