Group items tagged

U.S. manufacturing firms spend almost three times as much per worker per hour for healthcare as our most important foreign competitors--$2.38 versus $0.96. Healthcare costs drive employers to move jobs overseas, grow jobs outside of the United States, and limit the ability of firms to invest to improve productivity [and] compete more effectively in the future.

Analysis also shows that the U.S. economy loses as much as $207 billion annually because of the lost productivity stemming from the poor health and shorter lifespan of the uninsured. Employers notice the workplace productivity loss, which for a full-time worker equals four days a month in lost work time.

On the budget front, the House bill would reduce deficits by $138 billion over the next decade and the Senate measure would reduce deficits by $130 billion over that period, says the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which predicts the two measures would continue to reduce deficits for at least a decade thereafter. The bills would achieve this goal through a combination of spending cuts (largely in Medicare) and tax increases that, together, exceed the costs of bringing health insurance coverage to about 95 percent of all legal residents. The House and Senate bills deserve much more credit for cost control than they have received. They [address] almost all areas that experts have identified as promising areas for reducing the growth of healthcare spending. Most important, both would create a health insurance exchange to promote competition among private health insurance plans based on price and quality, reduce administrative costs, and provide a platform for systemic change across the healthcare system.

On Wednesday in Washington, the House passed a $154 billion jobs bill. It includes $46 billion in aid to states, which would mostly go to help them in 2011. Half of the money is an extension of the increase in the federal share of the Medicaid program. The rest of the money is designated for jobs in education.

On Wednesday in Washington, the House passed a $154 billion jobs bill. It includes $46 billion in aid to states, which would mostly go to help them in 2011. Half of the money is an extension of the increase in the federal share of the Medicaid program. The rest of the money is designated for jobs in education. However, it won’t be enough for many states. According to the CBPP, 30 states have already enacted tax increases, raised tuition at state universities, or found other revenue methods. For example, only this week, the Missouri Department of Revenue told yoga studios to begin to collect a 4 percent recreation sales tax on class fees.At the same time, many states are looking at service cuts. According to the CBPP analysis, 28 states have enacted or implemented cuts to reduce the eligibility of low-income families for health coverage. Some 42 states and the District of Columbia have proposed or implemented cuts to the state workforce.

State government finances are a wreck. The drop in tax receipts is the worst in a half century. Fewer than 10 states ended the last fiscal year with significant reserves, and three-fourths have deficits exceeding 10% of their budgets. Only an emergency infusion of printed federal funny money is keeping most state boats afloat right now.

It's much more likely that we're facing a near permanent reduction in state tax revenues that will require us to reduce the size and scope of our state governments. And the time to prepare for this new reality is already at hand.

After crunching the numbers, my team has estimated that it would take GDP growth of at least twice the historical average to return state tax revenues to their previous long-term trend line by 2012.

Whether Democrats can keep control of the House in the 2010 election hinges on three things: the direction of job growth, Democrats' ability to convince independent voters that the country’s finances are not out of control, and the direction of Barack Obama’s approval ratings.

Podesta argued that no one unemployment figure will be a “magic number” for Democrats' political success. Instead, if by the summer of 2010 the number of jobs in the economy is growing consistently, then Democrats in Congress can hold the loss of seats “to a relative minimum,” he said. One question, he added, is “do people smell we are on the right path or do they feel still bogged down?”

For Democrats to demonstrate that control, Podesta argued in favor of a timetable to put the federal budget back in balance. “Once the economy is fully recovered, deficit reduction will be critical to growth and broadly shared prosperity,” he said. The Center for American Progress proposes establishing a mechanism to ensure that government income and spending for all items -- except debt service -- move into balance by 2014. The next goal would be to have all government spending – including debt service – be covered by income in 2020.

President Obama is pushing for a permanent middle-class tax cut, but only if Bush-era cuts for top earners are eliminated. Republicans, in turn, want permanent tax relief for all income levels. The divide is rapidly becoming the marquee issue of the midterm election.

Given the lackluster recovery — with crucial housing and job markets still ailing — an expiration of tax cuts worth about $300 billion a year would be a huge hit to the economy, equivalent to 2% of the nation's total output. The potential economic fallout is far less clear if tax rates rose only for high earners.

The chances are small that Congress might address the issue before the November election. But there are ample opportunities for both parties to use their economic messages during the campaign.

Three studies--two by the Lewin Group and one by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (a federal body)--conclude that various congressional plans would increase health spending. The estimates vary but range from $114 billion to $750 billion over the next decade. Given its structure, there is no reason to believe the "new" Reid bill will be much different.

There is good reason to think that these reforms would pour gasoline on the fire of health inflation: Though details differ, both the House and Senate bills would offer subsidies to millions, insist on first-dollar coverage for certain services and expand entitlements.

Yemen has frequently been described as a failing state -- and with good reason. Civil war, terrorism, a deepening secessionist movement and economic and demographic trends threaten to overpower the Yemeni government, provide a breeding ground for terrorists and destabilize the region. Yemen has often teetered on the brink of collapse, but it has never faced so many interconnected challenges at one time.

At the heart of the country's problems is a looming economic crisis. Oil is the source of nearly 80 percent of government revenue, and it is quickly running out. There are few viable options for a sustainable post-oil economy, and Yemen is already the poorest country in the Arab world with an unemployment rate conservatively estimated at 35 percent. Yemen's pending economic collapse has been greatly accelerated by the civil war in Saada. Government forces have been unable to decisively put down the rebels in the north of the country, and there is no military solution to the conflict. The toll in Saada has been severe, with extensive damage to infrastructure and an estimated 175,000 internally displaced people. The conflict's strain on the Yemeni army has led to questions about the military's ability to simultaneously engage in other operations, including counterterrorism. The government is spending foreign currency reserves at an alarming rate, recently estimated at more than $200 million per month. Spending on the war will create a major budget deficit next year. Every dollar spent on the civil war is a dollar not spent on addressing the underlying causes of instability in Yemen. Yemen also is facing a growing secessionist movement in the south of the country. When the war in Saada subsides, it is feared that the secessionist movement will again flare up.  The government does not control the entire territory of Yemen, and the emergence of additional areas outside of the capital of Sanaa's control will create more under-governed spaces that can be exploited by terrorist movements.

Military operations to kill or capture al Qaeda operatives will likely increase in 2010. These actions carry risks. Publicly acknowledged American involvement in counterterrorism operations in Yemen would be deeply unpopular in the country, likely undermine the legitimacy of the Yemeni government and feed into the grievances that help fuel al Qaeda militancy. Development assistance is one of the most effective tools available to address the interconnected long-term challenges facing Yemen. But, U.S. aid is disproportionately small considering the magnitude of the problems facing the country and Yemen's strategic importance to the United States. In addition to the reported $70 million of military and security assistance, the United States recently announced $121 million in development aid over the next three years, a significant increase from previous years and a vital step in the right direction. Still, the amount pales in comparison to the $1.5 billion allotted to Pakistan in the next year alone. This disparity persists even as U.S. officials increasingly cite Yemen as a terrorism and security priority second only to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Senate vote marks the beginning of the end for the long march of healthcare reform through the US legislative system. The Senate bill must now be merged with the House version of healthcare reform, approved in November. Substantial differences between the two approaches remain, particularly in regard to antiabortion language, methods of financing, and a governmnt-run public option insurance plan.A conference committee of members from both chambers will struggle over this harmonization. In its own way, that task could be almost as difficult as the Senate debate, as lawmakers struggle to keep intact the language passed on their side of Capitol Hill. The Senate bill, like its House counterpart, would prevent the insurance industry from denying benefits to people with pre-existing health conditions. It provides subsidies to help low- and middle-income residents purchase that insurance. And it establishes state marketplaces, called "exchanges," whereby individuals without employer-provided insurance, and some small businessess, could buy coverage.

The partisan divide is such that Democrats now own healthcare reform. If it succeeds in coming years, they may benefit politically. If it struggles, it may drag them down.Republicans, similarly, own the opposite side of this issue. If the debt skyrockets and the economy struggles, they could look prescient. If the programs succeed, then the Christmas Eve vote could become something analogous to the GOP's opposition to the creation of Medicare – something with which Democrats can assail them at every electoral opportunity.