It’s not Welfare, It’s Production Demand Subsidy

Like Dave Johnson and others have said, rich people don’t create jobs because they have surplus money; they create jobs because they see added demand for their goods or services. If they get more money, but demand is stagnant, why create more jobs? They’re not running a charity. They will be doing fine with the jobs already on the books!

Actually, government entitlement payments, such as Food Stamps and Medicaid, help to create added demand for their goods and services. So do government insurance and annuity payments, like Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment benefits.

But Republicans hate the idea of entitlement payments and government insurance and annuities, because that means the government is giving money to people who are not producing. Even if the non-producers need it to survive, the thought galls them. At the same time, Republicans love the idea of the government giving money to subsidize producers. Even if the producers are don’t need it to survive, it is justified in the minds of Republicans. The subsidies to oil companies and agribusiness farms come to mind.

So here is a thought: maybe Republicans will accept Progressive programs if they are presented from the point of view of the producers of goods and services. We could say, for example:

Medicare and Medicaid = “Patient Provider Subsidies”
and
Food Stamps, Unemployment and Social Security = “Production Demand Subsidies”

Do you see the difference? The new phrase shows that the real concern is for the welfare of the providers, not the unproductive elderly, disabled, jobless and poor.

Ronald Reagan used this principle back in 1982. He was persuaded by advisors that the country’s roads and bridges needed government investment, and the best way to do that was by increasing the Federal gasoline tax. But he couldn’t simply say that he was imposing a “gas tax increase”. Politically [and perhaps psychologically], he had to call it a “user fee” increase.

So, let’s take that a step further. We could call taxes “Homeland Security insurance fees.” It’s certainly true that the government needs tax revenue to insure the security of country, in its broadest sense -- militarily, economically, socially, etc. And what happens in any system of insurance when you have more assets to insure? You pay more than those who have fewer assets to insure. Thus, your “HSI” fees will by rights increase as the value of your assets increase. And when the costs of insuring the security of the country go up, your “HSI” fees will also have to go up.

Republicans understand the power of wording. They use it all the time, in the service of producers. Maybe if we speak their language from their point of view, we can get some action out of this Congress.

Kudos to Sanders, Clyburn and Wyden!

The more I read about the Sanders-Clyburn-Wyden Amendment to the health care reform bill, the more hopeful I become regarding the future of the U.S. healthcare system.

Apparently a system of "Federally Qualified Health Centers" already exists, based on legislation initiated long ago by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Such health centers reportedly provide "primary health care, dental care, mental health counseling and low-cost prescription drugs for about 20 million Americans...basic services like prenatal care, childhood immunizations and cancer screenings...for patients covered by Medicaid, Medicare and private insurance as well as those who have no insurance."

Senator Sanders' initial amendment was to include $10 billion for community health centers around the country, which he projected would bring primary health care to 25 million more Americans and serve 10,000 more communities. It is also said to include provisions for loan repayments and scholarships, to "create an additional 20,000 primary care doctors, dentists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and mental health professionals." Representative James Clyburn intends to increase the proposed funding to $14 billion, and Senator Ron Wyden is said to be editing the bill to provide waivers for states that want to provide more health care to their citizens.

There are financial benefits to this plan, in addition to the physical benefits. Senator Sanders said that a university study concluded that this amendment would save Medicaid $23 billion over five years by reducing emergency room use and hospital costs. Furthermore, services cost substantially less at community health centers than elsewhere.

This amendment actually exceeds what I contemplated in an earlier post, and I hope it survives and flowers during the Congressional reconciliation process. For me, this would be change I could believe in: a resource I could count on in the event I lost my job or start that export business I am thinking about. I would call it a "public option" and be happy with it. And I will be grateful to all of the legislators who make it a reality.

Alex Budarin

Snowflake to the D's in Congress

How about creating a new Medicare program, "Part E", as the "public option"? Republicans are suddenly defending Medicare. They created Medicare "Part D". Their response to "Medicare Part E" should be comedy gold!

Alex Budarin


UPDATE: Okay, it already is comedy gold, courtesy of Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican Party. See his interview with National Public Radio here.