'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.”
The Surprising Reason for the Boom in Snack Sales
Americans are increasingly dining alone, and they’re opting for snacks rather than full meals, according to a new report from NPD group.
A key driver of the trend is the growing number of single-person households, since solo eaters are more likely to opt for snack foods for dinner. Nearly a quarter of all snack foods consumed last year were consumed at mealtime.
“Smaller household sizes and eating alone are among the growing factors with snacking,” NPD food and beverage industry analyst Darren Seifer said in a statement. “Food manufacturers should think about the unique needs of the solo consumer when developing products and packaging, and marketing messages should be crafted to be relevant to them and their snacking behaviors.”
Related: The 12 Hottest Food Trends for 2015
A separate report released by Nielsen last year found that more than half of global diners had selected snacks in the past 30 days to replace a lunch, 48 percent had snacked for breakfast and 41 percent had snacked for dinner.
When making their selection, single diners prefer single-serve packages and are increasingly turning to “better-for-you” snacks, like fresh fruit, breakfast bars, and yogurt, NPD found.
Food manufacturers are starting to adapt to the demand for healthier options. In June, General Mills said it would stop using artificial colors and flavors by 2016, and Kellogg Co. has vowed to do so by 2018.
Even as demand grows for healthier snacks, the most popular snacks in North Americans might make a nutritionist cringe. Nielsen found that the most popular snacks were chips, followed by chocolate and cheese.
Top Reads from the Fiscal Times:
- The $1 Trillion Question for the F-35: Is the U.S. Buying an Inferior Plane?
- Hillary’s College Plan—Debt Free College Now, Tax Them When They Make Money
- You Won’t Believe What Some Job Seekers Are Putting on Their Resumes
Obamacare Drives Uninsured Rate to Record Low
With the number of Americans lacking health insurance in decline, the rate of uninsured Americans has hit a record low, reaching levels not seen since the National Center for Disease Statistics began keeping records in 1972.
In the first quarter of 2015, 9.2 percent of all Americans were uninsured, according to new data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, down from 11.5 percent in 2014. The total number of uninsured Americans fell by 7 million over the past year, from 36 million in 2014 to 29 million in the first three months of 2015.
The largest declines were seen among adults who were poor or near-poor, suggesting that the Affordable Care Act was responsible for the most significant gains in coverage. Both groups dropped from uninsured rates near 50 percent in 2010 to 28 percent among poor adults and 23.8 percent among near-poor adults in 2015.
While Democrats are citing data as evidence that the Affordable Care Act is working, Republicans will likely argue that the reduction is being driven by an improving economy and a steadily declining unemployment rate.
Arkansas and Kentucky continue to record the most noticeable reductions in uninsured rates since Obamacare took effect at the beginning of 2013, according to a new report by Gallup. Texas is the only state to still have an uninsured rate higher than 20 percent.
We Built a $335 Million Power Plant in Afghanistan that Can Barely Turn on Lightbulb
USAID is denying that a $335 million “vital component” of their mission to aid the massive energy deficit in Kabul, Afghanistan is an utter failure, but a new report contradicts that claim.
A power plant built by U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is extremely underused and in danger of being wasted, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). USAID attempted to defend itself by saying the plant was only built to provide occasional backup and insurance for Kabul’s electrical grid, not for electrical power on a continuous basis. SIGAR’s report provides evidence that the plant was built for regular usage.
Related: U.S. Military Builds a $15 Million Warehouse That Nobody Wants
First, the basis of design was for a base load plant, built to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Also, the plant hasn’t made any impact on reducing Kabul’s massive energy deficit that USAID says is one of the plant’s main priorities. Not only is it not being used regularly, but it’s not even contributing additional electricity to increase the overall power supply in Kabul.
The Tarakhil Power Plant was built in July 2007 on the outskirts of Kabul, with the intention of supplying 18 diesel engines worth of operating power. Since Da Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat (DABS) – Afghanistan’s national power utility – assumed responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the facility in 2010, the plant has only performed at a shred of its total capability. Between July 2010 and December 2013, the USAID IG found that the plant performed at a mere 2.2 percent of its potential.
Since the Tarakhil Power Plant was used incorrectly and only on an intermittent basis, the plant has suffered premature wear and tear on its engine and electrical components. The damage is expected to raise already steep operation and maintenance costs.
Top Reads from the Fiscal Times:
- How ‘King Coal’ Could Swing the 2016 Election
- Kerry to Congress: Sign the Iran Deal or the Dollar Gets Hit
- China’s Currency Devaluation Brings Stocks to a 'Death Cross'
We Built a $335 Million Power Plant in Afghanistan that Can Barely Turn on Lightbulb
USAID is denying that a $335 million “vital component” of their mission to aid the massive energy deficit in Kabul, Afghanistan is an utter failure, but a new report contradicts that claim.
A power plant built by U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is extremely underused and in danger of being wasted, according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). USAID attempted to defend itself by saying the plant was only built to provide occasional backup and insurance for Kabul’s electrical grid, not for electrical power on a continuous basis. SIGAR’s report provides evidence that the plant was built for regular usage.
Related: U.S. Military Builds a $15 Million Warehouse That Nobody Wants
First, the basis of design was for a base load plant, built to operate 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Also, the plant hasn’t made any impact on reducing Kabul’s massive energy deficit that USAID says is one of the plant’s main priorities. Not only is it not being used regularly, but it’s not even contributing additional electricity to increase the overall power supply in Kabul.
The Tarakhil Power Plant was built in July 2007 on the outskirts of Kabul, with the intention of supplying 18 diesel engines worth of operating power. Since Da Afghanistan Breshna Sherkat (DABS) – Afghanistan’s national power utility – assumed responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the facility in 2010, the plant has only performed at a shred of its total capability. Between July 2010 and December 2013, the USAID IG found that the plant performed at a mere 2.2 percent of its potential.
Since the Tarakhil Power Plant was used incorrectly and only on an intermittent basis, the plant has suffered premature wear and tear on its engine and electrical components. The damage is expected to raise already steep operation and maintenance costs.
How Good Is Your Insurance? ‘Cadillac Tax’ Looms for Large Employer Health Plans
While most companies expect health care cost increases to hold steady next year, nearly half of large employers say that if they can’t find new ways to cut costs, they’re going to cross the “Cadillac tax” threshold in 2018, according to a new study by the National Business Group on Health.
Passed as part of the Affordable Care Act and going into effect in 2018, the Cadillac tax will hit employers whose plans cost more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family. The employer will have to pay a 40 percent tax on the cost of each plan above those levels.
Among the companies surveyed, 48 percent said that at least one of their benefit plans would trigger the Cadillac Tax. By 2020, 72 percent of employers say one of their plans will trigger the tax, and 51 percent say their most popular plan will be subject to the tax.
Related: Obamacare’s Cadillac Tax Hits the College Campus
“The need to control rising health care benefits costs has never been greater,” NGBH President and CEO Brian Marcotte said in a statement. “Rising costs have plagued employers for many years and now the looming excise tax is adding pressure.”
Employers expect keep benefit costs increases to 5 percent this year by pushing more costs onto workers via consumer-directed health plans (76 percent) and expanding wellness initiatives (70 percent).
None of the 425 employers surveyed said they planned to eliminate their health care coverage, but nearly a quarter said they’d consider offering employees a private exchange.
Top Reads from the Fiscal Times:
- How ‘King Coal’ Could Swing the 2016 Election
- Kerry to Congress: Sign the Iran Deal or the Dollar Gets Hit
- China’s Currency Devaluation Brings Stocks to a 'Death Cross'