Obama '08?

Quote:

I'd much prefer to see a reasoned discussion by opposing views.

Start a thread, JPB, please.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19960&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
Medicaid Expansion Will Bankrupt the States

According to various estimates, there are 10 million to 13 million uninsured people who are already eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled. When the individual mandate to obtain health coverage takes effect in 2014, many of the uninsured will be swept up in outreach efforts. Although the cost of enrolling newly eligible individuals will be paid by the federal government, the cost of covering those previously eligible for Medicaid must be paid for under the current federal matching formula. Many states will find the cost of their Medicaid programs higher as a result, says Devon Herrick, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

For example, a decade after the law's implementation, Texas Medicaid rolls are predicted to rise by 2.4 million people.

Of these, only 1.5 million enrollees will be newly eligible.

About 824,000 individuals will be those previously eligible but not enrolled; the federal government will contribute a much smaller share of the cost of these previously eligible enrollees compared to newly eligible enrollees.
Low provider reimbursement rates make it more difficult for Medicaid enrollees to find physicians willing to treat them compared to privately insured individuals. States will bear much of the cost of keeping Medicaid provider fees at a level necessary to ensure enough physicians are willing to participate in the program, says Herrick.

States with historically low reimbursement rates, such as New York and New Jersey, will be hardest hit.

In Texas, which is near the national average, the cost of maintaining higher Medicaid reimbursements will start at $500 million in 2016, rising to $1 billion annually by 2023.

Many of the newly insured under Medicaid will likely be those who previously had private coverage. Indeed, research dating back to the 1990s consistently confirms that when Medicaid eligibility is expanded, 50 percent to 75 percent of the newly enrolled are those who have dropped private coverage.

Source: Devon Herrick, "Medicaid Expansion Will Bankrupt the States," National Center for Policy Analysis, October 25, 2010.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19961&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
The Overseas Profits Elephant in the Room

One trillion dollars is roughly the amount of earnings that American companies have in their foreign operations -- and that they could repatriate to the United States. That money, in turn, could be invested in U.S. jobs, capital assets, research and development, and more.

But for U.S companies such repatriation of earnings carries a significant penalty:
A federal tax of up to 35 percent.

This means that U.S. companies can, without significant consequence, use their foreign earnings to invest in any country in the world -- except here.

The U.S. government's treatment of repatriated foreign earnings stands in marked contrast to the tax practices of almost every major developed economy, including Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy, Russia, Australia and Canada, to name a few. Companies headquartered in any of these countries can repatriate foreign earnings to their home countries at a tax rate of zero to 2 percent.

Many commentators have pointed to the large cash balances sitting on U.S. corporate books as evidence that the economy is still stalled because companies aren't spending. That analysis misses the point. Large cash balances remain on U.S. corporate books because U.S. companies can't spend their foreign-held cash in the U.S. without incurring a prohibitive tax liability, say Chambers and Catz.

With corporate bond rates falling below 4 percent, it's hard to imagine any responsible corporation repatriating foreign earnings at a combined federal and state tax rate approaching 40 percent.

By permitting companies to repatriate foreign earnings at a low tax rate -- say, 5 percent -- Congress and the president could create a privately funded stimulus of up to a trillion dollars.

They could also raise up to $50 billion in federal tax revenue -- money the economy would not otherwise receive.

Source: John Chambers and Safra Catz, "The Overseas Profits Elephant in the Room," Wall Street Journal, October 20, 2010.

Bogus health insurance policies are on the rise

Or that it were 2012 already, when he can reassume campaign asskicking mode...

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Year……TOTAL US CIVIL EMPLOYMENT
1980……………..99 million [CARTER]
1988…………… 115 million [REAGAN]
1992…………….118 million [BUSH41]
2000……………137 million [CLINTON]
2007………..….146 million [BUSH43]
2008………….. 145 million [BUSH43]
2009,……….....140 million [OBAMA]
2010.……………139 million [OBAMA] (as of September 2010 and not final year of term)

Year.…….PERCENT OF CIVILIAN POPULATION EMPLOYED
1980…………………………………….59.2 [CARTER]
1988…………………………………….62.3 [REAGAN]
1992…………………………………….61.5 [BUSH41]
2000…………………………………….64.4 [CLINTON]
2007…………………………………….63.0 [BUSH43] (Democrats in 2006 won majorities in both Houses -- down down we then went!)
2008…………………………………….62.2 [BUSH43]
2009…………………………………….59.3 [OBAMA]
2010…………………………………….58.5 [OBAMA] (as of September 2010 and not final year of term)