The Republican War on Children
Let me ask you a question; take your time in answering it. Would you be willing to take health care away from a thousand children with the bad luck to have been born into low-income families so that you could give millions of extra dollars to just one wealthy heir?
You might think that this question is silly, hypothetical and has an obvious answer. But it’s not at all hypothetical, and the answer apparently isn’t obvious. For it’s a literal description of the choice Republicans in Congress seem to be making as you read this.
The health care of Alexander Gardner, 7, is covered by a federal program whose funding expired in September
Mark Makela for The New York Times
The Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, is basically a piece of Medicaid targeted on young Americans. It was introduced in 1997, with bipartisan support. Last year it covered 8.9 million kids. But its funding expired more than two months ago. Republicans keep saying they’ll restore the money, but they keep finding reasons not to do it; state governments, which administer the program, will soon have to start cutting children off.
"What’s the problem? The other day Senator Orrin Hatch, asked about the program (which he helped create), once again insisted that it will be funded — but without saying when or how (and there don’t seem to be any signs of movement on the issue). And he further declared, “The reason CHIP’s having trouble is that we don’t have money anymore.” Then he voted for an immense tax cut.>
And one piece of that immense tax cut is a big giveaway to inheritors of large estates. Under current law, a married couple’s estate pays no tax unless it’s worth more than $11 million, so that only a handful of estates — around 5,500, or less than 0.2 percent of the total number of deaths a year — owe any tax at all. The number of taxable estates is also, by the way, well under one one-thousandth of the number of children covered by CHIP.
But Republicans still consider this tax an unacceptable burden on the rich. The Senate bill would double the exemption to $22 million; the House bill would eliminate the estate tax entirely.
So now let’s talk dollars. CHIP covers a lot of children, but children’s health care is relatively cheap compared with care for older Americans. In fiscal 2016 the program cost only $15 billion, a tiny share of the federal budget. Meanwhile, under current law the estate tax is expected to bring in about $20 billion, more than enough to pay for CHIP.
As you see, then, my question wasn’t at all hypothetical. By their actions, Republicans are showing that they consider it more important to give extra millions to one already wealthy heir than to provide health care to a thousand children.
Are there any possible defenses for this choice? Republicans like to claim that tax cuts pay for themselves by spurring economic growth, but no serious economists agree — and that’s the case even for things like corporate tax cuts that might have some positive economic effect. Applied to inheritance taxes, this claim is beyond absurd: There is no plausible argument to the effect that letting wealthy heirs claim their inheritance tax-free will make the economy boom.
What about the argument that estate taxes are a burden on small businesses and family farms? That’s a total, thoroughly debunked myth: Each year only around 80 — eight-zero — small businesses and farms pay any estate tax at all. And when you hear about family farms broken up to pay estate tax, remember: Nobody has ever come up with a modern example.
Then there’s the argument of Senator Chuck Grassley that we need to eliminate estate taxes to reward those who don’t spend their money on “booze or women or movies.” Yes, indeed, letting the likes of Donald Trump Jr. inherit wealth tax-free is a reward for their fathers’ austere lifestyles.
Meanwhile, here’s the funny thing: While there is zero evidence that tax cuts pay for themselves, there’s considerable evidence that aiding lower-income children actually saves money in the long run.
Think about it. Children who get adequate care are more likely to be healthier and more productive when they become adults, which means that they’ll earn more and pay more in taxes. They’re also less likely to become disabled and need government support. One recent study estimated that the government in fact earns a return of between 2 and 7 percent on the money it spends insuring children.
By the way, broadly similar results have been found for the food stamp program: Ensuring adequate nutrition for the young means healthier, more productive adults, so that in the long run this aid costs taxpayers little or nothing.
But such results, while interesting and important, aren’t the main reason we should be providing children with health care and enough to eat. Simple decency should be reason enough. And despite everything we’ve seen in U.S. politics, it’s still hard to believe that a whole political party would balk at doing the decent thing for millions of kids while rushing to further enrich a few thousand wealthy heirs.
That is, however, exactly what’s happening. And it’s as bad, in its own way, as that same party’s embrace of a child molester because they expect him to vote for tax cuts.
=============================
by Paul Krugman
There may be links in the Original Article that have not been reproduced here.
=====================================================================================
Current NT rules allow anyone to post more-or-less anything more-or-less anywhere... so I won't waste our time with pointless rules about behavior. I will simply ignore any member who in my opinion posts in bad faith. (See this article for an explanation of "bad faith".)
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
Billions for the ultra-rich, but no money for poor children.
Nauseating!
“I will simply ignore any member who in my opinion posts in bad faith. (See this article for an explanation of "bad faith".)
As of today, I am ignoring:
Deleted for context. D.
I will update this list, adding or deleting names, depending on what I see all across NT, and attach it to each of my seeds/articles.” Is this legal within the coc/tos?
Why are you naming members and calling them out on acting in your opinion in “bad faith” on NewsTalkers?
Who are you?
Why are you asking yourself that question? Don't you know why?
beats the heck out of me....
no. I was hoping bob would explain his little work around of the rules...
I don't see that as an insult. D.
As of today, I am ignoring:
DEleted for context. D.
I will update this list, adding or deleting names, depending on what I see all across NT, and attach it to each of my seeds/articles.”
How can I get on this list of elite posters?
He found a walk around by using pages.
That has been CoC violated also.....
First of all, what is included in an estate tax? That would include cash, securities, real estate, insurance, business interests as well as other assets. All of those items the owner of which has paid taxes on throughout his/her life. So to leave the fruits of labor (be it physical or risk/investment) to ones descendants - then, they in turn must pay another tax on the property all over again. That seems to me to be immoral. That is the argument Mr Krugman has ignored here. Why he insists on linking the Estate tax to the CHIP program is another thing I don't understand. If $15 billion is what is needed, why not get Medicaid back under control. Bringing Medicaid back down to its size in, let's say 2008, would leave more than enough for the CHIP program.
Mr Krugman is wrong about something else....What did he say about the possibility of Trump becoming President? : "So we are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight."
You are making several assumptions here, that are not proven.
The most important, obviously, is that there is some reason for children to inherit. Why should they? If our society behaves properly, then all children should be getting a good start: good nutrition, health, housing, and so on. Why should one child receive more or less than another? That seems to me to be immoral.
Because it’s not your or the state’s business to take property away from a family because someone dies. The whole family in many instances contributed to the creation and well being of said business, farm, ranch, or other endeavor. They paid taxes all along on what they did and need not pay an additional tax to keep it in the family.
We don't live in a Socialist society. You need to get Sanders elected.
BTW Socialism is immoral
socialism particularly its godless formats are so immoral that they have murdered well over 100 million who would dissent or were the wrong some group or someone or other.
Why?
or bullets if coercion doesn't work.....
Jesus was a total socialist, and a bleeding heart liberal.
It steals the fruits of ones labor & redistributes it. It also destroys incentive and productivity
Didn't know you were so religious
Do you consider all taxes to be theft? If not, where do you draw the line between "taxes that are theft" and "taxes that are not theft"?
In fact, socialism does not necessarily imply taxation, at all. Socialism is "collective ownership of means of production and distribution. (As opposed to capitalism which is private ownership of the same thing.) "Collective ownership" may take different forms with government (municipal, county, state, federal) ownership and employee ownership being the best known.
Personally, I consider property to be theft. (That's where I got the pseudo I used for a while: PJ Proudhon is best known for the slogan, "Property is theft!") Beyond small amounts of personally-created property, all else is the product of one person's work being "stolen" by another.
Wasn't there that whole money lenders in the temple incident?
Taxes by themselves are not theft. Redistribution is theft. That is why socialism does not work, has never worked and will never work (aside from it being immoral)....It defies human nature. Everyone wants the best of themselves & their families, thus the expenditure of productivity according to desire and needs.
Many years ago I had a conversation with a student from Germany. He told me everyone in Germany had a minimum stipend from the government. He also told he how many people got more than than the government knew by secretly working under the table, which is fairly common there. Also there is the difference between a planned economy which can never seem to satisfy its people and the marketplace which instantly & effectively serves the needs of it's people. When you've never had to live in a socialist system it may look good on paper, but I think you may want to actually talk to those who know, maybe some day you might meet one of our senior Cuban Americans. Ask them.
All government spending is redistribution, in some sense.
The tax bill the Republicans are now passing will redistribute hundreds of billions to the very richest. Is that ok?
.
This is not in contradiction with socialism. The idea that in a socialist system everyone gets the same revenue is untrue, a myth created by opponents as a bugaboo. The spread between highest and lowest would be far less than the 3000-to-1 found in major corporations today, but IMHO it's hard to accept that one employee produces 3000 times more value than another. In the 1950s, the spread was about 100 to 1 in America.
This is about children and that is a subject dear to my heart. In my State, I know that children are not turned away from hospitals. I know that all children can get Medicaid for children if qualified. Under Medicaid they, also, get dental care. I know that there are government/private agencies who help children. Children will be taken care of.
Read the article. The CHIP program has lost its funding, and will close.
I read it. It will not be closed down. Perhaps, not as it was in the past, but children will have healthcare.
You have an angelic confidence in politicians?
The money has been deleted from the budget, and the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Orin Hatch, has said quite clearly that "we don't have the money".
This article is being closed until further review as possible META. Bob, you may delete your small print at the bottom and it can be reopened for discussion.
Bob
You have recieved a CoC violation for calling out members in your fine print. That has been carried back to the previous articles in which you did the same. As well as the article you posted this morning. I'm calling your attention to it as a heads up. Posting it in future articles will result in further CoC violations.
Bruce,
I consider your role here to be biased, adversarial. You are abusing your position as Moderator to impose your own personal agenda. I have posted to Metafied , but if you insist, I will copy / paste the whole thing here.
Ah Bob?
Your first CoC for this was from Perrie.....
Otherwise, can we help your choice to spam this violation on all your current article postings?
You seem to have done it to yourself again...... Or god forbid, you were setting people up for a harassment claim? Or a clam of repression of your free speech?
You have gone from someone quite respected around here from both sides to a laughing stock with your childish games.....
Sad to see...
I think the comments from NM and BF actually constitute an attempt to do a gang up. Why are they even commenting on this?
Yeah, he's (john) is triggered now......
But then do the Mods matter to Bob? no
Does the Resident Advisor/Site Owner matter to Bob? no
His last five posted articles all contain the exact same violation, after he was told it was a violation, so I guess he is ignoring them...
At his own peril.....
I'd like to see what percentage of your comments have nothing to do with the seeded content. It has to be a phenomenal number.
The medium is the message, John. They don't care about the content of any seed/article. They only care about controlling the conversation, regardless of the topic.
Copy/pasted from "Metafied":
"We WILL have our way!"
For the last few days, my seeds/articles have carried a footnote, which I have been gradually fine-tuning. This morning's version is:
Current NT rules allow anyone to post more-or-less anything more-or-less anywhere... so I won't waste our time with pointless rules about behavior. I will simply ignore any member who in my opinion posts in bad faith. (See this article for an explanation of "bad faith".)
As of today, I am ignoring:
1stwarrior, arkpdx, Badfish, Capt. Cave Man, Hippocrates of Cos, No Fear, Nowhere Man, Rex Block, Sunshine, Tacos!, Texan1211, Uncle Bruce, XXJefferson#51.
I will update this list, adding or deleting names, depending on what I see all across NT, and attach it to each of my seeds/articles.
If you wish to discuss this with me, please do not do it here. That would be"meta", which should be discussed only in the specific Group. But please feel free to send me a Private Note. I will respond.
I would like to underscore a few things:
1. I confirm that on NT, anyone may post anything anywhere. In other words, this footnote is in no way an attempt to "limit free speech". Swarming vandalism is perfectly permissible on NT.
2. I insist that I am giving my opinion, not stating fact. Despite my outsized ego, I am astonished to see how deeply some members are outraged by my opinion... especially when they have no regard whatever for my opinion on any other subject. One might almost suspect that their outrage here is feigned, but that would be... bad faith...
3. I give a link, the key to understanding the basis for my opinions.
4. I give the list of persons I am ignoring. I do not specifically link this list to "bad faith", but it's kinda sorta obvious...
5. I ask that no one try to discuss the footnote within my seed/article, because that would be "meta" and is not allowed outside this Group. But I cannot, of course, control what other members decide to post... and it would be absurd to hold me responsible in any way,...
6. I give a venue for discussing the footnote. As of the posting of this article, no one has availed themselves of this option.
I would appreciate input to improve the efficacy of the footnote.
I don't think this is really a "meta" topic, but I've posted here just in case...