╌>

Senate Democrats Agree to $3.5 Trillion Healthcare and Antipoverty Plan - WSJ

  
Via:  Vic Eldred  •  4 years ago  •  16 comments

By:   Andrew Duehren and Kristina Peterson (WSJ)

Senate Democrats Agree to $3.5 Trillion Healthcare and Antipoverty Plan - WSJ
The agreement determines the scope of the party's expected efforts on education, climate change, child care and a host of other issues while it has control of Congress and the White House.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Updated July 13, 2021 10:25 pm ET

WASHINGTON—Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee agreed to roughly $3.5 trillion in spending for their broad healthcare and antipoverty plan, determining the scope of the party's expected efforts on education, climate change, child care and a host of other issues while it has control of Congress and the White House.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) announced the agreement Tuesday night after an hourslong meeting among White House officials and members of the committee, which is tasked with crafting the broad contours of the bill. The $3.5 trillion price falls short of a $6 trillion package previously sought by progressives, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), the chairman of the Budget Committee who endorsed the deal Tuesday night.

Democrats are pursuing a process tied to the budget called reconciliation to advance the bill through the 50-50 Senate without GOP support and avoid the 60-vote threshold typically needed in the chamber. With the top-line figures set, lawmakers will still need to craft the details of the policy provisions in the $3.5 trillion agreement.

"We are very proud of this plan, we know we have a long road to go, we are going to get this done for the sake of making average Americans lives a whole lot better," Mr. Schumer said.

The legislation is also expected to ultimately include a series of tax increases on corporations and wealthy Americans. Sen. Mark Warner (D., Va.), a member of the budget panel, said its full cost would be paid for. A Democratic aide familiar with the agreement said it will prohibit tax increases on people making less than $400,000 and small businesses.

While the $3.5 trillion top-line falls short of progressives’ earlier calls, it is in line with President Biden’s roughly  $4 trillion economic agenda , which he laid out in a pair of plans earlier this year. Lawmakers are also working on a roughly  $1 trillion infrastructure package , roughly $600 billion of which would supplement expected federal infrastructure spending, and Mr. Schumer said that together the two efforts would put the Senate on track toward approving the bulk of Mr. Biden’s plans.

The legislation Democrats are preparing is expected to mirror elements of Mr. Biden’s proposals, which called for an  extension of an expanded child tax credit , universal prekindergarten and tax incentives for clean-energy investments. Mr. Schumer said the Democratic bill would also expand Medicare to cover dental, vision and hearing care, a provision championed by Mr. Sanders and other progressives.

The fate of other progressive demands on healthcare remained unclear, including lowering Medicare’s eligibility age to 60 from 65, and empowering the government to  negotiate the price of prescription drugs .

Mr. Biden is expected to meet with Senate Democrats Wednesday to discuss the plan, according to Mr. Schumer.

Raising enough revenue to cover the cost of the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion package will likely prove challenging for lawmakers. Mr. Biden proposed increasing the corporate tax rate to 28% from 21%, tightening the net on U.S. companies’ foreign earnings and raising the top capital-gains rate to 43.4% from 23.8% to cover the cost of his roughly $4 trillion agenda over 15 years.

But many Democrats have opposed or expressed skepticism about several elements of those tax plans, likely lowering the total amount of revenue the party can agree to raise.

“I make no illusions of how challenging this is going to be,” Mr. Warner said Tuesday.

Deciding how to pay for the cost of proposed spending has plagued the separate, bipartisan infrastructure efforts for weeks, with Senate Republicans sounding fresh alarms about the financing of the roughly $1 trillion infrastructure package on Tuesday. Some GOP lawmakers have started questioning whether its cost would be fully covered as lawmakers tried to iron out the final details of that bill.

Eleven Senate Republicans have joined 11 members of the Democratic caucus to endorse the infrastructure agreement.

But some of those Republicans said that the agreement’s plan to raise funds from enhanced enforcement at the Internal Revenue Service may still prove problematic, depending on the scope of the new authority given to the tax agency. Republicans have also raised concerns that the revenue measures, which also include public-private partnerships, may not ultimately cover the cost of the plan.

Those two issues could peel off Republican members of the group, which met Tuesday evening to work through the remaining questions, lawmakers said. At least 10 Republicans would need to join every Democrat for the infrastructure agreement to pass.

“Where we’re really going to have challenges when we meet is on the payfors. The tax gap concerns me somewhat in terms of the impact you could have on businesses,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R., N.C.), one of the Republicans who had previously endorsed the infrastructure framework, said referencing enhanced IRS enforcement.

Mr. Tillis also said that Democratic plans to simultaneously advance their larger antipoverty package could reduce Republican support for the infrastructure bill. House Speaker  Nancy Pelosi  (D., Calif.) has said the House won’t take up the infrastructure bill until the Senate also passes the broader Democratic package.

Throughout the bipartisan talks, figuring out how to pay for roads, bridges and rail had  presented the biggest challenge . Members of both parties had sought to cover the full cost of the spending, while at the same time avoiding raising user fees like the gas tax, a White House priority, and not raising corporate taxes, a Republican demand.

That left lawmakers relying on IRS enforcement and public-private partnerships, along with several measures like selling space on the wireless spectrum to finance the package. Negotiators have expected official estimates from the Congressional Budget Office to possibly conflict with their own, and Sen. Angus King (I., Maine), who caucuses with Democrats, said the CBO had questioned some of their calculations on raising revenue for the plan. He said that the group was working through the issues.






“We want to have payfors, and we’ve got some good ones, CBO may not give us full credit,” said Sen. Rob Portman (R., Ohio), one of the lead negotiators. “There are some members who are looking for a CBO score.”

To receive a CBO score, lawmakers will need to craft the text of the legislation. Exiting a Tuesday meeting, members of the infrastructure group said they hoped to resolve the remaining issues in the talks by the end of the week. Staff can then turn to writing the text of the bill.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R., S.D.), who has also previously endorsed the deal, said he was concerned about the specifics of the enhanced IRS enforcement. While efforts to collect more taxes owed but not paid have gained bipartisan support, Republicans have opposed measures like additional reporting requirements.

“I think the IRS will be a bigger issue because it’s more direct in terms of whether or not it impacts a business’s ability, and whether or not it’s harassment or actually keeping the integrity of the tax system intact,” Mr. Rounds said.

Still, some Republicans who helped craft the initial framework said they were optimistic that the lure of infrastructure improvements would help carry the deal over the finish line.

“If we come up with good policies, then I’m comfortable we’re going to have the votes,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R., La.).


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 years ago

It is truly astounding. One would think the democrats had a huge mandate. Instead they operate on the narrowest of majorities and are given the gift of two shots at reconciliation.

The sad part is that even when (not if) Republicans take the congress back in 2022, there won't be much of a country left. By then there will be inflation to the point where the Dollar won't be worth much and there will be a massive demographic transformation. Maybe the MIT model is correct. We will be cooked by 2040.

 
 
 
Hallux
Professor Principal
2  Hallux    4 years ago

Just in terms of physical infrastructure it's likely $3.5 trillion short of what is needed. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Hallux @2    4 years ago

Gotta wonder how much pork is in the details.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3  Kavika     4 years ago

In 2018 civil engineers estimated that it would take $4.6 trillion to fix the infrastructure.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Kavika @3    4 years ago

Isn't climate change more important?

Can't have it all at once.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4  Sean Treacy    4 years ago

Why do Democrats hate our children? 
 Robbing future generations because they can’t live within their means

Biden’s unnecessary  ARPA package already put us two trillion! In the hole.  I guess that wasn’t enough

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    4 years ago

"Hard Core" democrats seem to hate America.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5  Kavika     4 years ago

It seems that some commenting forgot how much Trump added to the deficit. It was trillions as a reminder. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
5.1  Snuffy  replied to  Kavika @5    4 years ago

It also seems that come commenting forget just how little power the president actually has when it comes to the spending as the budgets come out of the House, are approved by Congress and while the President can kick up his heels and bitch he's really stuck between a rock and a hard place. The President gets the blame and the credit when in reality has little control,  kind of like the economy.

With that said,  if they pass this and the Medicare age goes down to 60..  (along with the new taxes) I'm retired and done.  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Kavika   replied to  Snuffy @5.1    4 years ago

Much of the debt was from the Trump tax cuts which he is responsible for. 

With that said,  if they pass this and the Medicare age goes down to 60..  (along with the new taxes) I'm retired and done.  

I retired years ago from actively working (day to day) but keep my hand in an on going business.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.2  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @5.1    4 years ago
if they pass this and the Medicare age goes down to 60..  

We'll have to hire more people at the office to accommodate more customers.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
5.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  Kavika @5.1.1    4 years ago
Much of the debt was from the Trump tax cuts which he is responsible for. 

Not 100% true.  The tax cuts as I remember were supposed to be off-set by a reduction in other payouts but the House would not approve those cuts and passed a budget that included spending more money. The tax cuts were pushed thru via reconciliation.   While I did get a break in my taxes I was against the tax cut, I would rather have the expenses reduced and the debt actually paid down. But that never happened. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Kavika   replied to  Snuffy @5.1.3    4 years ago

Most organizations predicted that the tax cuts would increase the deficit no matter the offsets. 

According to a 2017 survey, many large corporations said that they didn’t need the money from the Trump administration's tax cuts. They were sitting on a record $2.3 trillion in cash reserves, double the level in 2001.

IMO, the tax cuts were a huge mistake. Interestingly the corporate tax cuts are permanent and the individual cuts expire in 2025.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  Kavika @5.1.4    4 years ago

Nothing is permanent in the world of taxes- you should know that by now.

I am sure corporations that foolishly brought production and funds back to the US under the Trump tax cuts will not make the same mistake twice. Wonder how many corporate heads are going to roll as they calculate how much it will cost moving things back overseas? Will it be cheaper to try and wait Biden and the Democrats out; and allow them enough rope to hang themselves so Republicans come back into power and lower it again- or make the move with the promise never to return again? 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Kavika   replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.5    4 years ago

Thank you for the information I was already aware of. The point was that the tax cuts were one of the reasons that the deficit increased by trillions under Trump. 

You can see from this following that corporations don't have to worry about your senario at all.

Perhaps the biggest blunder of the Trump administration was the claim that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act “would add $1.8 trillion in new revenue that would more than pay for the $1.5 trillion cost of the tax cuts themselves.” The implication is that increased economic growth would boost tax revenues enough to offset the tax cuts. But this optimistic scenario simply did not happen.

Chart D, based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, shows that tax receipts have declined $160 billion since 2016, and $92 billion since the tax cut.

Collins_CHART_D_tax_cuts.5e9a165d3b7bb.png?auto=format&fit=max&w=1440

Since the tax receipts are declining and growth is not paying for the tax cuts, the TCJA is simply increasing the federal deficit.

What Did Corporations Do with the Profits?

U.S. multi-national corporations were the biggest recipients of the tax cut. The original goal was to increase capital investments.

However, this optimistic scenario did not happen; companies used much of their new profits to buy back shares of their own stock to increase the share price and realize short-term profits.   In 2018, stock buybacks hit $800 billion , and in 2019 they were expected to be $795 billion.

width="300" height="250">   In 2018, stock buybacks hit $800 billion , and in 2019 they were expected to be $795 billion. In the run-up to the vote by Congress for the TCJA, there was no mention of or written limitation for using the new profits for stock buybacks or for dividends to shareholders, and multi-national corporations moved quickly to use the profits for short-term gains, rather than invest for long-term growth. Besides stock buybacks, American corporations continue to sell, hire, and invest more in their overseas operations than they do in the U.S. facilities . A World Investment Report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD ) lists 21 of the largest American multi-national corporations (MNC) ranked by foreign assets. The list shows that: 1.They have nearly or more than 2/3s of their total sales outside the U.S. 2. They have half of their workforce outside the U.S., and some employ 75% of their workforce overseas. 3. They have half or more than half of their total assets (property, plant, and equipment) located outside the U.S. The report says that in order to sustain themselves, U.S. multinational corporations are “forced” to “minimize their production costs for their global markets” and are sometimes “required” to “shift production overseas, possibly to take advantage of lower labor costs, lower taxes or more favorable regulations.” So the assumption is that these companies will continue to invest in overseas facilities, not primarily in the U.S. width="300" height="250"> American multi-national corporations pay very low taxes to manufacturer in foreign countries. In addition, they can defer U.S. taxes indefinitely as long as the profits are held in a foreign subsidiary or in a tax haven like Ireland or the Cayman Islands. According to the   International Tax and Economic Policy Institute , Fortune 500 companies hold $2.6 trillion offshore, avoiding about $767 billion in federal taxes. They are also allowed to deduct foreign expenses like interest, administrative overhead, and R&D against their U.S. tax bill. The 2017 TCJA law also reduced the tax to repatriate foreign earnings to 15.5 or 8%, which is below the new corporate tax of 21%. So, despite all of the ballyhoo about investing in the U.S., I don’t see any reason that American multinational corporations will invest in the U.S., much less bring production back from overseas. If the increased profits they receive from reducing their corporate taxes from 35% to 21% was not enough incentive to seriously increase capital investments, then one has to wonder if these corporations are really serious about investing in the country and its workers. Or, if the long-term game is to continuously shift production overseas and to increase their return on investment from overseas operations rather than US operations. This is an even more pressing problem in manufacturing than other sectors of the economy, because manufacturing requires so much more investment in equipment, structures, and research and development to grow. The implementation of the TCJA was a tremendous victory for promoters of supply side economics. The assumption is that if the government reduces taxes, the companies will use the extra profits for capital investments which will lead to growth, hiring more employees, and higher wages. The supply side's theoreticians have been making these claims since the Reagan administration in the early 1980s.  Instead of increasing growth and investment, it appears that the tax cuts will increase the federal deficit, because of declining tax receipts. One wonders how many times we must accept supply-side solutions before we wake up to the reality of demand-side economics. https://www.industryweek.com/the-economy/article/21129139/did-the-tax-cuts-boost-us-manufacturing
 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7  Kavika     4 years ago

Sorry for the formatting but I can't get it to space properly. Here is the link to the article. 

 
 

Who is online




freepress
Hallux
Tacos!


71 visitors