[Mb-civic] What Bush has planned for America if he wins.

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

And you thought his first term was a nightmare
What Bush has planned for America if he wins.
By Charles Tiefer 
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/08/25/bush_second_term/ 
<ÿеϻ€€ÎÓ‹³÷üÿ×þ÷ßÎÛ¯ý‹
ô‹ÐÑ‹Ã胄ØçÛÁѶ΀€€‰
>Aug. 25, 2004

President Bush's plans for a second term threaten a devastating series of 
far-reaching challenges to the viability of the Democratic Party itself. Under 
Bush's slogan of an "ownership society," the Republicans intend a long-term 
effort, using changes in Medicare, Social Security and taxes to pit better-off 
and worse-off Democrats against each other, offering all-but-irresistible 
incentives for some to desert the others -- and any progressive national 
coalition. Congressional Democrats reeling from the impact of the last four 
years of Republican government in the White House and Congress (apart 
from the brief Democratic-controlled Senate in part of 2001-02) will find no 
respite in the platform's subtext about the party-splitting wedges ahead. A 
second-term Bush agenda will constantly impale Democrats on the dilemma 
of abandoning their poorer, sicker, older and minority groups, or seeing their 
better-off, healthier and younger members lured off to the other party. If it 
sounds like a political nightmare for the Democrats, that's because that's 
what it is planned to be. 

Medicare
A prime provision of the Republican platform touts Bush's Medicare act of 
late 2003, focusing public attention on the drug benefit provisions and such 
nice-sounding themes as providing more healthcare choice and having a free 
market in healthcare. Meanwhile, the Republicans distract attention from the 
less visible part of the 2003 act, the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), 
which made the most radical alteration to Medicare in years. These Medicare 
maneuvers occurred with the typical Republican stealth; the act was written 
in a closed-door conference committee that excluded meaningful Democratic 
input and rammed through Tom DeLay's House of Representatives by a 
single vote late at night as the rule for debate was extended for hours while 
moderate Republican doubters were coerced with threats. 

Traditional Medicare unifies seniors into a group that can come together to 
defend it because it enrolls everyone in its public fee-for-services plan. The 
MMA begins the political splitting of seniors by adding a new private 
Preferred Provider Organization option, dubbed in Orwellian fashion 
"Medicare Advantage." 

Medicare Advantage drains Medicare's total funding by giving away billions in 
lopsided subsidies to the private insurers who provide such plans, with the 
expectation that they can pocket most of those subsidies as profits and yet 
still offer incentives to some seniors to join. For example, such plans can 
provide the seniors they entice to sign up with a drug benefit plan without all 
the cutoffs and ceilings that make Bush's standard Medicare drug benefit 
plan a hollow offering for many seniors. But the insurers enroll only the 
healthier and better-off seniors into these plans. As a result, traditional 
Medicare, which must carry an increasingly concentrated share of the costlier 
patients, gets perceived as overspending per patient. This benefits Bush's 
corporate backers in the insurance industry who have the healthier, 
inexpensive beneficiaries to generate profits without any particular efficiency 
by the insurer itself. 

Then, another part of Bush's MMA sets up "premium support demonstration 
projects." Under the new rules, competition between traditional Medicare and 
private plans will sharply force up the premiums seniors pay for traditional 
Medicare. At their start, these projects will affect about 6 million of the 41 
million people in Medicare and will expand later. When Republicans have 
their way, the harsh consequences, such as 30 percent hikes in premiums, 
would be imposed on seniors who, for geographic and other reasons (for 
example, they live in Democratic voting states, they are working poor), 
Republicans see no reason to spare. Again, in these project sites, healthier 
and wealthier seniors, who can take the risk of leaving traditional Medicare, 
would depart for private insurers. 

Once that happens, the whole senior population would be split into two 
antagonistic camps. The sicker and poorer group would be forced to stay 
behind in traditional Medicare, which would suffer increasing underfunding. 
However, the healthier and wealthier group of seniors moving into Bush's 
private plans would be well taught to identify their interest with the Bush-
supporting private insurers. Both the insurers, and this group, would see 
merit in supporting tough cost-savings in the traditional Medicare group -- 
treating it increasingly the way stingy states treat Medicaid beneficiaries. 

Some tough measures against traditional Medicare's increasingly 
beleaguered beneficiaries may include folding some poorer Medicare 
beneficiaries into their state's Medicaid program -- a rough fate in states that 
take full advantage of potentially lax federal oversight -- or perhaps even 
moving some parts of the Medicare population further toward the Republican 
ideal of a capped voucher system. Once the Republicans have such a 
capped voucher system, they can make further cuts from time to time that 
put all the fiscal pain of the system's limits, including its industry subsidies, on 
those who can least bear it. 

Politically, the healthier and wealthier group would eschew the classic 
seniors' thoughts that traditional Medicare deserves protection and that 
Republicans are not protecting it. That political trend would become 
especially strong because the MMA includes a fast-track provision that could 
be traditional Medicare's death warrant. This provision, in circumstances that 
portend a larger Medicare draw upon general revenues, puts Republican-
style changes, like benefit cuts, on a fast track through the House, rigged to 
work even if miraculously the Democrats regain procedural leadership. 
Democratic-style changes, like restructuring the self-serving drug industry, 
would of course be stymied. With traditional Medicare seeming to be 
doomed, those who could would depart, not defend it. 

In every election thereafter, an alliance of drug companies, insurers and 
other Republican supporters would spend heavily in floods of easily 
understood, simplified advertising to label the Republicans as Medicare's 
saviors through so-called choice for beneficiaries, while labeling the 
Democrats as draconian tax increasers (who would also be implicitly 
stigmatized as defending minorities). As Medicare's beneficiaries increasingly 
separate into two classes, one of them susceptible to Republican lures, a 
unified and vigorous Democratic defense of Medicare would either crack up 
or lose key support through desertion.

Social Security
Bush's vision of a so-called ownership society is code language for 
dismantling not only Medicare, but also the existing Social Security system 
and replacing it with a system by which individuals' contributions go into 
personal accounts. Even Bush's handpicked commission got nowhere on 
solving the huge problem of financing the transition from the current pay-as-
you-go system to Bush's privatization scheme. Perhaps Bush will continue 
simply presenting his vision as an unfunded mirage. Or, in order to provide 
some actual funding for the change, a Bush victory would be the context in 
which to unveil a new tax that hits people harder the less they have, like a 
value-added tax that works like a sales tax but is not separated out and 
visible. Either way, Republicans could pitch to younger and better-paid 
workers who see no personal payoff right now in their paycheck deduction for 
Social Security. 

Ordinarily, proposing a new federal tax akin to a national sales tax would 
involve too much risk for Republicans. However, the risk might drop if it were 
introduced as a way to end Social Security taxes, at least in part. As with 
Bush's tax cuts and the 2003 Medicare act, a long rosy-hued public phase of 
talking up the wonders of the proposal would get it through the House and 
Senate into a conference committee. Under cover of political darkness, this 
conference committee would produce quietly and in hard-to-decipher form 
the actual law that transfers funds on a broad scale from the have-nots to the 
haves. 

In any event, through this plan, whether or not it's funded by something like a 
national sales tax, Bush would make a play to split younger from older 
Democrats. As with Medicare, he would shred the concept of a social safety 
net for all -- a unified protection for the national community. In election 
campaigns, Democrats, for trying to hold that unified protection together, 
would be depicted as -- no surprise here -- simple-minded excessive taxers, 
this time as to the payroll taxes. 

Taxes
Democrats may look at the Republican platform's call for more tax cuts and 
assume it just means an effort to extend in time the tax cuts of 2001 and 
2003. That alone would be painful enough for Democrats and for the country. 
The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that a third of President 
Bush's tax cuts have gone to the top 1 percent of income. And the CBO 
estimates show that of the $10 trillion of newly piled-on debt anticipated from 
Bush's actions from 2002 to 2014, Bush's tax cuts (including their renewal) 
would amount to $5.5 trillion -- an enormous debt burden that will fall 
primarily on the middle class. 

However, digging a little deeper, Bush's proposals carry a stealth plan to pit 
middle-class and worse-off Democrats against each other. Nina Olson, the 
Internal Revenue Service's national taxpayer advocate, gave a largely 
overlooked taste of this on June 23 in Chicago at the National Community 
Tax Coalition's conference of advocates for low-income taxpayers. 

Olson warned the group that the earned income tax credit (EITC), the tax 
code provision that aids the working poor, could fall under the knife that tax 
writers will wield in coming years. Until now, even Bush, with his zeal to play 
reverse Robin Hood, has not dared to openly propose assailing the popular 
and efficient EITC. Olson points to the EITC's vulnerability in the context of 
an impending crisis arising from the alternative minimum tax (AMT), the 
additional income tax that kicks in principally for those who take certain 
specific deductions. "Unless you get attuned to the conversation of how the 
tax system is going to deal with the AMT, you will be left in the dirt," she said. 

The AMT taxes incomes at a flat rate of 26 or 28 percent, and omits certain 
key deductions allowed from the regular income tax, notably state and local 
income taxes. Unlike the regular income tax brackets, which are indexed for 
inflation, the AMT's thresholds are not. So, the AMT will kick in at levels that 
stay the same despite inflation -- levels that look increasingly middle-class for 
those who have sizeable deductions for state and local income taxes -- while 
the high-rate income tax brackets kick in only at higher income levels due to 
tax cuts and inflation. This means that, absent relief, in a few years the AMT 
will impose scores of billions of dollars in taxes that the middle class would 
have been spared from paying as regular income taxes.

In plain English, if you're in the middle class, it's likely you have been paying 
only your regular income tax, but in a few years you'll find yourself paying not 
just that but also an increasingly hefty AMT. (Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 
2003 gave very short-term fixes to this problem. But those short-term fixes 
expire at the end of 2005, after which the AMT will increasingly become a 
burden on the middle class.) 

Now here is an especially devious aspect of the Republican plot. Republicans 
did not show the interest in a long-term fix for the AMT in 2001 that they 
showed for slashing the estate tax, or in 2003 for chopping the tax on 
corporate dividends. After all, those are taxes that irritate very wealthy 
Republicans. By contrast, it so happens that the AMT's rise creates a much 
bigger problem for Democrats than Republicans. The states and localities 
that levy income taxes tend to be more Democratic, like California and New 
York, than the states that do not, like Texas. So that's where the taxpayers 
are whose income tax, but not their AMT, is reduced by deducting state and 
local income taxes -- and who will find themselves paying lots of AMT in a 
second Bush term. Thus the AMT performs the politically dangerous trick of 
surcharging Democratic areas and sparing Republican ones. 

In fact, the partisan effect of leaving the AMT without a long-term fix is so 
potent that an article in the tax journal Tax Notes during the passage of 
Bush's 2001 tax bill had the stark headline, based on the AMT's long-term 
effect, "No Tax Cuts for the Gore States." Change "Gore" to "Kerry" or just 
plain "Democratic" and the post-2005 prospect becomes alarmingly clear. 

In order to close the jaws of this political trap, in 2005-06 a Republican 
Congress and president will repeatedly and visibly put congressional 
Democrats to the politically lethal dilemma of having to vote on a package 
that patches the AMT and slashes the EITC. How would this work politically 
for the Republicans? Abolishing the AMT would cost $85 billion, and could be 
matched by a repeal of low-income tax credits, principally the EITC, thereby 
imposing $74 billion in taxes on the working poor, according to Olson. Forced 
to vote on such a package, some Democratic members may vote in favor of 
the measure to avoid the wrath of their own states and districts that otherwise 
face an increasing share of the federal tax burden as the AMT increases for 
them. But such votes to slash the EITC would then turn off the party's base 
among the working poor. 

Thereafter, near election time, the Republicans would spend heavily on easily 
understood, oversimplified negative advertising to label the Democrats, 
whichever way they vote, as tax increasers for either their geographic or 
economic bases. Meanwhile, Bush could use whatever funds, such as even 
more piled-on debt, he wishes to devote to more regressive tax cuts, for 
those measures -- like repealing estate tax for estates of unlimited size -- 
which, unlike cutting the AMT or maintaining the EITC, put money in bulging 
pockets of his own high-income constituency. 

The basic pattern is clear. The 2004 Republican platform and the program 
for a second term provide the blueprint for long-term Republican 
entrenchment in office. Bush intends to split the Democratic coalition by 
devastating the social gains the nation has created to guard against the worst 
effects of economic downturns, gross inequalities and the health 
vulnerabilities of the old. 

Some observers may comfort themselves with the reassurance of a 
pendulum theory of government, in which even if Bush wins and presides 
over a unified Republican government, he may still have no popular mandate 
to pursue such a program. In this complacent view, the pendulum may have 
swung right at the present, but it must swing back, not onward even further 
toward the far right. But Bush and Karl Rove have proved they do not 
passively await popular mandates or pendulum swings. They have already 
done much of the preparatory work for their radical plans in the past four 
years. The Medicare revision, for example, already provides all the legal 
authority Bush needs; it only requires a tough-on-beneficiaries approach by 
those under his command who make the Medicare rules. 

Bush stands on the threshold of his great dream -- or our nightmare -- of a 
nation in which key former Democratic coalitions lose large and important 
groups that have an investment in a government that serves the common 
good. If Bush succeeds, the Democratic Party may become a weakened 
shadow that can rarely, if ever for very long at a stretch, deploy the national 
authority for great public ends. It happened here before -- after the 
Progressive era in the 1920s that led to the crash and Great Depression. It 
can happen again.


About the writer
Charles Tiefer, a professor at the University of Baltimore law school, is the 
author of the forthcoming "Veering Right: How the Bush Administration 
Subverts the Law for Conservative Causes" (University of California Press). 
Based on his experience as solicitor of the House of Representatives from 
1984 to 1995, he has been the author of books and articles on congressional 
procedure, and on tax and social spending legislation.



-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, option D 
(up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options (option A - 
1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - up to 3x/day) 
please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you this email and you 
want to be on our list, send an email to ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which 
option you'd like.



Action is the antidote to despair.  ----Joan Baez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20040825/7cf5843e/attachment.html