|
Responsibility #68
(written June 1993)
To the People of the United States of America:
In this paper we will continue the fourth postscript to the initial set of 63 RESPONSIBILITY essays. This postscript is to a degree a critique of the first five months of the governance of our country, by the Clinton administration and the 103rd Congress. It also touches upon the implications of a number of recent domestic and foreign events.
Health Care Premiums/Taxes. President Clinton spared no horses in setting up a group to study and recommend solutions, to the need to have universal health care for residents of the USA. However the group's report is yet to be made public. In the meantime press releases, or rumors, or assumptions of how its recommendations and conclusions are evolving, are causing great concern and controversy.
One of the greatest concerns is that the provision of medical insurance, and its costs, will be mandated for all businesses. Illustrative of the objections of business is a guest editorial, in a major newspaper on June 13, 1993. It appeared under the caption "Health care: Why do we expect our employers to pay for our insurance?". It was written by a Director of the National Federation of Independent Business, the nation's largest small business organization, with more than 600,000 members nationwide.
The article was in response to a guest editorial published a week earlier, authored by a representative of an Affordable Health Care Foundation. That article had espoused "'required participation' by the employer in paying for employees' insurance". The last paragraphs of the countering editorial read as follows:
"If, as some believe, health care is an individual right, then it is coupled with individual responsibilities. To bring the market forces back into the health system, individuals need to be empowered in the purchasing of (and paying for) health insurance and health care. Ultimately, the individual is paying now. It's just hidden in the forms of lower hourly wages, higher costs of products and taxes at every level of government.
If Ms. Johnson and Ms. Rodham Clinton get their way we will see the same result as during World War II: Employers will try to move to avoid the mandate. Only this time the movement will be from full-time employees to independent contractors, to part-time employees, to a higher level of automation or, where possible, to Mexico."
The position expressed by small business is that taken by Publius IV in previous essays. The mandate for universal healthcare coverage should be on the individual, not businesses. Wherein many businesses do pay for health care of their employees, this benefit and all other benefits should be treated for tax purposes as another form of wages and salaries.
A scheme was proposed, to meet all the present problems and limitations of health care coverage through: the development of a minimum and more extensive standard policies, policy costs based on the universe of individuals (not business groups), the assurance that all individuals would always be covered, and the minimization and facilitation of administration to be achieved through a Health Care Clearing House. [See Responsibility #42 through #45, #51 and #59.]
Another fear is that the group will recommend universal health coverage to be paid for by some form of taxes. We are back to the Family Circus: "Not Me", "Not Me", "Not Me". This brings us to the next topic.
Taxes/Appropriations/Organization Reform. It is a sad commentary, that through much of our nation's history, taxes have been applied in ways that have been in opposition, to the objectives for which We the People did ordain and establish our Constitution. This began to become most true after 1913, when the federal government was permitted, by constitutional amendment, to impose income taxes. The manner of imposing these taxes has been disuniting (a less perfect union), unjust, causing domestic discord (rather than insuring tranquility), and promoting the particular at the expense of the general welfare. In many respects it is also deemed to be in violation of the Bill of Rights, Amendment Article V (i.e., "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation").
It is not here intended to rehash the arguments for reform of our taxes, tax enacting processes, and appropriations, as presented in Responsibility #50 through #53. But it will be purposeful to highlight the lack of rationality and legitimacy, of a couple of features of the President's Economic Plan (also referred to as "Tax and Spend Budget Plan" and "Five-Year Deficit Reduction Plan"), as it originated and as it is being remolded by House and Senate committees. The quotations below are from newspaper articles or editorials of the date indicated.
1. Be Fair by Soaking the Rich.
6/19/93. "Two-thirds of the money will be paid by people with incomes above $200,000." "Provisions in the Senate and House bills raise the top tax rate to 36 percent for couples with taxable income of $140,000--$115,000 for individuals--and to 39 percent for couples and individuals who make more than $250,000." "Senate Democrats raised levies on capital gains on income above $250,000 to 30.8 percent."
The pendulum has swung again. 12 years ago Democrats and Republicans bought off on President Reagan's argument, that higher income people had suffered too long under a multi-bracket income tax system at top rates variously over the decades of 90, 70, and 50 percent. Who says its even steven now? The multi-bracket system, and the treating of different types of income differently, are contrary to the Constitution. Prolonging and exacerbating these wrongs is a mistake.
2. BTU tax or gasoline tax.
To the extent that funds from either of these alternatives is being considered for direct application, to their fair share of highway construction or alternative fuels research or the like, the inclusion in the plan is legitimate. To be used as a factor in general deficit reduction is wrong, and contrary to the Constitution. The burden will be being placed on limited industries, companies, and portions of the population, for what is a general welfare problem.
There are many other controversial inequities in the plan, which need not be exemplified. Suffice it to say that the proposals of the administration, and the machinations of the Congress, are a matter of who is pulling the strings of our political puppets, rather than what is just and good, for the general welfare of our country as intended by the Constitution. It is time that We the People see to it, that political expediency be replaced by the inviolable principles developed in previous RESPONSIBILITY papers.
Specific recommendations, to supersede the proposals of the President and the machinations of the Congress, will be presented in the next essay.
Publius IV
|