'Tax Reform Is Hard. Keeping Tax Reform Is Harder': Highlights from the House Tax Cuts Hearing
The House Ways and Means Committee held a three-hour hearing Wednesday on the effects of the Republican tax overhaul. We tuned in so you wouldn’t have to.
As you might have expected, the hearing was mostly an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to exercise their messaging on the benefits or dangers of the new law, and for the experts testifying to disagree whether the gains from the law would outweigh the costs. But there was also some consensus that it’s still very early to try to gauge the effects of the law that was signed into effect by President Trump less than five months ago.
“I would emphasize that, despite all the high-quality economic research that’s been done, never before has the best economy on the planet moved from a worldwide system of taxation to a territorial system of taxation. There is no precedent,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and former director of the Congressional Budget Office. “And in that way we do not really know the magnitude and the pace at which a lot of these [effects] will occur.”
Some key quotes from the hearing:
Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA), ranking Democrat on the committee: “This was not tax reform. This was a tax cut for people at the top. The problem that Republicans hope Americans overlook is the law’s devastating impact on your health care. In search of revenue to pay for corporate cuts, the GOP upended the health care system, causing 13 million Americans to lose their coverage. For others, health insurance premiums will spike by at least 10 percent, which translates to about $2,000 a year of extra costs per year for a family of four. … These new health expenses will dwarf any tax cuts promised to American families. … The fiscal irresponsibility of their law is stunning. Over the next 10 years they add $2.3 trillion to the nation’s debt to finance tax cuts for people at the top – all borrowed money. … When the bill comes due, Republicans intend to cut funding for programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.”
David Farr, chairman and CEO of Emerson, and chairman of the National Association of Manufacturers: “We recently polled the NAM members, and the responses heard back from them on the tax reform are very significant and extremely positive: 86 percent report that they’ve already planned to increase investments, 77 percent report that they’ve already planned to increase hiring, 72 percent report that they’ve already planned to increase wages or benefits.”
Holtz-Eakin: “No, tax cuts don’t pay for themselves. If they did there would be no additional debt from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and there is. The question is, is it worth it? Will the growth and the incentives that come from it be worth the additional federal debt. My judgment on that was yes. Reasonable people can disagree. … When we went into this exercise, there was $10 trillion in debt in the federal baseline, before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. There was a dangerous rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio. It was my belief, and continues to be my belief, that those problems would not be addressed in a stagnant, slow-growth economy. Those are enormously important problems, and we needed to get growth going so we can also take them on.”
“Quite frankly, it’s not going to be possible to hold onto this beneficial tax reform if you don’t get the spending side under control. Tax reform is hard. Keeping tax reform is harder, and the growth consequences of not fixing the debt outlook are entirely negative and will overwhelm what you’ve done so far.”
Steven Rattner: "We would probably all agree that increases in our national debt of these kinds of orders of magnitude have a number of deleterious effects. First, they push interest rates up. … That not only increases the cost of borrowing for the federal government, it increases the cost of borrowing for private corporations whose debt is priced off of government paper. Secondly, it creates additional pressure on spending inside the budget to the extent anyone is actually trying to control the deficit. … And thirdly, and in my view perhaps most importantly, it’s a terrible intergenerational transfer. We are simply leaving for our children additional trillions of dollars of debt that at some point are going to have to be dealt with, or there are going to have to be very, very substantial cuts in benefits, including programs like Social Security and Medicare, in order to reckon with that.”
For Most Seniors, Social Security Is Their Biggest Source of Income
The 80-year-old Social Security program has long been known as the third rail of American politics -- touch it and you die.
Last year alone, more than 59 million Americans received retirement, disability and survivor’s benefits totaling $863 billion. While some lawmakers and policy experts warn that the system will begin to run short of cash beginning in 2035, seniors’ advocacy groups have vigorously fought major changes and cuts.
Related: Battle Lines Form in the Fight Over Social Security Payment Reductions
Some nine out of ten people who are 65 or older receive Social Security benefits, according to the Social Security Administration, with an average monthly benefit of $1,294 average for retirees. Overall, Social Security benefits constitute about 38 percent of the income of the elderly, but that number varies greatly from individual to individual.
For the majority of seniors, Social Security makes up the majority of their income. Sixty-five percent of beneficiaries age 65 and older get more than half of their income from the program. Nearly a third (28%) rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income.
Related: 4 Ways to Fix Social Security
The pie chart below, prepared by the staff of the congressional Joint Economic Committee, illustrates the range of seniors’ dependence on Social Security benefits:
Fund Managers Making Millions from University Endowments
The soaring endowments at America’s top universities are doing more to line the pockets of the millionaire private equity fund managers who run them than they are for the schools’ students, argues a New York Times op-ed published today.
At Yale University last year, for example, fund managers received $480 million in compensation for managing a third of Yale’s $24 billion endowment. Meanwhile, the school spent just $170 million of that endowment on tuition assistance, fellowships and prizes, according to an analysis by Victor Fleischer, a law professor at the University of San Diego.
He found a similar at Harvard, the University of Texas, Stanford and Princeton. “We’ve lost sight of the idea that students, not fund managers, should be the primary beneficiaries of a university’s endowment,” Fleischer writes. “The private-equity folks get cash; students take out loans.”
Related: Harvard’s In-House Fund Managers Get 70 Percent Pay Hike
It’s worth noting that all the schools Fleischer cites do have relatively generous tuition assistance programs, and they often spend their endowments on capital improvements and other projects that indirectly benefit students. Their endowments have also enjoyed record returns under private equity management.
Fleischer argues that college endowments should be required to spend a percentage of their assets each year, much like other private endowments. That would lead to lower overall endowments but might put a damper on tuition increases and would lead to improved research facilities, he claims.
Last year American universities invested about 11 percent of their portfolios in private equity and saw a 16.5 percent return on them, according to the National Association for College and University Business Officers.
Top Reads from the Fiscal Times:
- Replace Obamacare with What? GOP Candidates Start Slinging Proposals
- Clinton Tries to Brush Off Email Affair as She Wades Deeper into the Morass
- From Russia with Sub: Amazing Pictures of Putin in the Black Sea
John Kasich’s Latest Endorsement Could Be a Game-Changer
Ohio’s Republican Gov. John Kasich on Monday sought to enshrine his status as a top-tier presidential candidate when he rolled out the endorsement of Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley.
“John Kasich is a leader whose readiness to lead our nation on his first day in the Oval Office is unmatched,” Bentley said during a joint appearance at the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame. “America needs John Kasich, and I am going to do everything I can to help make sure he is our next president.”
Related: 10 Things You Need to Know About John Kasich
On paper, the Republican governor of a deep-red Southern state endorsing a GOP presidential candidate months before the first primary votes are cast may not come as much of a surprise, but it could ultimately mean a great deal for Kasich’s White House bid.
The Ohio Republican, with his compassionate conservative message, has touted himself as a moderate in the crowded GOP field; winning the support of the executive of one of the most conservative states in the nation could help him broaden his appeal in the party.
Alabama is set to play a major role in the GOP’s 2016 nomination process. The state is one of eight in the South that will hold a vote on March 1 in the so-called “SEC primary.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), another White House hopeful, has called the cluster of states the “firewall” for his candidacy and wrapped up a southern bus tour last week, drawing large crowds in Tennessee, Mississippi and Arkansas.
Related: Did Kasich Just Do an About-Face on Climate Change?
By making hay of Bentley’s endorsement, Kasich also aims to stay in the spotlight and secure his place on the main stage when Republicans meet again next month for their second debate.
Kasich announced his candidacy just a few weeks before the first debate in Cleveland earlier this month in the hope that his initial splash in the polls would be enough for him to make the cut-off for the prime time event. The strategy paid off; Kasich received standing ovations and thunderous applause whenever he answered a question before the home state crowd.
But surveys taken since the debate show former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina surging in the polls, meaning another contender is likely to get bumped off stage.
After Bentley’s announcement, Kasich, who has bet his candidacy on winning the New Hampshire primary and watched his numbers steadily rise there, will make a campaign swing through the Granite State, Iowa and South Carolina.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times
- Mark Cuban: Here’s Why Republicans Will Lose the Election
- Here Are 5 Democrats Who Could Scuttle the Iran Deal
- 9 Trump Positions that Make Liberals Want to Move to Canada
Here’s How Much It Would Cost the Military to Provide Transition Care to Transgender Troops
As the U.S. military studies the implications of lifting a ban on transgender people serving in the armed forces, a new study says that the cost of providing transition-related health care to those service members would be about $5.6 million a year, or “little more than a rounding error in the military's $47.8 billion annual health care budget.”
After U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced in mid-July that that Department of Defense would look into lifting the ban, opponents expressed concern about the potential high costs of providing care to transgender individuals. In last week’s debate among Republican presidential candidates, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said he wasn’t sure “how paying for transgender surgery for soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines makes our country safer.”
Related: The Surprising Way the Military Could Save Millions
The new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated that 12,800 transgender troops currently serve and are eligible for health care in the U.S., but only 188 transgender service members would require transition-related care annually. Aaron Belkin, the San Francisco State University researcher who conducted the survey, checked for accuracy using data from the Australian military, which already covers transition-related care, and compared costs with insurance plans offered to University of California employees and their dependents.
Belkin emphasized that costs could be lower than expected for several reasons. Among those, transition-related care would mitigate other serious and potentially costly conditions, such as suicidal thoughts, and might improve job performance.
Acknowledging that the costs might be higher than he estimates, Belkin still says they would be too low to matter and shouldn’t be a factor in deciding whether the ban is lifted or not.
In June, the American Medical Association said there is “no medically valid reason” to prohibit transgender individuals from serving in the military.
Top Reads From The Fiscal Times
- The Pentagon’s Next-Generation Budget Busting Bomber
- Mark Cuban: Here’s Why Republicans Will Lose the Election
- The $1 Trillion Question for the F-35: Is the U.S. Buying an Interior Plane?
4 Ways to Fix Social Security
Social Security celebrates its 80th birthday today, and the popular program that provides paychecks for 44 million elderly Americans is in need of a safety net of its own.
As the amount claimed by recipients continues to outpace the amount of money contributed by workers, the system will need to dip into its reserves to keep up with its obligations by 2020. Within 15 years after that (if nothing changes), those reserves will be gone and the system will only be able to pay 77 cents on every dollar owed, an amount that will continue to decrease with time.
The problem is even more acute given that future retirees won’t have the same access to pensions that many current retirees use to fund their retirement, and younger workers haven’t saved nearly enough to cover the costs they’ll face when they stop working.
To close the projected gap, the country needs to raise revenue, reduce benefits or some combination of the two. Here are four of the most commonly proposed solutions:
1. Raise the retirement age. For most Americans, the full retirement age (at which you can get full benefits) ranges from 65 through 67. Advocates of this solution would reduce the amount the government pays in Social Security by gradually pushing back the age at which you’re eligible for full benefits.
The drawback: Many Americans are already forced into retirement before they reach age 65. If they claim early and receive reduced benefits they may not have enough money to meet their basic needs. Also, workers in physically demanding jobs many not be able to work those extra years.
2. Raise the payroll cap. Social Security is funded via payroll taxes, which currently are only levied on the first $118,500 of income. That means that high earners effectively pay a much lower rate toward Social Security than others. Hiking or eliminating that cap, advocates say, would create a fairer system and increase revenue.
The drawback: Critics of this solution claim that increasing taxes on middle- and upper-income earners would reduce their income and stifle the country’s economic growth.
Related: 6 Popular Social Security Myths Busted
3. Institute a means test. While the vast majority of recipients (80 percent, per AARP) rely on Social Security as an integral part of funding their retirement, extremely high net worth individuals don’t need the additional income. This solution would create a net worth or retirement income threshold over which eligibility for social security phases out.
The drawbacks: It could be politically difficult to settle on a threshold, which might vary depending on the geography of a recipient. Plus, this would require people to pay into a system from which they get no benefits.
4. Freeze the cost of living adjustment. Social Security payments have historically been adjusted based on inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index. This has been minimal in recent years, but the long-term, compounding effect of inflation makes this provision incredibly expensive.The drawbacks: For many people, Social Security is the only inflation-linked retirement income stream that they have. Limiting it could push some retirees over the financial edge as prices rise.