thefiscaltimes--2020-02-24--Trump’s Wealth Test for Immigrants Now in Effect

The Trump administration on Monday began enforcing new rules designed to weed out immigrants who have used public assistance in the U.S. – or are at risk of doing so in the future .
Building on existing federal law , the new “ public-charge ” rule requires U.S. officials to apply more stringent income- and wealth-based requirements to green card and some visa applicants , while giving the officials wide latitude to reject immigrants who they determine are – or could become – reliant on a variety of social welfare programs , including food stamps , housing assistance and Medicaid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who receives certain kinds of public assistance for more than 12 months in the previous three years will be ineligible for entry or permanent residency .
Officials can also consider other factors for each applicant , including age , language skills , wealth and education , and weigh those factors to determine the potential for welfare use in the future .
In a surprising twist , the very fact of applying for a green card can count against an applicant , as The Washington Post ’ s Catherine Rampell reported last week .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ The sweeping policy change , one of the administration top immigration priorities , is expected to block the entry of hundreds of thousands of people , disproportionately prospective immigrants from Asia , Africa and Latin America , ” CBS News said .
Estimates of the number of immigrants who could be affected by the rule vary , ranging from 400,000 to 3.9 million .
And some of those people will be middle-class , Axios said , since anyone with an income below 250 % of the poverty line – or $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be penalized in the new system .
Having a mortgage or credit card debt will also be negative .
Proponents of the law say it will save money by removing immigrants from social welfare programs , and the administration estimates the savings will come to more than $ 3 billion a year .
Critics , however , say any savings will be dwarfed by the economic losses associated with fewer workers and economic output .
New American Economy , an advocacy group founded in 2010 by then-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic loss of more than $ 80 billion .
A victory for conservatives : The new rule is the product of a long-standing effort on the right to reduce the number of poorer immigrants , who are seen as imposing a high cost on society .
“ Conservatives have been trying for decades to create an immigration system that rewards immigrants who won ’ t be a burden on society and discourages those who will , ” The Washington Times said .
At the White House Saturday , press secretary Stephanie Grisham said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fundamental legal principle that newcomers to our society should be financially self-reliant and not dependent on the largess of United States taxpayers . ''
Ken Cuccinelli , acting director of U.S .
Citizenship and Immigration Services , said the rule was intended to “ encourage self-sufficiency , promote immigrant success and protect American taxpayers . ''
Critics see something more sinister : The Trump administration is trying to turn back the clock and close the door on poor and non-white immigrants , says Doug Rand , an immigration specialist who worked in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration saying let 's get as close as we can to the 1924 act that restricted immigration from everywhere but Northern Europe , '' Rand told Axios .
In an editorial Monday , Rep. Eric Swalwell ( D-CA ) said the public charge rule is “ un-American ” and cruel , and likely to hurt the country in the long run .
“ Immigrants are not ‘ burdens ’ upon the American public as the Trump administration wants you to believe , ” Swalwell said .
“ In fact , our economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule could bar from living in the US.
” More legal challenges ahead : The public-charge rule was issued last August – you can see the final version here – and scheduled to take effect in October , but legal challenges delayed its implementation .
The rule cleared a significant hurdle last Friday , when the Supreme Court voted 5-4 along ideological lines to allow it to take effect in Illinois – sparking a fiery dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor , who accused the conservative majority of rushing the case in order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Additional legal challenges are making their way through the courts , and the Supreme Court may address the issue again in the coming months .

The Trump administration on Monday began enforcing new rules designed to weed out immigrants who have used public assistance in the U.S. – or are at risk of doing so in the future.
Building on existing federal law, the new “public-charge” rule requires U.S. officials to apply more stringent income- and wealth-based requirements to green card and some visa applicants, while giving the officials wide latitude to reject immigrants who they determine are – or could become – reliant on a variety of social welfare programs, including food stamps, housing assistance and Medicaid.
Under the rule, any immigrant who receives certain kinds of public assistance for more than 12 months in the previous three years will be ineligible for entry or permanent residency. Officials can also consider other factors for each applicant, including age, language skills, wealth and education, and weigh those factors to determine the potential for welfare use in the future. In a surprising twist, the very fact of applying for a green card can count against an applicant, as The Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell reported last week.
The rule could have a big effect: “The sweeping policy change, one of the administration top immigration priorities, is expected to block the entry of hundreds of thousands of people, disproportionately prospective immigrants from Asia, Africa and Latin America,” CBS News said.
Estimates of the number of immigrants who could be affected by the rule vary, ranging from 400,000 to 3.9 million. And some of those people will be middle-class, Axios said, since anyone with an income below 250% of the poverty line – or $76,700 for a family of five – will be penalized in the new system. Having a mortgage or credit card debt will also be negative.
Proponents of the law say it will save money by removing immigrants from social welfare programs, and the administration estimates the savings will come to more than $3 billion a year. Critics, however, say any savings will be dwarfed by the economic losses associated with fewer workers and economic output. New American Economy, an advocacy group founded in 2010 by then-New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said the rule could generate an economic loss of more than $80 billion.
A victory for conservatives: The new rule is the product of a long-standing effort on the right to reduce the number of poorer immigrants, who are seen as imposing a high cost on society. “Conservatives have been trying for decades to create an immigration system that rewards immigrants who won’t be a burden on society and discourages those who will,” The Washington Times said.
At the White House Saturday, press secretary Stephanie Grisham said that the rule will "reestablish the fundamental legal principle that newcomers to our society should be financially self-reliant and not dependent on the largess of United States taxpayers."
Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the rule was intended to “encourage self-sufficiency, promote immigrant success and protect American taxpayers."
Critics see something more sinister: The Trump administration is trying to turn back the clock and close the door on poor and non-white immigrants, says Doug Rand, an immigration specialist who worked in the Obama White House. "It's the administration saying let's get as close as we can to the 1924 act that restricted immigration from everywhere but Northern Europe," Rand told Axios.
In an editorial Monday, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) said the public charge rule is “un-American” and cruel, and likely to hurt the country in the long run. “Immigrants are not ‘burdens’ upon the American public as the Trump administration wants you to believe,” Swalwell said. “In fact, our economy likely would suffer without the immigrants this rule could bar from living in the US.”
More legal challenges ahead: The public-charge rule was issued last August – you can see the final version here – and scheduled to take effect in October, but legal challenges delayed its implementation. The rule cleared a significant hurdle last Friday, when the Supreme Court voted 5-4 along ideological lines to allow it to take effect in Illinois – sparking a fiery dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who accused the conservative majority of rushing the case in order to give the Trump administration a victory.
Additional legal challenges are making their way through the courts, and the Supreme Court may address the issue again in the coming months.


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-27--Navy Chief: Losing Shipbuilding Funds Is ‘Not Helpful’

Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly said Thursday that the Trump administration ’ s diversion of funds from the Navy ’ @ @ @ @ @ wall construction was “ not helpful ” to the current effort to expand the fleet @ @ @ @ @ a hit earlier this month when the Pentagon announced it would be using $ 911 @ @ @ @ @ ship replacement and expeditionary fast transport programs to pay for border wall construction .
On @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s 2021 budget request for defense cuts $ 4.1 billion from the Navy @ @ @ @ @ to the current year .
In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee , Modly @ @ @ @ @ would make it harder to hit the 355-ship target .
“ To be frank , @ @ @ @ @ because it takes a ship out of a plan we ’ re driving toward , @ @ @ @ @ referring to the loss of funding for a Virginia-class submarine in President Trump ’ s @ @ @ @

Acting Navy Secretary Thomas Modly said Thursday that the Trump administration’s diversion of funds from the Navy’s shipbuilding budget to border wall construction was “not helpful” to the current effort to expand the fleet.
The shipbuilding budget took a hit earlier this month when the Pentagon announced it would be using $911 million designated for the assault ship replacement and expeditionary fast transport programs to pay for border wall construction. On top of that, President Trump’s 2021 budget request for defense cuts $4.1 billion from the Navy’s shipbuilding budget relative to the current year.
In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Modly said the loss of funds would make it harder to hit the 355-ship target. “To be frank, it’s not helpful because it takes a ship out of a plan we’re driving toward,” Modly said, apparently referring to the loss of funding for a Virginia-class submarine in President Trump’s 2021 budget request.


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-27--Pelosi: Congress Close to a Bipartisan Deal on Coronavirus Funding

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Thursday that lawmakers are nearing agreement on emergency funding for the government ’ s coronavirus response .
`` We 're coming close to a bipartisan agreement in the Congress as to how we can go forward with a number that is a good start , '' Pelosi said at her weekly press conference .
`` We do n't know how much we will need .
Hopefully not so much more because prevention will work , but nonetheless we have to be ready to do what we need to do.
” The Trump administration requested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed redirecting at least that much from other programs , but lawmakers in both parties have said that falls far short of what is needed .
Negotiators were reportedly considering a package of between $ 4 billion and $ 8.5 billion .
Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a joint statement Thursday morning insisting that any emergency money Congress provides “ must be entirely new funding—not stolen from other accounts.
” They also said that the package must include provisions to ensure that the Trump administration can not shift the coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schumer also said that any bill must guarantee that vaccines developed for the coronavirus “ are affordable and available to all that need it.
” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar , a former lobbyist and executive at drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co. , had generated some backlash earlier in the week by testifying before Congress that he could not promise that a vaccine would be affordable .
“ We can ’ t control that price because we need the private sector to invest , ” he said .
Vaccine affordability an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affordability has not been a problem with pandemic vaccines before , and others suggested the issue could be addressed in other legislation once the emergency funding was passed .
Health officials have said it will take at least 12 to 18 months for a vaccine to be developed .
“ I think that we ’ d better take care of the immediate problem and then use other pieces of legislation to get down the cost of drugs , ” said Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley , according to Roll Call .
Grassley has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that faces opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and many of his fellow Republicans .
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said at his own press conference Thursday that he is hopeful that Congress “ can get this done next week ” and that he expects strong bipartisan support for the negotiated package .
McCarthy declined to discuss the amount of funding Congress would likely provide , but he did say that Republicans would not be seeking to offset the costs of the emergency package .
The bottom line : Both Pelosi and McCarthy took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in their comments , and a push by Democrats to ensure vaccine affordability reportedly could complicate negotiations , but lawmakers likely feel enough pressure to make sure they come together fairly quickly to pass supplemental funding for the virus response .

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Thursday that lawmakers are nearing agreement on emergency funding for the government’s coronavirus response.
"We're coming close to a bipartisan agreement in the Congress as to how we can go forward with a number that is a good start," Pelosi said at her weekly press conference. "We don't know how much we will need. Hopefully not so much more because prevention will work, but nonetheless we have to be ready to do what we need to do.”
The Trump administration requested $1.25 billion in new funding and proposed redirecting at least that much from other programs, but lawmakers in both parties have said that falls far short of what is needed. Negotiators were reportedly considering a package of between $4 billion and $8.5 billion.
Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a joint statement Thursday morning insisting that any emergency money Congress provides “must be entirely new funding—not stolen from other accounts.” They also said that the package must include provisions to ensure that the Trump administration cannot shift the coronavirus funds to other uses.
Pelosi and Schumer also said that any bill must guarantee that vaccines developed for the coronavirus “are affordable and available to all that need it.” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, a former lobbyist and executive at drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co., had generated some backlash earlier in the week by testifying before Congress that he could not promise that a vaccine would be affordable. “We can’t control that price because we need the private sector to invest,” he said.
Vaccine affordability an issue: But some Republicans said that affordability has not been a problem with pandemic vaccines before, and others suggested the issue could be addressed in other legislation once the emergency funding was passed. Health officials have said it will take at least 12 to 18 months for a vaccine to be developed.
“I think that we’d better take care of the immediate problem and then use other pieces of legislation to get down the cost of drugs,” said Senate Finance Chairman Chuck Grassley, according to Roll Call. Grassley has developed a bipartisan bill on drug prices that faces opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and many of his fellow Republicans.
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said at his own press conference Thursday that he is hopeful that Congress “can get this done next week” and that he expects strong bipartisan support for the negotiated package. McCarthy declined to discuss the amount of funding Congress would likely provide, but he did say that Republicans would not be seeking to offset the costs of the emergency package.
The bottom line: Both Pelosi and McCarthy took some partisan jabs at the other side in their comments, and a push by Democrats to ensure vaccine affordability reportedly could complicate negotiations, but lawmakers likely feel enough pressure to make sure they come together fairly quickly to pass supplemental funding for the virus response.


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-26--Fact Checking Sanders’ Latest Claims About Medicare for All

Bernie Sanders ’ Medicare-for-All proposal once again came under attack in Tuesday ’ s Democratic debate .
In defense of his plan , the senator from Vermont cited a recent analysis in the British journal The Lancet that found that Medicare for all will lower health care costs by $ 450 billion a year and save 68,000 lives .
Sanders ’ description of the Lancet analysis , which we summarized last week , was accurate as far as it goes , but health care experts have raised numerous questions about the reliability of the analysis itself .
Here are some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which was co-written by a former unpaid Sanders adviser , that critics are talking about : • Utilization : The Lancet study assumes that Medicare for All will increase the level of demand for medical care , but only among the 24 % of the population that is currently uninsured or underinsured .
Most health care experts , however , say that the plan ’ s elimination of cost sharing , along with a more generous set of benefits , will likely produce a much larger increase in overall demand as people seek @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bills — and that higher demand needs to be incorporated into the cost estimate .
• Payment rates : The study assumes that Medicare payment rates would be rolled out across the entire health care system — a reasonable assumption for a theoretical analysis , perhaps , but probably not so realistic , given the political power of the groups involved .
Few experts believe that it will be possible to force doctors and hospitals to accept Medicare rates , which typically are significantly lower than the rates currently paid by private health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ realistic levels — it ’ s hard to say exactly what those levels would be , except that they would be higher — a good portion of the savings in the Medicare-for-All system are eliminated .
• Administrative costs : Overhead costs in the current Medicare system equal 2.2 % of total spending , much lower than the private insurance overhead rate of 12.4 % .
The study assumes Sanders ’ proposed system would bring administrative costs down to current Medicare levels , but many experts doubt that overhead costs could go that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would undoubtedly cost less to administer — requiring a smaller back-end staff , for instance — it would not eliminate the need for expensive items like electronic health records , which coordinate care between hospitals , ” Shefali Luthra of Kaiser Health News said in her fact-check of the study .
• Lives saved : While it ’ s reasonable to assume that making health care more accessible would save lives , the number in the Lancet study — 68,531 deaths prevented per year — appears to have been derived from a single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the mortality effects of health insurance .
Based on a wider range of studies , the actual number is likely to be smaller .
• Long-term care : Sanders wants Medicare for All to cover the estimated $ 4 trillion cost of long-term care , which isn ’ t included in the Lancet study .
The bottom line : Sanders ’ claim that Medicare for All would be more efficient and thus offer some cost savings seems reasonable , but the idea that a more generous health care plan that covers the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immensely expensive medical system , would be cheaper to operate seems less so .
The Lancet study Sanders has cited uses questionable assumptions that tend to overestimate the savings while downplaying likely sources of increased costs .
As Vox ’ s Dylan Scott put it in his review of the Lancet paper , “ There is a lot of guesswork in projecting what Medicare-for-all would cost and the effect it would have — and this is just one more set of assumptions and estimates to add to the pile.
” More harshly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health News and PolitiFact says that while the study does cite evidence to back up its claims , “ many of its assumptions are flawed , and experts uniformly told us it overestimates the potential savings .
... [ Sanders ’ ] statement has some truth but ignores context that would create a dramatically different impression .
We rate it Mostly False .
”

Bernie Sanders’ Medicare-for-All proposal once again came under attack in Tuesday’s Democratic debate. In defense of his plan, the senator from Vermont cited a recent analysis in the British journal The Lancet that found that Medicare for all will lower health care costs by $450 billion a year and save 68,000 lives.
Sanders’ description of the Lancet analysis, which we summarized last week, was accurate as far as it goes, but health care experts have raised numerous questions about the reliability of the analysis itself. Here are some of the problems with the study, which was co-written by a former unpaid Sanders adviser, that critics are talking about:
Utilization: The Lancet study assumes that Medicare for All will increase the level of demand for medical care, but only among the 24% of the population that is currently uninsured or underinsured. Most health care experts, however, say that the plan’s elimination of cost sharing, along with a more generous set of benefits, will likely produce a much larger increase in overall demand as people seek care without fear of incurring big medical bills — and that higher demand needs to be incorporated into the cost estimate.
Payment rates: The study assumes that Medicare payment rates would be rolled out across the entire health care system — a reasonable assumption for a theoretical analysis, perhaps, but probably not so realistic, given the political power of the groups involved. Few experts believe that it will be possible to force doctors and hospitals to accept Medicare rates, which typically are significantly lower than the rates currently paid by private health insurance. Once payment rates approach more realistic levels — it’s hard to say exactly what those levels would be, except that they would be higher — a good portion of the savings in the Medicare-for-All system are eliminated.
Administrative costs: Overhead costs in the current Medicare system equal 2.2% of total spending, much lower than the private insurance overhead rate of 12.4%. The study assumes Sanders’ proposed system would bring administrative costs down to current Medicare levels, but many experts doubt that overhead costs could go that low. “While a single-payer system would undoubtedly cost less to administer — requiring a smaller back-end staff, for instance — it would not eliminate the need for expensive items like electronic health records, which coordinate care between hospitals,” Shefali Luthra of Kaiser Health News said in her fact-check of the study.
Lives saved: While it’s reasonable to assume that making health care more accessible would save lives, the number in the Lancet study — 68,531 deaths prevented per year — appears to have been derived from a single paper that provided a particularly large estimate of the mortality effects of health insurance. Based on a wider range of studies, the actual number is likely to be smaller.
Long-term care: Sanders wants Medicare for All to cover the estimated $4 trillion cost of long-term care, which isn’t included in the Lancet study.
The bottom line: Sanders’ claim that Medicare for All would be more efficient and thus offer some cost savings seems reasonable, but the idea that a more generous health care plan that covers the whole population, built atop the current immensely expensive medical system, would be cheaper to operate seems less so. The Lancet study Sanders has cited uses questionable assumptions that tend to overestimate the savings while downplaying likely sources of increased costs.
As Vox’s Dylan Scott put it in his review of the Lancet paper, “There is a lot of guesswork in projecting what Medicare-for-all would cost and the effect it would have — and this is just one more set of assumptions and estimates to add to the pile.” More harshly, the fact-check of the study from Kaiser Health News and PolitiFact says that while the study does cite evidence to back up its claims, “many of its assumptions are flawed, and experts uniformly told us it overestimates the potential savings. ... [Sanders’] statement has some truth but ignores context that would create a dramatically different impression. We rate it Mostly False.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-28--Trump Administration Sued Over Border Wall Funding

Three groups filed suit against the Trump administration Friday over its plans to use Department of Defense funds to pay for the construction of the wall along the border with Mexico .
The 2020 federal budget , which President Trump signed into law two months ago , includes $ 1.37 billion for border wall construction , far less than the administration requested .
The Pentagon announced earlier this month that it wants to move $ 3.8 billion from its budget allocation – including hundreds of millions of dollars designated by Congress for the purchase of F-35 stealth jets and C-130 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it calls higher priority efforts that are focused on preventing illegal immigration and drug smuggling on the border .
The lawsuit , filed in San Francisco by the American Civil Liberties Union , the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition , charges that the administration ’ s plan to redirect funds violates the Constitution , and will result in environmental damage as well .
“ The destruction of cultural sites , Tribal burial grounds , endangered species , protected cacti and water resources shows that Trump will stop at nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nor the Constitution , '' Sierra Club attorney Gloria Smith in a statement .

Three groups filed suit against the Trump administration Friday over its plans to use Department of Defense funds to pay for the construction of the wall along the border with Mexico.
The 2020 federal budget, which President Trump signed into law two months ago, includes $1.37 billion for border wall construction, far less than the administration requested. The Pentagon announced earlier this month that it wants to move $3.8 billion from its budget allocation – including hundreds of millions of dollars designated by Congress for the purchase of F-35 stealth jets and C-130 transports, among other items – to what it calls higher priority efforts that are focused on preventing illegal immigration and drug smuggling on the border.
The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition, charges that the administration’s plan to redirect funds violates the Constitution, and will result in environmental damage as well.
“The destruction of cultural sites, Tribal burial grounds, endangered species, protected cacti and water resources shows that Trump will stop at nothing for this wall — not irreplaceable resources nor the Constitution," Sierra Club attorney Gloria Smith in a statement.


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-27--Early-Onset Dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease Have Tripled, Blue Cross Says

The rates of dementia and Alzheimer ’ s disease among commercially insured Americans aged 30 to 64 increased by 200 @ @ @ @ @ , according to a new analysis by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association .
The @ @ @ @ @ people between the ages of 30 and 64 were diagnosed with either form of dementia @ @ @ @ @ data on medical claims from more than 48 million people insured by Blue Cross Blue @ @ @ @ @ increase in Alzheimer ’ s diagnoses among younger generations can lead to even greater economic @ @ @ @ @ those that provide them care , ” the health insurer association said in a press @ @ @ @ @ million family members and friends provided over 18 billion hours of unpaid care to persons @ @ @ @ @ in America , costing an estimated $ 221 billion .
”

The rates of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease among commercially insured Americans aged 30 to 64 increased by 200% from 2013 to 2017, according to a new analysis by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.
The report says that about 131,000 people between the ages of 30 and 64 were diagnosed with either form of dementia in 2017, based on data on medical claims from more than 48 million people insured by Blue Cross Blue Shield companies.
“An increase in Alzheimer’s diagnoses among younger generations can lead to even greater economic consequences and mental stress for those that provide them care,” the health insurer association said in a press release. “Nearly 16 million family members and friends provided over 18 billion hours of unpaid care to persons with Alzheimer’s disease in America, costing an estimated $221 billion.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-27--Sanders Targets Major Executive Tax Break

Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) unveiled new legislation Thursday that takes aim at a tax break for retirement plans that benefit many highly paid executives .
The bill , which is co-sponsored by Sen. Chris Van Hollen ( D-MD ) , “ could dramatically alter compensation at major U.S. companies , ” according to The Wall Street Journal ’ s Richard Rubin and Theo Francis .
The target : Some large companies allow top executives to defer compensation to a later date , with the aim of reducing their tax burden .
Unlike conventional 401 ( k ) retirement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the amount of money that can be deferred , providing highly compensated employees with a substantial potential tax break .
What the bill would do : The senators would tax compensation as soon as its vests rather than when it is distributed , a move they say could bring in $ 15 billion in federal revenue .
The funds would be used to shore up the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation , which provides a safety net for private-sector pension plans .
What Sanders says : “ It is outrageous that a corporate executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax privileges on hundreds of millions of dollars in savings , while an ordinary worker can only get tax deferment of up to $ 19,500 on a 401 ( k ) , ” Sanders said Thursday .
“ We are going to end these tax breaks for CEOs and use that money to protect 1.7 million workers who are worried about a decent retirement as they face instability in their current pension plans.
” Big numbers : The Sanders plan references a new study by the Government Accountability Office that looked at deferred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 500 largest publicly traded companies .
The report found that the executives had more than $ 13 billion stashed in tax-deferred funds , with some CEOs sitting on more than $ 100 million .
Not a new idea : The bill is similar to a proposal backed by some Republicans ahead of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act in 2017 , the Journal ’ s Rubin and Francis report , but that proposal was abandoned in the face of stiff resistance from CEOs .
`` Republicans and Democrats alike have called for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s past time to get it done , '' Van Hollen said .

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) unveiled new legislation Thursday that takes aim at a tax break for retirement plans that benefit many highly paid executives.
The bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), “could dramatically alter compensation at major U.S. companies,” according to The Wall Street Journal’s Richard Rubin and Theo Francis.
The target: Some large companies allow top executives to defer compensation to a later date, with the aim of reducing their tax burden. Unlike conventional 401(k) retirement plans, there are no limits on the amount of money that can be deferred, providing highly compensated employees with a substantial potential tax break.
What the bill would do: The senators would tax compensation as soon as its vests rather than when it is distributed, a move they say could bring in $15 billion in federal revenue. The funds would be used to shore up the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, which provides a safety net for private-sector pension plans.
What Sanders says: “It is outrageous that a corporate executive in America can get unlimited, special tax privileges on hundreds of millions of dollars in savings, while an ordinary worker can only get tax deferment of up to $19,500 on a 401(k),” Sanders said Thursday. “We are going to end these tax breaks for CEOs and use that money to protect 1.7 million workers who are worried about a decent retirement as they face instability in their current pension plans.”
Big numbers: The Sanders plan references a new study by the Government Accountability Office that looked at deferred payment plans for 2,300 top-level executives at the 500 largest publicly traded companies. The report found that the executives had more than $13 billion stashed in tax-deferred funds, with some CEOs sitting on more than $100 million.
Not a new idea: The bill is similar to a proposal backed by some Republicans ahead of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act in 2017, the Journal’s Rubin and Francis report, but that proposal was abandoned in the face of stiff resistance from CEOs. "Republicans and Democrats alike have called for ending these tax breaks, and it’s past time to get it done," Van Hollen said.


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-28--Congress Wants at Least $6 Billion to Fight Coronavirus

House and Senate appropriators are discussing an emergency funding package of $ 6 billion to $ 8 billion to fight the spread of the coronavirus and hope to have the legislation ready for a House vote as soon as the middle of next week , according to multiple reports .
The Trump administration had requested $ 1.25 billion in new funding , but President Trump said at his Wednesday evening news conference that he would accept whatever amount Congress determined was appropriate .
The White House said Friday it expects Congress will send the president a funding package in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget , indicated Friday that federal agencies have enough money to combat the coronavirus into April , but that the supplemental funding would be needed soon , according to The Hill .
Fed chairman opens door to rate cut : As the stock market continued its plunge on Friday to end Wall Street ’ s worst week since the financial crisis in 2008 , Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said in a statement that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy “ remain strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolving risks to economic activity.
” Powell said that the Federal Reserve is poised to act if necessary .
“ The Federal Reserve is closely monitoring developments and their implications for the economic outlook .
We will use our tools and act as appropriate to support the economy.
” Experts question Trump ’ s claims on federal staffing : President Trump and his administration have downplayed the risk of the coronavirus and pushed back against criticism that they have made it harder to combat the threat by disbanding two permanent groups created by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Department of Homeland Security to handle the 2014 Ebola outbreak and epidemic preparedness .
The number of permanent CDC employees declined about 5 % between December 2016 and March 2019 , according to government data cited by The Washington Post .
In response to a question about his administration ’ s proposed cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health , President Trump said Wednesday that the money and staff levels can be ramped up quickly as needed .
“ I ’ m a business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having thousands of people around when you don ’ t need them , ” he said .
“ When we need them , we can get them back very quickly.
” The Post reports that it ’ s not so easy .
“ Former federal officials and public-health experts argue that an effective response to an epidemiological crisis demands sustained planning and investment , ” Beth Reinhard , Emma Brown and Neena Satija write .
• Luring specialists back from other jobs to help with a temporary federal response to a disease outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shahpar , a doctor formerly at the CDC who now works at a nonprofit , told the Post .
“ They have stable jobs with retirement plans , ” he said .
“ They are not going to quit their job at the university or quit their job in the local government to go join the U.S. federal government for six months because of coronavirus .
It does n't work like that.
” • Tom Inglesby , director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security provided a useful analogy : “ You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You don ’ t wait for a fire , ” he said .
“ There is an underappreciation for the amount of time and resources required to build a prepared system.
” • Former USAID official Jeremy Konyndyk , who helped lead the U.S. response to the Ebola outbreak during the Obama administration , told the Post , “ What we see with financing for outbreak preparedness is this cycle of panic and neglect .
What the president seemed to say is that ’ s fine .
It 's not fine.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond to the Post ’ s interview requests .

House and Senate appropriators are discussing an emergency funding package of $6 billion to $8 billion to fight the spread of the coronavirus and hope to have the legislation ready for a House vote as soon as the middle of next week, according to multiple reports.
The Trump administration had requested $1.25 billion in new funding, but President Trump said at his Wednesday evening news conference that he would accept whatever amount Congress determined was appropriate.
The White House said Friday it expects Congress will send the president a funding package in the next two weeks. Russell Vought, acting director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, indicated Friday that federal agencies have enough money to combat the coronavirus into April, but that the supplemental funding would be needed soon, according to The Hill.
Fed chairman opens door to rate cut: As the stock market continued its plunge on Friday to end Wall Street’s worst week since the financial crisis in 2008, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said in a statement that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy “remain strong” but that “the coronavirus poses evolving risks to economic activity.” Powell said that the Federal Reserve is poised to act if necessary. “The Federal Reserve is closely monitoring developments and their implications for the economic outlook. We will use our tools and act as appropriate to support the economy.”
Experts question Trump’s claims on federal staffing: President Trump and his administration have downplayed the risk of the coronavirus and pushed back against criticism that they have made it harder to combat the threat by disbanding two permanent groups created by President Obama at the White House and the Department of Homeland Security to handle the 2014 Ebola outbreak and epidemic preparedness. The number of permanent CDC employees declined about 5% between December 2016 and March 2019, according to government data cited by The Washington Post.
In response to a question about his administration’s proposed cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, President Trump said Wednesday that the money and staff levels can be ramped up quickly as needed. “I’m a business person — I don’t like having thousands of people around when you don’t need them,” he said. “When we need them, we can get them back very quickly.”
The Post reports that it’s not so easy. “Former federal officials and public-health experts argue that an effective response to an epidemiological crisis demands sustained planning and investment,” Beth Reinhard, Emma Brown and Neena Satija write.
Luring specialists back from other jobs to help with a temporary federal response to a disease outbreak isn’t quite realistic, Cyrus Shahpar, a doctor formerly at the CDC who now works at a nonprofit, told the Post. “They have stable jobs with retirement plans,” he said. “They are not going to quit their job at the university or quit their job in the local government to go join the U.S. federal government for six months because of coronavirus. It doesn't work like that.”
Tom Inglesby, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security provided a useful analogy: “You build a fire department ahead of time. You don’t wait for a fire,” he said. “There is an underappreciation for the amount of time and resources required to build a prepared system.”
Former USAID official Jeremy Konyndyk, who helped lead the U.S. response to the Ebola outbreak during the Obama administration, told the Post, “What we see with financing for outbreak preparedness is this cycle of panic and neglect. What the president seemed to say is that’s fine. It's not fine.”
The White House and CDC did not respond to the Post’s interview requests.


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-02--Medicare and Medicaid Could Save Billions if Doctors Make One Change: Study

Medicare and Medicaid could save billions if doctors prescribed short-acting medications instead of extended-release versions , according to a new @ @ @ @ @ .
Researchers looked at Medicare and Medicaid spending between 2012 and 2017 .
They found @ @ @ @ @ formulations to equivalent generic immediate-release formulations would have saved the health care programs nearly $ @ @ @ @ @ 8.5 billion for Medicare and $ 5.2 billion for Medicaid .
The savings in 2017 @ @ @ @ @ 2.6 billion .
“ It ’ s not a huge difference in terms of patient @ @ @ @ @ difference is remarkable , ” study coauthor Dr. Ambarish Pandey of the University of Texas @ @ @ @ @ told Reuters .
Pandey told the news service that insurers should demand that drug companies @ @ @ @ @ drugs so that they ’ re comparable to the short-acting versions .
“ If Medicare @ @ @ @ @ says it won ’ t put the extended-release versions on their formulary unless the price @ @ @ @ @ the immediate-release formulations , things will change , ” he said .

Medicare and Medicaid could save billions if doctors prescribed short-acting medications instead of extended-release versions, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.
Researchers looked at Medicare and Medicaid spending between 2012 and 2017. They found that switching from extended-release drug formulations to equivalent generic immediate-release formulations would have saved the health care programs nearly $14 billion, including $8.5 billion for Medicare and $5.2 billion for Medicaid. The savings in 2017 alone would have been $2.6 billion.
“It’s not a huge difference in terms of patient convenience, but the cost difference is remarkable,” study coauthor Dr. Ambarish Pandey of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas told Reuters.
Pandey told the news service that insurers should demand that drug companies lower the cost of extended-release drugs so that they’re comparable to the short-acting versions. “If Medicare puts its foot down and says it won’t put the extended-release versions on their formulary unless the price is similar to that of the immediate-release formulations, things will change,” he said.


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-02--Warren Calls for $400 Billion Stimulus to Fight Coronavirus Hit to Economy

Pete Buttigieg is out .
So is Amy Klobuchar .
Oh , and Tom Steyer .
Yet even as the Democratic presidential field is winnowed after Saturday ’ s South Carolina primary , leaving Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden as the two clear leaders for the nomination , Elizabeth Warren ’ s campaign reportedly insists she isn ’ t going anywhere .
Not only that : She ’ s still putting out detailed policy plans , in keeping with her campaign ’ s emphasis on her technocratic competence .
She ’ s got a plan for everything — and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Monday called for Congress to quickly pass a stimulus package of at least $ 400 billion to counter potential economic damage or ward off a recession due to the virus outbreak .
Warren said she strongly supports Senate Democrats ’ request for $ 8.5 billion in emergency supplemental funding , but that she believes we must do more .
“ History shows that it ’ s often hard to pass multiple stimulus packages in succession—and it ’ s better that the initial package is too big rather than too small , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to companies hit by supply chain disruptions or other effects of the coronavirus , with the money to be used to avoid layoffs or reductions in worker hours ; • Efforts to increase U.S. production of pharmaceutical ingredients ; Her plan also proposes an emergency paid leave program for those who show symptoms of infection and seeks to ensure that every American can get evaluated or treated for free , with the government requiring insurers to fully cover care and reimbursing health care providers and hospitals for uncompensated services .
Warren also says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be made available with no out-of-pocket cost to the public and the Federal Reserve should announce an emergency lending program to help companies whose supply chains have been affected .
“ Companies across America are already struggling with supply chain disruptions , and we don ’ t want these temporary struggles to lead to widespread layoffs or for otherwise solid companies to go under , ” Warren ’ s plan says .
Warren says her stimulus could counteract a decline in U.S. gross domestic product of about 3 % .

Pete Buttigieg is out. So is Amy Klobuchar. Oh, and Tom Steyer. Yet even as the Democratic presidential field is winnowed after Saturday’s South Carolina primary, leaving Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden as the two clear leaders for the nomination, Elizabeth Warren’s campaign reportedly insists she isn’t going anywhere.
Not only that: She’s still putting out detailed policy plans, in keeping with her campaign’s emphasis on her technocratic competence. She’s got a plan for everything — and that includes fighting the coronavirus.
Warren on Monday called for Congress to quickly pass a stimulus package of at least $400 billion to counter potential economic damage or ward off a recession due to the virus outbreak.
Warren said she strongly supports Senate Democrats’ request for $8.5 billion in emergency supplemental funding, but that she believes we must do more. “History shows that it’s often hard to pass multiple stimulus packages in succession—and it’s better that the initial package is too big rather than too small,” she says.
The stimulus proposal includes:
Low-interest or no-interest loans to companies hit by supply chain disruptions or other effects of the coronavirus, with the money to be used to avoid layoffs or reductions in worker hours;
Additional unemployment insurance;
Aid to state and local governments;
Efforts to increase U.S. production of pharmaceutical ingredients;
Investments in green infrastructure investments.
Her plan also proposes an emergency paid leave program for those who show symptoms of infection and seeks to ensure that every American can get evaluated or treated for free, with the government requiring insurers to fully cover care and reimbursing health care providers and hospitals for uncompensated services. Warren also says Congress should ensure that any vaccine developed be made available with no out-of-pocket cost to the public and the Federal Reserve should announce an emergency lending program to help companies whose supply chains have been affected.
“Companies across America are already struggling with supply chain disruptions, and we don’t want these temporary struggles to lead to widespread layoffs or for otherwise solid companies to go under,” Warren’s plan says.
Warren says her stimulus could counteract a decline in U.S. gross domestic product of about 3%.


thefiscaltimes--2020-02-28--Trump Wants Another Corporate Tax Cut, Mulvaney Says

President Trump has often touted another round of tax cuts , and the White House has said it will roll out a plan in September .
But while the president has said additional tax cuts would be focused on the middle class , his acting Chief of Staff , Mick Mulvaney , said Friday that Trump also wants another reduction in the corporate tax rate , to 20 % from the 21 % introduced as part of the 2017 tax law .
“ We need to do the second part of the tax bill .
We really do , Tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference when asked about the president ’ s priorities for a possible second term .
Trump also wants to make permanent the individual tax cuts from the 2017 package , which are scheduled to expire in 2026 .
Another option being considered is cutting the capital gains tax by indexing it to inflation .
More immediately , with the Dow seeing its worst week since the financial crisis , the Trump administration is reportedly discussing plans to address growing worries about the economic effects of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a package of targeted tax cuts , The Washington Post ’ s Jeff Stein and Ashley Parker reported Friday .
White officials said that the discussions are still in the early stages , however , and that much depends on how the coronavirus crisis plays out in the coming weeks .

President Trump has often touted another round of tax cuts, and the White House has said it will roll out a plan in September. But while the president has said additional tax cuts would be focused on the middle class, his acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, said Friday that Trump also wants another reduction in the corporate tax rate, to 20% from the 21% introduced as part of the 2017 tax law.
“We need to do the second part of the tax bill. We really do, Tax Cuts 2.0,” Mulvaney said at the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference when asked about the president’s priorities for a possible second term.
Trump also wants to make permanent the individual tax cuts from the 2017 package, which are scheduled to expire in 2026. Another option being considered is cutting the capital gains tax by indexing it to inflation.
More immediately, with the Dow seeing its worst week since the financial crisis, the Trump administration is reportedly discussing plans to address growing worries about the economic effects of the coronavirus. One option under consideration is a package of targeted tax cuts, The Washington Post’s Jeff Stein and Ashley Parker reported Friday. White officials said that the discussions are still in the early stages, however, and that much depends on how the coronavirus crisis plays out in the coming weeks.


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-04--Number of the Day: $48 Billion

Number of the Day: $48 Billion

That ’ s how much health insurer stocks rose Wednesday as investors reacted to Joe Biden ’ s surprisingly strong @ @ @ @ @ primaries .
Wall Street apparently saw the result as a reduction in the threat to @ @ @ @ @ represented by Bernie Sanders and his Medicare for All plan .
More than half of @ @ @ @ @ the S & P 500 were health-care companies , with the market cap of UnitedHealthcare @ @ @ @ @ s largest health insurer , increasing by about $ 20 billion .
In a tweet @ @ @ @ @ Kaiser Family Foundation wondered if investors were overdoing it .
`` I 'm sure these @ @ @ @ @ folks , '' Levitt wrote .
`` But , they really seem to overreact to @ @ @ @ @ power of the health care industry to stop major legislation has n't changed throughout the @ @ @

That’s how much health insurer stocks rose Wednesday as investors reacted to Joe Biden’s surprisingly strong showing in the Super Tuesday primaries.
Wall Street apparently saw the result as a reduction in the threat to the for-profit health care industry represented by Bernie Sanders and his Medicare for All plan. More than half of the 15 top-performing stocks in the S&P 500 were health-care companies, with the market cap of UnitedHealthcare Group, the nation’s largest health insurer, increasing by about $20 billion.
In a tweet, Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation wondered if investors were overdoing it.
"I'm sure these Wall Street investors are smart folks," Levitt wrote. "But, they really seem to overreact to political developments when the underlying power of the health care industry to stop major legislation hasn't changed throughout the campaign.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-04--House Approves $8.3 Billion in Emergency Coronavirus Spending

The House on Wednesday passed an $ 8.3 billion emergency spending package to help combat the novel coronavirus outbreak as lawmakers race to send the legislation to the president ’ s desk by the end of the week .
The Senate is expected to vote on the funding Thursday .
“ We worked together to craft an aggressive and comprehensive response that provides the resources the experts say they need to combat this crisis , ” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby ( R-AL ) said in a statement .
The deal is more than triple the $ 2.5 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , which lawmakers in both parties criticized as inadequate , and it includes all new money rather than shifting funds from other accounts , as the administration had proposed .
“ We have to recognize this is one giant step , ” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) told reporters , according to The Washington Post .
`` In this bill we ’ ll go from the administration putting forth $ 2.3 [ billion ] and money taken from Ebola and home heating to over $ 8 billion clean money.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote , with two Republicans voting against it .
The funding includes $ 7.767 billion in emergency appropriations to address the virus outbreak and $ 490 million for a Medicare telehealth program meant to help more seniors get access to health services .
• More than $ 3 billion for research and development of vaccines , treatments and diagnostics ; • $ 2.2 billion in new funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help public health agencies , including $ 950 million to reimburse state and local governments for their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion for medical supplies such as drugs and masks and to boost preparedness and community health care centers , among other things .
• $ 1.25 billion for the State Department to assist in containing and preventing the spread of the coronavirus in other countries , including $ 300 million for humanitarian needs .
Bipartisan congressional negotiators reached agreement on the legislation after days of talks that temporarily got bogged down over language Democrats had wanted to include to ensure that a coronavirus vaccine would be affordable once it was developed .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they saw as government price control that would stifle drug research , and accused Democrats of playing politics with the supplemental funding .
The standoff was resolved by the inclusion of a $ 300 million fund for the purchase of vaccines and treatments as well as language requiring those drugs developed using taxpayer funds be made available to consumers at affordable prices .
Democrats said that the bill would allow for about $ 7 billion in low-interest loans to affected small businesses and would require reimbursement of the $ 136 million that was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health accounts and the heating assistance program for low-income families toward coronavirus efforts .
Is it enough ?
The economic costs of the virus outbreak now appear likely to require a greater response ( see more on that below ) .
Writing at Bloomberg , Narayana Kocherlakota , former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis , argued that lawmakers must do more : “ Congress has to step up to show its willingness to systematically insulate the economy against aggregate demand shocks by , for example , using a combination of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Without a much clearer strategic commitment to fiscal policy support of the economy , we can expect further declines in long-run expectations about growth and inflation — and that will make the current aggregate demand shortfall even worse .
”

The House on Wednesday passed an $8.3 billion emergency spending package to help combat the novel coronavirus outbreak as lawmakers race to send the legislation to the president’s desk by the end of the week. The Senate is expected to vote on the funding Thursday.
“We worked together to craft an aggressive and comprehensive response that provides the resources the experts say they need to combat this crisis,” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard Shelby (R-AL) said in a statement.
The deal is more than triple the $2.5 billion total the White House had requested last week, which lawmakers in both parties criticized as inadequate, and it includes all new money rather than shifting funds from other accounts, as the administration had proposed.
“We have to recognize this is one giant step,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters, according to The Washington Post. "In this bill we’ll go from the administration putting forth $2.3 [billion] and money taken from Ebola and home heating to over $8 billion clean money.”
The package was passed in a 415-2 vote, with two Republicans voting against it.
The funding includes $7.767 billion in emergency appropriations to address the virus outbreak and $490 million for a Medicare telehealth program meant to help more seniors get access to health services.
The details:
More than $3 billion for research and development of vaccines, treatments and diagnostics;
$2.2 billion in new funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help public health agencies, including $950 million to reimburse state and local governments for their response efforts;
Nearly $1 billion for medical supplies such as drugs and masks and to boost preparedness and community health care centers, among other things.
$1.25 billion for the State Department to assist in containing and preventing the spread of the coronavirus in other countries, including $300 million for humanitarian needs.
Bipartisan congressional negotiators reached agreement on the legislation after days of talks that temporarily got bogged down over language Democrats had wanted to include to ensure that a coronavirus vaccine would be affordable once it was developed. Some Republicans objected to that language, which they saw as government price control that would stifle drug research, and accused Democrats of playing politics with the supplemental funding.
The standoff was resolved by the inclusion of a $300 million fund for the purchase of vaccines and treatments as well as language requiring those drugs developed using taxpayer funds be made available to consumers at affordable prices.
Democrats said that the bill would allow for about $7 billion in low-interest loans to affected small businesses and would require reimbursement of the $136 million that was shifted by the Trump administration from other health accounts and the heating assistance program for low-income families toward coronavirus efforts.
Is it enough? The economic costs of the virus outbreak now appear likely to require a greater response (see more on that below). Writing at Bloomberg, Narayana Kocherlakota, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, argued that lawmakers must do more:
“Congress has to step up to show its willingness to systematically insulate the economy against aggregate demand shocks by, for example, using a combination of tax cuts and increases in infrastructure spending. Without a much clearer strategic commitment to fiscal policy support of the economy, we can expect further declines in long-run expectations about growth and inflation — and that will make the current aggregate demand shortfall even worse.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-02--Obamacare Is Going Back to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court said Monday that it will consider a case that has the potential to overturn the Affordable Care Act , though a final decision is unlikely before the election in November .
The fate of the health care law has hung in the balance since the Fifth U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in December that a key provision of the ACA was unconstitutional , opening the door to a complete repeal of the law .
The case : The court will hear an appeal on two consolidated cases , California v. Texas and United States House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from an effort by a group of Republican-led states – and backed by the Trump administration – to invalidate the Affordable Care Act based on its individual mandate provision , which requires all individuals to obtain health insurance .
In 2012 , the court cited the mandate penalty as a key factor when it upheld the law in a separate case , saying the penalty was a tax and therefore constitutional .
The Republican coalition argues that the ACA became unconstitutional once the individual mandate penalty was reduced to zero in the 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not address a second claim , however , which holds that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional , then the whole law is also unconstitutional and must be thrown out .
Instead , it sent the case back to the trial court for additional analysis .
What could happen : A Supreme Court ruling could result in a variety of outcomes , including maintaining the status quo , invalidating some of the ACA ’ s provisions and overturning the law entirely .
Why it matters : Many experts say that if the lawsuit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about 20 million people could lose their health insurance , and millions more would be affected by turmoil in the U.S. health care system , which has been modified by the ACA in myriad ways .
The Trump administration says it has a plan to deal with the fallout – including the loss of legal protections for people with pre-existing conditions – but has provided no details .
Democrats will make political hay : Although the court ’ s decision will not be announced until next year , the justices will hear arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as October , putting the issue back in the headlines shortly before the election .
Democrats see health care as a winning issue and are expected to exploit the administration ’ s support for the case in the fall .
Newly revived Democratic candidate Joe Biden wasted no time Monday attempting to gain advantage from the court ’ s announcement .
“ This fall , Donald Trump will be trying to get the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare – ripping health insurance away from 30 million Americans , ending protections for 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families , and costing a million jobs , ” Biden said in a statement .

The Supreme Court said Monday that it will consider a case that has the potential to overturn the Affordable Care Act, though a final decision is unlikely before the election in November.
The fate of the health care law has hung in the balance since the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in December that a key provision of the ACA was unconstitutional, opening the door to a complete repeal of the law.
The case: The court will hear an appeal on two consolidated cases, California v. Texas and United States House of Representatives v. Texas, that spring from an effort by a group of Republican-led states – and backed by the Trump administration – to invalidate the Affordable Care Act based on its individual mandate provision, which requires all individuals to obtain health insurance. In 2012, the court cited the mandate penalty as a key factor when it upheld the law in a separate case, saying the penalty was a tax and therefore constitutional. The Republican coalition argues that the ACA became unconstitutional once the individual mandate penalty was reduced to zero in the 2017 tax legislation.
The appeals court did not address a second claim, however, which holds that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then the whole law is also unconstitutional and must be thrown out. Instead, it sent the case back to the trial court for additional analysis.
What could happen: A Supreme Court ruling could result in a variety of outcomes, including maintaining the status quo, invalidating some of the ACA’s provisions and overturning the law entirely.
Why it matters: Many experts say that if the lawsuit succeeds and the ACA is overturned, about 20 million people could lose their health insurance, and millions more would be affected by turmoil in the U.S. health care system, which has been modified by the ACA in myriad ways. The Trump administration says it has a plan to deal with the fallout – including the loss of legal protections for people with pre-existing conditions – but has provided no details.
Democrats will make political hay: Although the court’s decision will not be announced until next year, the justices will hear arguments in the fall, possibly as early as October, putting the issue back in the headlines shortly before the election. Democrats see health care as a winning issue and are expected to exploit the administration’s support for the case in the fall.
Newly revived Democratic candidate Joe Biden wasted no time Monday attempting to gain advantage from the court’s announcement. “This fall, Donald Trump will be trying to get the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare – ripping health insurance away from 30 million Americans, ending protections for 100 million more with preexisting conditions, destroying families, and costing a million jobs,” Biden said in a statement.


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-05--Senate Approves $8.3 Billion Coronavirus Funding Bill, Sending It to Trump

The Senate on Thursday passed a bipartisan $ 8.3 billion emergency spending package meant to speed funds to help the @ @ @ @ @ the novel coronavirus outbreak .
The bill passed easily , by a 96-1 vote , @ @ @ @ @ R-KY ) the lone vote in opposition .
Paul had proposed an amendment to the @ @ @ @ @ foreign aid programs to offset costs of the coronavirus funding .
The Senate set aside @ @ @ @ @ package , which passed the House Wednesday , now goes to the White House for @ @ @ @ @ Trump on Wednesday tweeted that the funding was “ great news for our Health , @ @ @ @ @ Nation !
”

The Senate on Thursday passed a bipartisan $8.3 billion emergency spending package meant to speed funds to help the government’s response to the novel coronavirus outbreak.
The bill passed easily, by a 96-1 vote, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) the lone vote in opposition. Paul had proposed an amendment to the package that would have cut foreign aid programs to offset costs of the coronavirus funding. The Senate set aside his amendment.
The emergency package, which passed the House Wednesday, now goes to the White House for President Trump to sign. Trump on Wednesday tweeted that the funding was “great news for our Health, our Economy, and our Nation!”


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-04--Will the $23 Trillion National Debt Hinder the Response to the Coronavirus?

If the U.S. economy hits a rough patch in the wake of the coronavirus , policymakers have plenty of tools at their disposal to respond to the slowdown .
The Federal Reserve deployed one such tool this week , slashing interest rates by half a percentage point , though the move seemed to backfire in financial markets , signaling fear about how bad the economic damage could get rather than offering reassurance .
One problem is that monetary policy may not be the best tool for the job .
Lower interest rates essentially reduce the price of money , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers to return to work , schools to reopen or worried tourists to start traveling again .
The government has other options , but there are questions about whether it will use them .
What the federal government could do : Policymakers have a broad range of options to stimulate the economy , including fiscal policies that focus on getting money into the hands of the people who will spend it .
“ They could give cash to employees whose workplaces are shut , provide credit to small businesses and offer rescue packages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other tourism-related concerns , ” Peter Goodman of The New York Times said Wednesday .
The government could also treat regions affected by an outbreak of the virus like national disaster areas , Claudia Sahm of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth told Politico .
That could involve providing cash payments to individuals who have lost their jobs to help them pay their rents , mortgages and car loans .
Why policymakers may hesitate : According to Goodman , a “ widespread political aversion to increasing public debt ” has made fiscal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has offered the latest glimpse of an established truth in the world ’ s largest economies : Public money can frequently be found for tax cuts , ” he writes , “ but then disappears into a fog of warnings about the dangers of deficits when spending for nearly anything else is discussed.
” Worries about the size of the current deficit – already large by historical standards at more than $ 1 trillion a year – will only strengthen that aversion .
Along the same lines , Politico ’ s Nancy Cook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to boost the economy could collide with the “ Republican orthodoxy ” that underwrote deep resistance to fiscal stimulus during the last recession .
One administration official Cook and Guida spoke to argued that fiscal stimulus is not good policy : “ The whole litany of temporary measures to stimulate the economy ...
I don ’ t think it works , ” the official said .
Many economists disagree with that orthodoxy .
Adam S. Posen , president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics , said that the government should focus on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus .
“ If you don ’ t spend money for people put out of work with no fault of their own when there ’ s a clear public-health virtue in making it in workers ’ interests to stay home and not spread the virus , then everything else by comparison is a complete waste , ” Posen told the Times .
Why stimulus may happen in the end : Worried about his reelection prospects , President Trump is reportedly pushing for stimulus now to boost the economy .
Earlier this week , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payroll tax cut , a stimulus policy that policymakers turned to during the last recession , and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin talked about a massive infrastructure plan .
Outside the administration , former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is reportedly pitching the idea of a tax credit for companies that bring production facilities back to the U.S. from China .
Other ideas being considered by the White House include guaranteeing paid sick leave for workers or providing money to small businesses to help avoid layoffs , CNN reported , though the administration ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in its early phases.
” As the discussions continue , there will likely be considerable resistance to the use of aggressive fiscal measures , especially before there are clear signs that the economy is in trouble .
President Trump met with airline officials Wednesday , and despite United ’ s announcement that it will be reducing flights in April and suspending new hiring at least through June , Trump pushed back against the idea of providing federal funds to the industry “ Don ’ t ask that question , please , because they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump responded to a question about a possible airline bailout .
`` I don ’ t want you to give them any ideas . ''

If the U.S. economy hits a rough patch in the wake of the coronavirus, policymakers have plenty of tools at their disposal to respond to the slowdown. The Federal Reserve deployed one such tool this week, slashing interest rates by half a percentage point, though the move seemed to backfire in financial markets, signaling fear about how bad the economic damage could get rather than offering reassurance.
One problem is that monetary policy may not be the best tool for the job. Lower interest rates essentially reduce the price of money, but cheaper money won’t spur factory workers to return to work, schools to reopen or worried tourists to start traveling again.
The government has other options, but there are questions about whether it will use them.
What the federal government could do: Policymakers have a broad range of options to stimulate the economy, including fiscal policies that focus on getting money into the hands of the people who will spend it. “They could give cash to employees whose workplaces are shut, provide credit to small businesses and offer rescue packages to industries most affected, like airlines and other tourism-related concerns,” Peter Goodman of The New York Times said Wednesday.
The government could also treat regions affected by an outbreak of the virus like national disaster areas, Claudia Sahm of the Washington Center for Equitable Growth told Politico. That could involve providing cash payments to individuals who have lost their jobs to help them pay their rents, mortgages and car loans.
Why policymakers may hesitate: According to Goodman, a “widespread political aversion to increasing public debt” has made fiscal stimulus less appealing. “The crisis has offered the latest glimpse of an established truth in the world’s largest economies: Public money can frequently be found for tax cuts,” he writes, “but then disappears into a fog of warnings about the dangers of deficits when spending for nearly anything else is discussed.” Worries about the size of the current deficit – already large by historical standards at more than $1 trillion a year – will only strengthen that aversion.
Along the same lines, Politico’s Nancy Cook and Victoria Guida said Wednesday that efforts to boost the economy could collide with the “Republican orthodoxy” that underwrote deep resistance to fiscal stimulus during the last recession. One administration official Cook and Guida spoke to argued that fiscal stimulus is not good policy: “The whole litany of temporary measures to stimulate the economy ... I don’t think it works,” the official said.
Many economists disagree with that orthodoxy. Adam S. Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said that the government should focus on workers affected by the spread of the coronavirus. “If you don’t spend money for people put out of work with no fault of their own when there’s a clear public-health virtue in making it in workers’ interests to stay home and not spread the virus, then everything else by comparison is a complete waste,” Posen told the Times.
Why stimulus may happen in the end: Worried about his reelection prospects, President Trump is reportedly pushing for stimulus now to boost the economy. Earlier this week, the president expressed support for a short-term payroll tax cut, a stimulus policy that policymakers turned to during the last recession, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin talked about a massive infrastructure plan. Outside the administration, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is reportedly pitching the idea of a tax credit for companies that bring production facilities back to the U.S. from China.
Other ideas being considered by the White House include guaranteeing paid sick leave for workers or providing money to small businesses to help avoid layoffs, CNN reported, though the administration’s planning reportedly “was still loose and in its early phases.”
As the discussions continue, there will likely be considerable resistance to the use of aggressive fiscal measures, especially before there are clear signs that the economy is in trouble. President Trump met with airline officials Wednesday, and despite United’s announcement that it will be reducing flights in April and suspending new hiring at least through June, Trump pushed back against the idea of providing federal funds to the industry
“Don’t ask that question, please, because they haven’t asked that," Trump responded to a question about a possible airline bailout. "I don’t want you to give them any ideas."


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-03--Tax Cuts? Infrastructure Deals? What’s Next in US Coronavirus Response

The Federal Reserve made it clear Tuesday that it ’ s deeply worried about the coronavirus and the fear the Covid-19 outbreak has created .
In its first emergency rate cut since the 2008 financial crisis , the Federal Open Market Committee slashed its baseline rate by half a percentage point , dropping it to a range between 1 % and 1.25 % in an effort to limit the economic damage caused by the virus .
“ The Fed typically likes to wait to see hard data signaling economic fires , but the coronavirus is moving so quickly that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead of a widespread situation where workers and students are forced to stay home and the economy grinds to halt , ” The Washington Post Heather Long wrote .
Fed Chair Jerome Powell emphasized at a press conference after the rate cut was announced that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong , but the economic effects of the virus are highly uncertain so the central bank ’ s rate-setting committee felt it was necessary to act quickly .
“ We saw a risk to the outlook of the economy and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Fed stands ready to do more if needed , Powell added , “ depending on the flow of events.
” Trump presses for more : President Trump wasn ’ t satisfied by the move .
“ The Federal Reserve is cutting but must further ease and , most importantly , come into line with other countries/competitors , ” he tweeted .
“ We are not playing on a level field .
Not fair to USA .
It is finally time for the Federal Reserve to LEAD .
More easing and cutting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weren ’ t impressed by the Fed move , and stocks swooned again Tuesday , with the S & P closing down nearly 3 % .
The 10-year Treasury yield fell below 1 % for the first time ever as investors flocked to the safety of government debt , and the yield on the 30-year Treasury bond hit a record low of 1.601 % .
Will rate cuts help ?
Others have questioned how effective interest rate cuts can be in combatting the economic effects of the virus .
The Fed can make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t develop a vaccine , fix global supply chains or convince anxious Americans that it ’ s safe to book that trip or head to the mall .
“ You are not going to slay a disease by lowering interest rates , '' Bernard Baumohl , chief global economist at The Economic Outlook Group , told the Post .
Powell acknowledged that rate cuts can only do so much and said that the “ ultimate solutions to this challenge will come from others , particularly health professionals.
” But he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic activity as well as consumer and business confidence .
“ We do recognize a rate cut will not reduce the rate of infection , it won ’ t fix a broken supply chain .
We get that , ” Powell said .
“ But we do believe that our action will provide a meaningful boost to the economy.
” The Fed could cut rates again after a regularly scheduled meeting on March 17-18 , but some analysts have noted that it has limited room for further cuts , with its target for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between 1 % and 1.25 % .
Powell said Tuesday that the Fed had not discussed using tools besides rate cuts to boost the economy .
That puts the focus firmly on fiscal policy .
“ The Fed is carrying the burden for everyone else out of ammunition globally , and for the lack of an effective fiscal response , ” Julia Coronado of MacroPolicy Perspectives told The New York Times .
Congress still hammering out a deal : Lawmakers are still working on a $ 7.5 billion emergency package that would provide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and aid for state and local governments dealing with the coronavirus .
The supplemental measure is reportedly being held up by a Democratic demand that test kits , treatments and any eventual vaccine be affordably priced .
Another tax cut ?
On Monday evening Trump called for Congress to provide a fiscal stimulus to the economy through a temporary cut to the payroll taxes used to fund Social Security and Medicare — the same kind of cut used in the wake of the financial crisis : “ The Democrats in the House should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tax cut .
Great for the middle class , great for the USA !
” Social Security taxes affect income up to $ 137,700 , so a cut would provide a temporary boost to take-home pay for workers earning up to that level .
But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer ( D-MD ) reportedly downplayed the chances of such a move .
“ I don ’ t think tax cuts are the answer to every problem , ” he told reporters .
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget took a look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a one-year cut would cost $ 55 to $ 75 billion per percent per year .
On the benefits side of the ledger , CRFB relied on a CBO analysis from 2010 that estimated that a 2-percentage point cut to the employee payroll tax over two years would increase economic output by $ 90 billion to $ 270 billion over five years .
CRFB said that enacting such a cut in 2020 and 2021 would cost $ 300 billion , excluding interest .
Fiscal stimulus looking more likely : An analysis from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Monday that “ significant federal spending is certain.
” Finance ministers from the United States , Canada , France , Germany , Italy , Japan and the United Kingdom held a call Tuesday to coordinate response measures and said afterward that they “ are ready to take actions , including fiscal measures where appropriate , to aid in the response to the virus and support the economy during this phase.
” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin reportedly said Tuesday that the administration would consider an infrastructure package , tax cuts and other measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And Roll Call reported that Mnuchin and House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal ( D-MA ) have revived discussions of a $ 1 trillion infrastructure package .
`` There 's this grand opportunity to talk about infrastructure and make it the serious issue that the country needs and demands , ” Neal said Tuesday .
“ That plan implemented quickly could provide long-lasting stimulus that would go on for decades .
A cut in the payroll tax can not be based on emotion , it 's got to be based upon a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we offered here today was to proceed with infrastructure .
”

The Federal Reserve made it clear Tuesday that it’s deeply worried about the coronavirus and the fear the Covid-19 outbreak has created.
In its first emergency rate cut since the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Open Market Committee slashed its baseline rate by half a percentage point, dropping it to a range between 1% and 1.25% in an effort to limit the economic damage caused by the virus.
“The Fed typically likes to wait to see hard data signaling economic fires, but the coronavirus is moving so quickly that the central bank felt it needed to act ahead of a widespread situation where workers and students are forced to stay home and the economy grinds to halt,” The Washington Post Heather Long wrote.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell emphasized at a press conference after the rate cut was announced that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong, but the economic effects of the virus are highly uncertain so the central bank’s rate-setting committee felt it was necessary to act quickly. “We saw a risk to the outlook of the economy and we chose to act,” Powell said. The Fed stands ready to do more if needed, Powell added, “depending on the flow of events.”
Trump presses for more: President Trump wasn’t satisfied by the move. “The Federal Reserve is cutting but must further ease and, most importantly, come into line with other countries/competitors,” he tweeted. “We are not playing on a level field. Not fair to USA. It is finally time for the Federal Reserve to LEAD. More easing and cutting!”
Treasury rates tumble: Investors weren’t impressed by the Fed move, and stocks swooned again Tuesday, with the S&P closing down nearly 3%. The 10-year Treasury yield fell below 1% for the first time ever as investors flocked to the safety of government debt, and the yield on the 30-year Treasury bond hit a record low of 1.601%.
Will rate cuts help? Others have questioned how effective interest rate cuts can be in combatting the economic effects of the virus. The Fed can make it cheaper to borrow money but it can’t develop a vaccine, fix global supply chains or convince anxious Americans that it’s safe to book that trip or head to the mall. “You are not going to slay a disease by lowering interest rates," Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist at The Economic Outlook Group, told the Post.
Powell acknowledged that rate cuts can only do so much and said that the “ultimate solutions to this challenge will come from others, particularly health professionals.” But he said that the emergency rate cut can lift economic activity as well as consumer and business confidence. “We do recognize a rate cut will not reduce the rate of infection, it won’t fix a broken supply chain. We get that,” Powell said. “But we do believe that our action will provide a meaningful boost to the economy.”
The Fed could cut rates again after a regularly scheduled meeting on March 17-18, but some analysts have noted that it has limited room for further cuts, with its target for the federal funds rate now down to between 1% and 1.25%. Powell said Tuesday that the Fed had not discussed using tools besides rate cuts to boost the economy.
That puts the focus firmly on fiscal policy. “The Fed is carrying the burden for everyone else out of ammunition globally, and for the lack of an effective fiscal response,” Julia Coronado of MacroPolicy Perspectives told The New York Times.
Congress still hammering out a deal: Lawmakers are still working on a $7.5 billion emergency package that would provide funds for vaccine development, medical equipment and aid for state and local governments dealing with the coronavirus. The supplemental measure is reportedly being held up by a Democratic demand that test kits, treatments and any eventual vaccine be affordably priced.
Another tax cut? On Monday evening Trump called for Congress to provide a fiscal stimulus to the economy through a temporary cut to the payroll taxes used to fund Social Security and Medicare — the same kind of cut used in the wake of the financial crisis: “The Democrats in the House should propose a very simple one year Payroll Tax cut. Great for the middle class, great for the USA!”
Social Security taxes affect income up to $137,700, so a cut would provide a temporary boost to take-home pay for workers earning up to that level. But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) reportedly downplayed the chances of such a move. “I don’t think tax cuts are the answer to every problem,” he told reporters.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget took a look at the rough proposal, and estimated that a one-year cut would cost $55 to $75 billion per percent per year.
On the benefits side of the ledger, CRFB relied on a CBO analysis from 2010 that estimated that a 2-percentage point cut to the employee payroll tax over two years would increase economic output by $90 billion to $270 billion over five years. CRFB said that enacting such a cut in 2020 and 2021 would cost $300 billion, excluding interest.
Fiscal stimulus looking more likely: An analysis from the lobbying firm Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas said Monday that “significant federal spending is certain.” Finance ministers from the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom held a call Tuesday to coordinate response measures and said afterward that they “are ready to take actions, including fiscal measures where appropriate, to aid in the response to the virus and support the economy during this phase.”
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin reportedly said Tuesday that the administration would consider an infrastructure package, tax cuts and other measures if they felt they were needed. And Roll Call reported that Mnuchin and House Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) have revived discussions of a $1 trillion infrastructure package.
"There's this grand opportunity to talk about infrastructure and make it the serious issue that the country needs and demands,” Neal said Tuesday. “That plan implemented quickly could provide long-lasting stimulus that would go on for decades. A cut in the payroll tax cannot be based on emotion, it's got to be based upon a plan. … And the plan that we offered here today was to proceed with infrastructure.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-06--After Spending $2 Billion, Air Force Bails Out on Planned Upgrades of B-2 Bombers

The Air Force has scrapped a planned upgrade of its B-2 stealth bomber fleet — even after spending $ 2 @ @ @ @ @ because defense contractor Northrup Grumman didn ’ t have the necessary software expertise to complete @ @ @ @ @ on budget , Bloomberg ’ s Anthony Capaccio reports , citing the Pentagon ’ s @ @ @ @ @ Lord , the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment , told reporters that the @ @ @ @ @ had already been spent on the program wasn ’ t wasted because “ we are @ @ @ @ @ electronic displays .
”

The Air Force has scrapped a planned upgrade of its B-2 stealth bomber fleet — even after spending $2 billion on the effort — because defense contractor Northrup Grumman didn’t have the necessary software expertise to complete the project on time and on budget, Bloomberg’s Anthony Capaccio reports, citing the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer.
Ellen Lord, the undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, told reporters that the nearly $2 billion that had already been spent on the program wasn’t wasted because “we are still going to get upgraded electronic displays.”


thefiscaltimes--2020-03-05--Biden Tax Plan Would Raise $4 Trillion, With High Earners Paying the Most: Analysis

Joe Biden ’ s tax proposals would generate about $ 4 trillion in new revenue over 10 years , with high-income households paying the lion ’ s share of the increase , according to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center .
TPC ’ s revenue projection is higher than the Biden campaign 's own estimate of $ 3.2 trillion over a decade , and even more so than the Penn Wharton Budget Model ’ s estimate of $ 2.3 trillion .
No matter which estimate is used , it ’ s clear that Biden ’ s plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Democrats in past presidential elections and shows just how far the party has moved on the subject of taxes since President Trump signed a $ 1.9 trillion tax cut into law in 2017 .
• Increase the corporate tax rate to 28 % , up from the 21 % imposed by the 2017 tax law .
This would raise an estimated $ 1.3 trillion over 10 years .
• Apply the Social Security payroll tax to incomes over $ 400,000 , raising an estimated $ 962 billion .
• Raise the tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ households earning more than $ 1 million per year .
Along with a tax on unrealized capital gains of more than $ 100,000 at death ( excluding money bequeathed to surviving spouses and charities ) , this would raise an estimated $ 448 billion .
• Roll back the 2017 tax cuts for households earning more than $ 400,000 per year , raising an estimated $ 432 billion .
• Double the minimum tax on overseas profits , from 10.5 % to 21 % .
Who would pay more : • The top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of the increased taxes .
• More broadly , the top 20 % of households — those making more than $ 170,000 per year — would pay 93 % of increased taxes .
• Income taxes on the top 1 % of earners would increase by 17 % , or an average of $ 299,000 per year .
• The very wealthiest taxpayers — the top 10th of the top 1 % — would see their tax bills increase by an average of $ 1.8 million .
• Individuals would account for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase , with the other $ 2 trillion coming from higher taxes on businesses .
Who would pay about the same : • The bottom 80 % of earners would see tax hikes of no more than 0.5 % , mostly caused by businesses shifting their tax increases onto shareholders and workers .
Where the money would go : While the TPC analysis did not look at Biden ’ s spending proposals , the former vice president has called for increased Social Security benefits and an expansion of the public health care system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a variety of issues , including family caregiving , electric vehicle purchases and student loan forgiveness .
Read the TPC analysis of Biden ’ s tax plan here .

Joe Biden’s tax proposals would generate about $4 trillion in new revenue over 10 years, with high-income households paying the lion’s share of the increase, according to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
TPC’s revenue projection is higher than the Biden campaign's own estimate of $3.2 trillion over a decade, and even more so than the Penn Wharton Budget Model’s estimate of $2.3 trillion.
No matter which estimate is used, it’s clear that Biden’s plan is far more aggressive than those offered by Democrats in past presidential elections and shows just how far the party has moved on the subject of taxes since President Trump signed a $1.9 trillion tax cut into law in 2017.
What Biden proposes:
Increase the corporate tax rate to 28%, up from the 21% imposed by the 2017 tax law. This would raise an estimated $1.3 trillion over 10 years.
Apply the Social Security payroll tax to incomes over $400,000, raising an estimated $962 billion.
Raise the tax rate on capital gains and dividends for households earning more than $1 million per year. Along with a tax on unrealized capital gains of more than $100,000 at death (excluding money bequeathed to surviving spouses and charities), this would raise an estimated $448 billion.
Roll back the 2017 tax cuts for households earning more than $400,000 per year, raising an estimated $432 billion.
Double the minimum tax on overseas profits, from 10.5% to 21%.
Who would pay more:
The top 1% of households would pay 74% of the increased taxes.
More broadly, the top 20% of households — those making more than $170,000 per year — would pay 93% of increased taxes.
Income taxes on the top 1% of earners would increase by 17%, or an average of $299,000 per year.
The very wealthiest taxpayers — the top 10th of the top 1% — would see their tax bills increase by an average of $1.8 million.
Individuals would account for about $2 trillion of the tax increase, with the other $2 trillion coming from higher taxes on businesses.
Who would pay about the same:
The bottom 80% of earners would see tax hikes of no more than 0.5%, mostly caused by businesses shifting their tax increases onto shareholders and workers.
Where the money would go: While the TPC analysis did not look at Biden’s spending proposals, the former vice president has called for increased Social Security benefits and an expansion of the public health care system, and he has proposed tax credits for a variety of issues, including family caregiving, electric vehicle purchases and student loan forgiveness.
Read the TPC analysis of Biden’s tax plan here.