Barack Obama on Monday mocked John McCain's promise to bring change to Washington, saying the Republican presidential nominee has marched loyally with President Bush and was out of touch with the economic distress of struggling Americans.
"In 19 months he has not named one thing he would do differently from this administration on the central issue of this election," Obama said of McCain. "Not one thing. And we know that if we go down that path, that the next four years will look exactly like the last eight."
Seven weeks before the election, Obama sought to portray McCain as an unshakable ally of the unpopular Bush and Washington lobbyists -- unsympathetic to the pocketbook issues that are the No. 1 concern of American voters. Obama delivered a frontal attack that showed none of the hesistancy that has worried some of his own supporters as McCain edged ahead in the polls.
"Can you afford to take a chance on someone who's voted against the minimum wage 19 times," Obama asked a crowd of thousands under a blazing sun at a rally in western Colorado at the start of a swing through contested Western states. "When it was $4, he was against it, when it was $5 he was against it, when it was $6 he was against it."
Obama closed the day in Pueblo with a rally at the Colorado State Fairgrounds before a wildly enthusiastic crowd estimated by the facility's general manager at 13,500.
The nation's economic anxieties were sharpened by a historic upheaval on Wall Street with the announcements that financial giant Lehman Brothers was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy while titan Merrill Lynch was being bought by Bank of America for about $50 billion.
Charging that McCain was out of touch, Obama said, "He doesn't get what's happening between the mountains in Sedona where he lives and the corridors of power where he works. Why else would he say that we've made great progress economically under George Bush. Why else would he say that the economy isn't something he understands as well as he should.
"Why else would he say, today of all days, just a few hours ago -- think about this, we just woke up to news of financial disaster -- and this morning he said that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong. Sen. McCain, what economy are you talking about?"
McCain's campaign accused Obama of distorting the GOP candidate's comments.
"Only Barack Obama would take a statement about the strength, ingenuity and resilience of American workers and American industry and turn it into a political distortion and attack," said McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds. "Barack Obama's short career as a public servant has been defined by pessimism, defeatism, and weakness in the face of the great challenges of our time. His lack of faith in American workers may explain his willingness to raise taxes during a struggling economy, but it is no way to lead our country."
Obama said chaos in the financial markets was "the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression. I certainly don't fault Sen. John McCain for these problems. I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to."
"It's the same philosophy we've had for the last eight years, one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else," Obama said. "It's a philosophy that says even commonsense regulations are unnecessary, unwise. One that says we should just stick our heads in the sand and ignore economic problems until they spiral into crisis."
Obama's campaign released a new television commercial accusing McCain of running some of the "sleaziest ads" ever seen -- especially an ad that declares Obama supports sex education for kindergartners. The ad is a distortion of Obama's position. He supported legislation that would teach age-appropriate sex education to kindergartners, including information on rejecting advances by sexual predators.
Obama also chided McCain for another new commercial that promises "change that we need."
"Sound familiar?" said Obama, who has made "change" the central theme of his campaign. "Let me tell you, instead of borrowing my lines he needs to borrow some of my ideas. Change isn't about slogans. It's about substance."
He also took a little poke at McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, raising the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska that she initially supported and later opposed. Saying that McCain had put some lobbyists in key roles of his campaign, Obama said, "If you think those lobbyists are working day and night for John McCain just to put themselves out of business, well I've got a bridge to sell you up in Alaska."
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Roger Ebert on Sarah Palin: The American Idol candidate
September 11, 2008
BY ROGER EBERT Sun-Times Movie Critic
I think I might be able to explain some of Sarah Palin's appeal. She's the "American Idol" candidate. Consider. What defines an "American Idol" finalist? They're good-looking, work well on television, have a sunny personality, are fierce competitors, and so talented, why, they're darned near the real thing. There's a reason "American Idol" gets such high ratings. People identify with the contestants. They think, Hey, that could be me up there on that show!
My problem is, I don't want to be up there. I don't want a vice president who is darned near good enough. I want a vice president who is better, wiser, well-traveled, has met world leaders, who three months ago had an opinion on Iraq. Someone who doesn't repeat bald- faced lies about earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere. Someone who doesn't appoint Alaskan politicians to "study" global warming, because, hello! It has been studied. The returns are convincing enough that John McCain and Barack Obama are darned near in agreement.
I would also want someone who didn't make a teeny little sneer when referring to "people who go to the Ivy League." When I was a teen I dreamed of going to Harvard, but my dad, an electrician, told me, "Boy, we don't have the money. Thank your lucky stars you were born in Urbana and can go to the University of Illinois right here in town." So I did, very happily. Although Palin gets laughs when she mentions the "elite" Ivy League, she sure did attend the heck out of college.
Five different schools in six years. What was that about?
And how can a politician her age have never have gone to Europe? My dad had died, my mom was working as a book-keeper and I had a job at the local newspaper when, at 19, I scraped together $240 for a charter flight to Europe. I had Arthur Frommer's $5 a Day under my arm, started in London, even rented a Vespa and drove in the traffic of Rome. A few years later, I was able to send my mom, along with the $15 a Day book.
You don't need to be a pointy-headed elitist to travel abroad. You need curiosity and a hunger to see the world. What kind of a person (who has the money) arrives at the age of 44 and has only been out of the country once, on an official tour to Iraq? Sarah Palin's travel record is that of a provincial, not someone who is equipped to deal with global issues.
But some people like that. She's never traveled to Europe, Asia, Africa, South America or Down Under? That makes her like them. She didn't go to Harvard? Good for her! There a lot of hockey moms who haven't seen London, but most of them would probably love to, if they had the dough. And they'd be proud if one of their kids won a scholarship to Harvard.
I trust the American people will see through Palin, and save the Republic in November. The most damning indictment against her is that she considered herself a good choice to be a heartbeat away. That shows bad judgment.
BY ROGER EBERT Sun-Times Movie Critic
I think I might be able to explain some of Sarah Palin's appeal. She's the "American Idol" candidate. Consider. What defines an "American Idol" finalist? They're good-looking, work well on television, have a sunny personality, are fierce competitors, and so talented, why, they're darned near the real thing. There's a reason "American Idol" gets such high ratings. People identify with the contestants. They think, Hey, that could be me up there on that show!
My problem is, I don't want to be up there. I don't want a vice president who is darned near good enough. I want a vice president who is better, wiser, well-traveled, has met world leaders, who three months ago had an opinion on Iraq. Someone who doesn't repeat bald- faced lies about earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere. Someone who doesn't appoint Alaskan politicians to "study" global warming, because, hello! It has been studied. The returns are convincing enough that John McCain and Barack Obama are darned near in agreement.
I would also want someone who didn't make a teeny little sneer when referring to "people who go to the Ivy League." When I was a teen I dreamed of going to Harvard, but my dad, an electrician, told me, "Boy, we don't have the money. Thank your lucky stars you were born in Urbana and can go to the University of Illinois right here in town." So I did, very happily. Although Palin gets laughs when she mentions the "elite" Ivy League, she sure did attend the heck out of college.
Five different schools in six years. What was that about?
And how can a politician her age have never have gone to Europe? My dad had died, my mom was working as a book-keeper and I had a job at the local newspaper when, at 19, I scraped together $240 for a charter flight to Europe. I had Arthur Frommer's $5 a Day under my arm, started in London, even rented a Vespa and drove in the traffic of Rome. A few years later, I was able to send my mom, along with the $15 a Day book.
You don't need to be a pointy-headed elitist to travel abroad. You need curiosity and a hunger to see the world. What kind of a person (who has the money) arrives at the age of 44 and has only been out of the country once, on an official tour to Iraq? Sarah Palin's travel record is that of a provincial, not someone who is equipped to deal with global issues.
But some people like that. She's never traveled to Europe, Asia, Africa, South America or Down Under? That makes her like them. She didn't go to Harvard? Good for her! There a lot of hockey moms who haven't seen London, but most of them would probably love to, if they had the dough. And they'd be proud if one of their kids won a scholarship to Harvard.
I trust the American people will see through Palin, and save the Republic in November. The most damning indictment against her is that she considered herself a good choice to be a heartbeat away. That shows bad judgment.
Sarah Palin's Charlie Gibson ABC Interview: Video And Transcript
Click here for the complete interview, including her comments about starting war with Russia.
ABC has released an early transcript of parts of the interview. Read it below:
Clip 1:
GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question.
Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?"
PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I'm ready.
GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
ABC has released an early transcript of parts of the interview. Read it below:
Clip 1:
GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question.
Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?"
PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I'm ready.
GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
McCain versus Obama on 4 key issues
Mortgage crisis
The candidates' different tacks were in evidence as the home mortgage crisis ballooned. Obama offered a plan that included aggressive regulation of financial institutions, relief for homeowners and a $30 billion economic stimulus package.
McCain initially criticized Obama's plan as a "multibillion-dollar bailout for big banks and speculators."
"There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face," McCain said.
Then, McCain faced a barrage of criticism for downplaying a government role in responding to the crisis. Two weeks later, he changed his tone and proposed spending up to $10 billion for government-backed mortgages to "deserving" homeowners facing foreclosure.
Health care
On health care, Obama leans hard on government action to make insurance more affordable and, ultimately, universally available. He would make coverage mandatory for children, expand federal subsidies for the uninsured and impose new funding requirements on employers.
McCain, in his health plan, shuns that infusion of government money and authority and instead relies on market competition to drive down costs. He would establish new tax incentives for individuals to get their own health insurance and reduce the incentives for people to get insurance through their employers.
Global warming
McCain has called for mandated emissions limits to curb global warming, an example of him embracing government regulation and parting ways with most fellow Republicans.
But he opposes most government incentives and subsidies to help meet those emissions limits, and which are favored by Obama and many other officials. Obama, for example, would invest $150 billion in subsidies over 10 years to develop alternative fuels.
McCain, discussing environmental issues last month, told voters in Washington state, "I'm a little wary -- I have to give you straight talk -- about government subsidies. When the government jumps in and distorts the market, then there's unintended consequences as well as intended."
He seems to make an exception for subsidies for nuclear power. McCain opposed a global warming bill before the Senate this month because it did not include enough government aid for developing nuclear energy.
Tax policy
The candidates' differences on tax policy are especially stark.
McCain wants to extend Bush's signature income tax cuts, which are due to expire after 2010; Obama wants to let the tax cuts for upper-income people lapse. McCain wants to cut corporate tax rates and eliminate the alternative minimum tax; Obama's tax relief plan is targeted on middle-income people.
Candidates' risks
Each candidate's approach to the economy carries risks.
The risk for McCain is that his laissez-faire approach will be out of step with anxious voters. That seemed to be the case when he initially downplayed the need for government action in response to the mortgage crisis.
The risk for Obama is that some of his policies, such as his call for raising taxes on upper-income people while cutting them for the middle class, will be rejected by swing voters who might be wary of a redistribution of wealth.
The candidates' different tacks were in evidence as the home mortgage crisis ballooned. Obama offered a plan that included aggressive regulation of financial institutions, relief for homeowners and a $30 billion economic stimulus package.
McCain initially criticized Obama's plan as a "multibillion-dollar bailout for big banks and speculators."
"There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face," McCain said.
Then, McCain faced a barrage of criticism for downplaying a government role in responding to the crisis. Two weeks later, he changed his tone and proposed spending up to $10 billion for government-backed mortgages to "deserving" homeowners facing foreclosure.
Health care
On health care, Obama leans hard on government action to make insurance more affordable and, ultimately, universally available. He would make coverage mandatory for children, expand federal subsidies for the uninsured and impose new funding requirements on employers.
McCain, in his health plan, shuns that infusion of government money and authority and instead relies on market competition to drive down costs. He would establish new tax incentives for individuals to get their own health insurance and reduce the incentives for people to get insurance through their employers.
Global warming
McCain has called for mandated emissions limits to curb global warming, an example of him embracing government regulation and parting ways with most fellow Republicans.
But he opposes most government incentives and subsidies to help meet those emissions limits, and which are favored by Obama and many other officials. Obama, for example, would invest $150 billion in subsidies over 10 years to develop alternative fuels.
McCain, discussing environmental issues last month, told voters in Washington state, "I'm a little wary -- I have to give you straight talk -- about government subsidies. When the government jumps in and distorts the market, then there's unintended consequences as well as intended."
He seems to make an exception for subsidies for nuclear power. McCain opposed a global warming bill before the Senate this month because it did not include enough government aid for developing nuclear energy.
Tax policy
The candidates' differences on tax policy are especially stark.
McCain wants to extend Bush's signature income tax cuts, which are due to expire after 2010; Obama wants to let the tax cuts for upper-income people lapse. McCain wants to cut corporate tax rates and eliminate the alternative minimum tax; Obama's tax relief plan is targeted on middle-income people.
Candidates' risks
Each candidate's approach to the economy carries risks.
The risk for McCain is that his laissez-faire approach will be out of step with anxious voters. That seemed to be the case when he initially downplayed the need for government action in response to the mortgage crisis.
The risk for Obama is that some of his policies, such as his call for raising taxes on upper-income people while cutting them for the middle class, will be rejected by swing voters who might be wary of a redistribution of wealth.
Obama has the edge on the economy
Obama Has Edge on Economy - September 9, 2008;
CAPITAL JOURNAL By GERALD F. SEIB
From the Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122089986785911131.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
We learned a lot about the U.S. presidential campaign at the two parties' national conventions -- that Barack Obama can fill a stadium, that Sarah Palin can give a better speech than her new boss, that it is possible to say "change" a hundred times a night -- but above all we learned this: Both campaigns think the most important issue in the next 56 days is middle-class economic anxiety.
And that means John McCain has a problem. His pitch to the middle class -- my policies will produce a better economy, which in turn will produce lasting jobs, which in turn will help you -- is a lot harder to sell than the pitch of Sen. Obama. The Obama message to the middle class is, simply: I'll give you a tax cut and a health plan.
With middle-class economic anxieties a main topic of the presidential election, both McCain and Obama are pitching policies for a better economy. But WSJ's Jerry Seib says McCain has a problem -- his plan is harder to sell. (Sept. 9)
It's possible Sen. McCain has the sounder plan, but who's got the better bumper sticker?
Republicans recognize the difficulty. In a conversation near the end of the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn., one senior McCain adviser agreed that the campaign's economic message hasn't "punched through." Similarly, President George W. Bush's political maestro, Karl Rove, said the campaign's top need was to put forth "a domestic reform agenda on kitchen-table issues."
Intriguingly, the economic message conundrum is in many ways the reverse of the two candidates' positions on rising gas prices during the summer. Then it was Sen. McCain who found the simple formula: I'll suspend the federal tax on gas and allow drilling offshore for more oil.
It was Sen. Obama who tried to sell the nuanced, long-term plan, arguing against going after easy and gimmicky short-term fixes, contending that there isn't all that much more oil to be found offshore, urging a focus on conservation and alternative energy, and so forth. He may well have had the better policy position, but Sen. McCain got the better of the politics.
On middle-class economics, the McCain position is, essentially, that his policy of preserving the existing Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers while keeping capital-gains rates low, cutting corporate taxes and keeping government spending down will produce an economy that creates lasting jobs for the middle class. He offers one bit of help specifically for middle-income families: a doubling of the personal exemption for dependents to $7,000. He also promises to give individuals help in buying their own health-insurance policies, so they can carry them from job to job.
By contrast, the McCain camp argues, the Obama formula of raising taxes on upper-income households and businesses, while also increasing capital-gains taxes and adding health-care mandates for small businesses, will produce a job-killing machine.
But the difficulty in transmitting that Republican message was encapsulated by the acceptance speeches at the two conventions.
Sen. McCain said this: "My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate them. My health-care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health-care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health-care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor....Keeping taxes low helps small businesses grow and create new jobs."
Among other things, that sounds on the surface like more of the same policies that voters have gotten in two Bush terms, not necessarily a good thing in a year of "change."
By contrast, Sen. Obama said in his speech: "I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
Never mind that nobody actually is proposing to raise taxes on the middle class; it's hard to beat that message for simplicity and punch.
For both candidates, the fine print of their economic plans presents some messiness they'd prefer to avoid talking about. Sen. Obama's middle-class tax cut would take the form of a tax credit of as much as $1,000 per family, which his campaign says would eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. He'd also launch a potentially expensive new government health-insurance plan, continuing to rely on employer-provided insurance but providing a big government safety net.
To pay for what amounts to a tax cut on top of the existing Bush tax cut for middle-income families, Sen. Obama would raise taxes on households earning more than $250,000, eliminate some corporate tax breaks and raise capital-gains taxes. He'd also keep the alternative minimum tax in place for many taxpayers.
Sen. McCain, meanwhile, wants to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, while cutting the corporate tax rate and phasing out the alternative minimum tax -- the latter an expensive proposition indeed. In substantive terms, the question is how to pay for what amounts to a very aggressive low-tax plan.
In political terms, the question is much different. It is how Sen. McCain -- not exceptionally adept at talking kitchen-table economics -- can persuade middle-income Americans of his basic argument that a sound economy is more important than specific government help aimed directly at them.
One Republican hope is that Gov. Palin, who exudes middle-class sensibilities, can help make the case. One possibility is to tinker with the formula to add benefits specifically for the middle class, maybe through a new stimulus plan.
But in a year in which anxiety about the effects of a global economy, the job-killing potential of new technology and the pain of high energy prices are combining to produce exceptionally deep-seated economic fears, the Republican imperative to resonate with the middle class is high.
CAPITAL JOURNAL By GERALD F. SEIB
From the Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122089986785911131.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
We learned a lot about the U.S. presidential campaign at the two parties' national conventions -- that Barack Obama can fill a stadium, that Sarah Palin can give a better speech than her new boss, that it is possible to say "change" a hundred times a night -- but above all we learned this: Both campaigns think the most important issue in the next 56 days is middle-class economic anxiety.
And that means John McCain has a problem. His pitch to the middle class -- my policies will produce a better economy, which in turn will produce lasting jobs, which in turn will help you -- is a lot harder to sell than the pitch of Sen. Obama. The Obama message to the middle class is, simply: I'll give you a tax cut and a health plan.
With middle-class economic anxieties a main topic of the presidential election, both McCain and Obama are pitching policies for a better economy. But WSJ's Jerry Seib says McCain has a problem -- his plan is harder to sell. (Sept. 9)
It's possible Sen. McCain has the sounder plan, but who's got the better bumper sticker?
Republicans recognize the difficulty. In a conversation near the end of the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn., one senior McCain adviser agreed that the campaign's economic message hasn't "punched through." Similarly, President George W. Bush's political maestro, Karl Rove, said the campaign's top need was to put forth "a domestic reform agenda on kitchen-table issues."
Intriguingly, the economic message conundrum is in many ways the reverse of the two candidates' positions on rising gas prices during the summer. Then it was Sen. McCain who found the simple formula: I'll suspend the federal tax on gas and allow drilling offshore for more oil.
It was Sen. Obama who tried to sell the nuanced, long-term plan, arguing against going after easy and gimmicky short-term fixes, contending that there isn't all that much more oil to be found offshore, urging a focus on conservation and alternative energy, and so forth. He may well have had the better policy position, but Sen. McCain got the better of the politics.
On middle-class economics, the McCain position is, essentially, that his policy of preserving the existing Bush tax cuts for all taxpayers while keeping capital-gains rates low, cutting corporate taxes and keeping government spending down will produce an economy that creates lasting jobs for the middle class. He offers one bit of help specifically for middle-income families: a doubling of the personal exemption for dependents to $7,000. He also promises to give individuals help in buying their own health-insurance policies, so they can carry them from job to job.
By contrast, the McCain camp argues, the Obama formula of raising taxes on upper-income households and businesses, while also increasing capital-gains taxes and adding health-care mandates for small businesses, will produce a job-killing machine.
But the difficulty in transmitting that Republican message was encapsulated by the acceptance speeches at the two conventions.
Sen. McCain said this: "My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate them. My health-care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health-care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health-care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor....Keeping taxes low helps small businesses grow and create new jobs."
Among other things, that sounds on the surface like more of the same policies that voters have gotten in two Bush terms, not necessarily a good thing in a year of "change."
By contrast, Sen. Obama said in his speech: "I will cut taxes -- cut taxes -- for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
Never mind that nobody actually is proposing to raise taxes on the middle class; it's hard to beat that message for simplicity and punch.
For both candidates, the fine print of their economic plans presents some messiness they'd prefer to avoid talking about. Sen. Obama's middle-class tax cut would take the form of a tax credit of as much as $1,000 per family, which his campaign says would eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. He'd also launch a potentially expensive new government health-insurance plan, continuing to rely on employer-provided insurance but providing a big government safety net.
To pay for what amounts to a tax cut on top of the existing Bush tax cut for middle-income families, Sen. Obama would raise taxes on households earning more than $250,000, eliminate some corporate tax breaks and raise capital-gains taxes. He'd also keep the alternative minimum tax in place for many taxpayers.
Sen. McCain, meanwhile, wants to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, while cutting the corporate tax rate and phasing out the alternative minimum tax -- the latter an expensive proposition indeed. In substantive terms, the question is how to pay for what amounts to a very aggressive low-tax plan.
In political terms, the question is much different. It is how Sen. McCain -- not exceptionally adept at talking kitchen-table economics -- can persuade middle-income Americans of his basic argument that a sound economy is more important than specific government help aimed directly at them.
One Republican hope is that Gov. Palin, who exudes middle-class sensibilities, can help make the case. One possibility is to tinker with the formula to add benefits specifically for the middle class, maybe through a new stimulus plan.
But in a year in which anxiety about the effects of a global economy, the job-killing potential of new technology and the pain of high energy prices are combining to produce exceptionally deep-seated economic fears, the Republican imperative to resonate with the middle class is high.
McCain's heath care proposal - The $5,000 promise
McCain's $5,000 Promise
McCain's ad only tells half the story of what his health proposal could mean for U.S. workers.
Summary
McCain says in a new TV ad: "Let's give every American family a $5,000 refundable tax credit" to buy health insurance.
Sounds good. But McCain failed to mention how existing employer-sponsored health benefits would be affected.
• Workers would be taxed on the value of any employer-paid health benefits, partially offsetting the $5,000 credit for those now covered by such plans.
• Experts say a tax credit plan like this would likely cause companies to reduce or eliminate health benefits for their employees.
The aim of the McCain plan is to reduce health care costs through increased competition, by encouraging individuals to shop around for health insurance and medical care. There are many who favor such an approach, and we take no position on it one way or the other. But McCain's simplistic ad misleads viewers by promising to give "every American family" a $5,000 benefit while failing to mention what he would also take away.
Analysis
Sen. John McCain's ad was released April 29 and will air in Iowa.
John McCain 2008 Ad:"Health Care Action"John McCain: The problem with health care in America is not the quality of health care, it's the availability and the affordability. And that has to do with the dramatic increase in the cost of health care.Let's give every American family a $5,000 refundable tax credit so that they can go out across state lines and get the insurance policy that suits them best.I can characterize my approach on health care by choice and competition, affordability and availability.We need community health centers. We need walk-in clinics. We understand that emergency room care is the most expensive in America.There's many, many solutions to this problem. I think we can address them. The fundamental problem is not the quality of health care; it's the cost of health care. So health care must be made affordable and available.I'm John McCain and I approve this message. In the ad, he says the problem with health care is not the quality, but the cost. As a remedy, he promises "every American family a $5,000 refundable tax credit" so families can purchase their own insurance policies. (Individuals would receive $2,500.) The federal government would send the money directly to insurance providers.
What Happens to My Health Plan? In a speech in Tampa this week, McCain also said that those with employer-sponsored policies could keep them and that their policies "would be largely untouched and unchanged." But experts generally agree that such a plan would have a major impact on employer-sponsored health care.
The current tax system encourages companies to offer insurance, and indeed, 61 percent of the nonelderly population in the U.S. had insurance through their jobs in 2006, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. (Only 5 percent, 13 million people, bought their own insurance.) McCain’s plan to tax workers on the value of their employer-provided health care plans and provide tax credits would encourage some employers, mainly small businesses, to drop health benefits, say experts, and the proposal could eventually eliminate job-based insurance altogether.
Paul Fronstin, director of the health research and education program at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit organization that analyzes benefit programs, says a tax credit plan like McCain's likely would mean the end of employer-sponsored health care. "The question is how does it play out and over what period of time. ... It’s not something that you would see overnight."
Fronstin, whose institute is supported by businesses, unions, foundations and insurers, among other organizations, says "older, less healthy people are generally losers" as the system changes, and young and healthy people would generally be the winners. "I think what's going to happen is you're going to have insurance companies designing plans that are essentially free to people because they are below or at the tax credit," he tells FactCheck.org. "And healthy people are going to find that attractive." As those people drop their employer-sponsored coverage, "you see the beginning of the erosion of the risk pool. ... Less healthy people are left [in the employer-sponsored pool] and so the costs go up," which drives more healthy people out. Eventually, Fronstin says, employers will question why they're offering health care if most employees don't see it as a benefit. "That’s what I see as the tipping point of employer-sponsored coverage."
Another independent expert we consulted said that tax credits would "definitely" lead to a reduction in employer-sponsored coverage, but such benefits wouldn't disappear completely. John Sheils, senior vice president of The Lewin Group, which analyzes health care plans for both political parties, told us that the group plans offered by employers could still be cheaper than what's on the individual market – meaning not all the young and healthy people would scrap job-based plans. "I think you get an adjustment early on, and then I think it would level off," he says. An assessment The Lewin Group conducted of a similar tax credit plan found a net loss of employer-sponsored coverage for about 10 million persons, Sheils says. He has not analyzed McCain's specific proposal, however.
Emory's Thorpe told us in an e-mail that McCain's plan "would result in fewer individuals covered through employer-based plans over time. The extent of the reduction would be greater in small firms (that face administrative costs similar to those workers will find in the individual market) and lower for larger firms with higher administrative costs." He echoed Fronstin's comments that "the proposal also provides incentives for younger, healthier workers to migrate to the individual market resulting in higher premiums for older, more chronically ill workers that continue to receive coverage through their employer."
A tax expert also says credits would "tend to undermine" employer-offered coverage. Leonard E. Burman, director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and head of the Treasury Department's tax policy office during the last two years of the Clinton administration, said in testimony before the House Budget Committee in October 2007 that tax-credit proposals then under consideration likely would lead to employees at smaller firms losing their benefits. "Many firms, particularly larger ones, would still offer insurance because of the combination of convenience, administrative cost savings, and pooling afforded by large groups of people subject to relatively little adverse selection," said Burman in his prepared remarks. "But firms currently near the margin between retaining and dropping insurance would be likely to drop."
The experts we consulted are making predictions, of course, and some, like McCain, argue that tax credits won't lead many employers to drop health care plans. Nina Owcharenko, an analyst at The Heritage Foundation, which has long supported tax credit proposals, says employers would still have incentive to offer health care in order to attract the best of the workforce, and people are accustomed to getting their health care through their jobs. "So it’s not something that's going to die down tomorrow," she says. Owcharenko also says McCain's plan would lead to people having portable coverage they could take with them from job to job. Those with "portable" coverage would, of course, no longer be covered by their employer.
Fronstin says large employers in particular are "hesitant" about such proposals. "They’re concerned about, then what happens. If you destroy the risk pool, how does the government get back into fixing what it may have destroyed? And how much is that going to cost, and how much control would we have over it?"
We make no judgments as to whether a heavily employer-sponsored system or one with more privately insured individuals is better or worse. But we do note that McCain, in his ad, neglected to tell workers how their taxes would be affected by his proposal. And his pronouncement that employer-based plans would be "largely untouched" is optimistic, at best, and at odds with what all but one health expert told us.
McCain's ad only tells half the story of what his health proposal could mean for U.S. workers.
Summary
McCain says in a new TV ad: "Let's give every American family a $5,000 refundable tax credit" to buy health insurance.
Sounds good. But McCain failed to mention how existing employer-sponsored health benefits would be affected.
• Workers would be taxed on the value of any employer-paid health benefits, partially offsetting the $5,000 credit for those now covered by such plans.
• Experts say a tax credit plan like this would likely cause companies to reduce or eliminate health benefits for their employees.
The aim of the McCain plan is to reduce health care costs through increased competition, by encouraging individuals to shop around for health insurance and medical care. There are many who favor such an approach, and we take no position on it one way or the other. But McCain's simplistic ad misleads viewers by promising to give "every American family" a $5,000 benefit while failing to mention what he would also take away.
Analysis
Sen. John McCain's ad was released April 29 and will air in Iowa.
Who Benefits?
John McCain 2008 Ad:"Health Care Action"John McCain: The problem with health care in America is not the quality of health care, it's the availability and the affordability. And that has to do with the dramatic increase in the cost of health care.Let's give every American family a $5,000 refundable tax credit so that they can go out across state lines and get the insurance policy that suits them best.I can characterize my approach on health care by choice and competition, affordability and availability.We need community health centers. We need walk-in clinics. We understand that emergency room care is the most expensive in America.There's many, many solutions to this problem. I think we can address them. The fundamental problem is not the quality of health care; it's the cost of health care. So health care must be made affordable and available.I'm John McCain and I approve this message. In the ad, he says the problem with health care is not the quality, but the cost. As a remedy, he promises "every American family a $5,000 refundable tax credit" so families can purchase their own insurance policies. (Individuals would receive $2,500.) The federal government would send the money directly to insurance providers.
Those with employer-sponsored coverage, however, also might want to know that under McCain's plan, they will pay taxes on the value of health care benefits they receive from their employers. It's not that families will receive a windfall of $5,000, but that the credit will more or less offset the increased taxes they'll pay.
Who saves money and who loses under the plan, depends on the tax bracket an individual or family is in and what their health coverage costs. Kenneth E. Thorpe, a former Clinton administration health expert who now is a professor at Emory University, says there would be "a lot of redistribution – a lot of winners and losers" under a McCain plan.Lower-income individuals could do better if they have health care through their employer. They'd pay a lower tax rate on those benefits than higher income workers. "Some people will pay more and some will pay less," Thorpe says.
Those who would benefit most from McCain's tax credit are those who already buy their own private plans and don't receive tax benefits. Those who are uninsured may find the tax credit provides enough financial incentive to sign up for health care policies. The average annual premium costs for a family with employer-sponsored insurance (including both the employee's and employer's contribution) was $12,106 in 2007, and it was $4,479 for a single person, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. Annual premiums for nongroup coverage (i.e., individually purchased plans) vary widely, currently ranging from $1,163 to $5,090 for singles, and $2,325 to $9,201 for family coverage. McCain says he will work with states to set up pools to cover those who have been denied insurance. One idea he suggests is to create nonprofit entities that would contract with insurers to cover high-risk people.
Some years in the future, the tax credit may not be substantial enough to make up for the increase in taxes. "Over time, an increasing number of workers will end up paying [more] in higher taxes ... than they will receive in federal assistance through the tax credits," Thorpe told us. "This occurs because the average premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance increase much faster than the health tax credits." (The McCain campaign says the credit will be indexed to the Consumer Price Index.)
What Happens to My Health Plan?
The current tax system encourages companies to offer insurance, and indeed, 61 percent of the nonelderly population in the U.S. had insurance through their jobs in 2006, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. (Only 5 percent, 13 million people, bought their own insurance.) McCain’s plan to tax workers on the value of their employer-provided health care plans and provide tax credits would encourage some employers, mainly small businesses, to drop health benefits, say experts, and the proposal could eventually eliminate job-based insurance altogether.
Paul Fronstin, director of the health research and education program at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit organization that analyzes benefit programs, says a tax credit plan like McCain's likely would mean the end of employer-sponsored health care. "The question is how does it play out and over what period of time. ... It’s not something that you would see overnight."
Fronstin, whose institute is supported by businesses, unions, foundations and insurers, among other organizations, says "older, less healthy people are generally losers" as the system changes, and young and healthy people would generally be the winners. "I think what's going to happen is you're going to have insurance companies designing plans that are essentially free to people because they are below or at the tax credit," he tells FactCheck.org. "And healthy people are going to find that attractive." As those people drop their employer-sponsored coverage, "you see the beginning of the erosion of the risk pool. ... Less healthy people are left [in the employer-sponsored pool] and so the costs go up," which drives more healthy people out. Eventually, Fronstin says, employers will question why they're offering health care if most employees don't see it as a benefit. "That’s what I see as the tipping point of employer-sponsored coverage."
Another independent expert we consulted said that tax credits would "definitely" lead to a reduction in employer-sponsored coverage, but such benefits wouldn't disappear completely. John Sheils, senior vice president of The Lewin Group, which analyzes health care plans for both political parties, told us that the group plans offered by employers could still be cheaper than what's on the individual market – meaning not all the young and healthy people would scrap job-based plans. "I think you get an adjustment early on, and then I think it would level off," he says. An assessment The Lewin Group conducted of a similar tax credit plan found a net loss of employer-sponsored coverage for about 10 million persons, Sheils says. He has not analyzed McCain's specific proposal, however.
Emory's Thorpe told us in an e-mail that McCain's plan "would result in fewer individuals covered through employer-based plans over time. The extent of the reduction would be greater in small firms (that face administrative costs similar to those workers will find in the individual market) and lower for larger firms with higher administrative costs." He echoed Fronstin's comments that "the proposal also provides incentives for younger, healthier workers to migrate to the individual market resulting in higher premiums for older, more chronically ill workers that continue to receive coverage through their employer."
A tax expert also says credits would "tend to undermine" employer-offered coverage. Leonard E. Burman, director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and head of the Treasury Department's tax policy office during the last two years of the Clinton administration, said in testimony before the House Budget Committee in October 2007 that tax-credit proposals then under consideration likely would lead to employees at smaller firms losing their benefits. "Many firms, particularly larger ones, would still offer insurance because of the combination of convenience, administrative cost savings, and pooling afforded by large groups of people subject to relatively little adverse selection," said Burman in his prepared remarks. "But firms currently near the margin between retaining and dropping insurance would be likely to drop."
The experts we consulted are making predictions, of course, and some, like McCain, argue that tax credits won't lead many employers to drop health care plans. Nina Owcharenko, an analyst at The Heritage Foundation, which has long supported tax credit proposals, says employers would still have incentive to offer health care in order to attract the best of the workforce, and people are accustomed to getting their health care through their jobs. "So it’s not something that's going to die down tomorrow," she says. Owcharenko also says McCain's plan would lead to people having portable coverage they could take with them from job to job. Those with "portable" coverage would, of course, no longer be covered by their employer.
Fronstin says large employers in particular are "hesitant" about such proposals. "They’re concerned about, then what happens. If you destroy the risk pool, how does the government get back into fixing what it may have destroyed? And how much is that going to cost, and how much control would we have over it?"
We make no judgments as to whether a heavily employer-sponsored system or one with more privately insured individuals is better or worse. But we do note that McCain, in his ad, neglected to tell workers how their taxes would be affected by his proposal. And his pronouncement that employer-based plans would be "largely untouched" is optimistic, at best, and at odds with what all but one health expert told us.
Is Palin being shielded from the Press?
Is Sarah Palin deliberately being shielded from the press? If you read articles and blogs you would have to feel as if the republicans are intentionally trying to keep her away from anyone who may ask her a question she's not yet prepared to answer. Tom Brokaw on Sunday's Meet the Press extended an open invitation to Govenor Palin to appear on the show.
I would be fair and give Palin a chance but until I understand her views and positions on serious issues facing this country(which she has not articulated yet) I can't form an opinion.
thoughts people.
I would be fair and give Palin a chance but until I understand her views and positions on serious issues facing this country(which she has not articulated yet) I can't form an opinion.
thoughts people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
