Blog

Jared Bernstein

By Jared Bernstein

Director of the Living Standards Program, Economic Policy Institute

Most Congressional hearings are not that scintillating. The ones you see on TV, with Roger Clemens testifying about steroids, Ben Bernanke, or some general back from the field, are the exceptions (and let’s face it: they’re pretty predictable too, with important people working hard to not say anything important). Mostly, it’s a group of policy wonks or industry reps talking to members of Congress about some minutiae in a bill that may or may not go anywhere. At their worst, these hearings are scripted events where actors trot out their lines in order to move (or block) some legislation valuable (or hurtful) to their constituents.

At their best, however, a hearing can be a great example of good government in action, and as someone whose been testifying for years, let me tell you about one from last week that struck me as uniquely positive. My point is not simply to report on an unusually useful couple of hours in the halls of government. At the risk of over-extrapolating, I thought I saw a glimpse of what our political future might look like if we make the right choice on Nov. 4. And it provided a glimmer of hope.

The hearing was before the House Committee on Education and Labor, chaired by Rep. George Miller (D-CA). The topic was how to best craft a recovery package to accomplish two things: help those hurt by the troubled economy, and stimulate that economy back to life. The majority party gets to choose most of the witnesses, so this panel featured only one Republican witness and, uncharacteristically, not one Republican member of the committee showed up.

This sounds like glib snark, but I can tell you based on personal experience, that’s one reason why this hearing worked well. Like I said, I’ve done these for years, and ever since Reagan, Republican witnesses in economic hearings almost always have one, and only one, theme: supply-side tax cuts (okay, lately they’ve added “drill, baby, drill,” but that’s a newcomer, and it’s just about as compelling as their tax plan; oh yes, and “deregulation” shows up a lot too, though this is a bit of a non-starter right now, to put it mildly).

If you don’t believe me, read the testimony at the above link by the R witness, William Beach from the conservative Heritage Foundation: high-end tax cuts (extend the Bush cuts, cut the capital gains rate, lower the corporate tax), find more oil, avoid “burdensome regulations.”

That’s almost all they bring to the table, regardless of the evidence, the topic, or outside circumstances. Case in point, this hearing was about a stimulus package that needs to move quickly off the mark, and Beach was pushing tax changes (extending the Bush cuts) that come into play at the end of 2010. It’s the same supply-side agenda the Heritage folks push in good times and bad. Their only tool is a hammer, so it all looks like nails to them. Same with the oil thing. Does Beach not recognize that the price of gas is down well over a dollar nation-wide, yet we’re still mired in recession?

As I wrote last week in this space, ideology that’s impervious to facts is the last thing we need right now, and the fact that such thinking was vastly under-represented was one reason why this hearing worked.

The hearing began with testimony by Dana Stevens, a woman from New Jersey who’s been unemployed since July. Since then she’s applied for 143 jobs and gotten only seven interviews. She’s an extremely impressive, articulate person, and she’s even willing to take a pay cut, within reason given her financial needs.

But there’s just no work out there. Hiring freezes are pervasive. Back in January of last year there were 1.5 job seekers per available job. Now that ratio has doubled–it’s 3 to 1. Add in the six million people who are working fewer hours than they desire, and one in nine persons is un- or underemployed.

Economist Ron Blackwell and I presented facts like these, along with our views re the magnitude and composition of a recovery package. In order to offset a recession that is likely to drive unemployment to at least 8% by the end of next year (it’s about 6% now), I think we need to spend roughly $50 billion to help strapped states, $50 billion on infrastructure (more on that below), and $50 billion on extending both unemployment insurance and food stamps. Beyond that, it might be useful to boost household incomes with direct payments, but that was the exclusive thrust of the last round of stimulus, and we should deemphasize such payments this round. Checks can help for awhile, no question, but people need jobs, and that’s why many of us are bullish on infrastructure investment right now.

Here’s where Professor Robert Pollin’s testimony comes in. Do yourself a favor, and give this one a read (same link as above). It’s a detailed road map of a vital public investment agenda, with an emphasis on green technologies. There are the usual candidates–schools, water management, roads, bridges–as well as building retrofits, smart grid electrical systems, and renewable energy. Moreover, Pollin shows that in terms of jobs, these investments get you a bigger bang for the buck than tax cuts, military spending, or “drill, baby, drill” (see his figure 1).

In a similar vein, Chris Hansen made a solid case for including the expansion of high speed broadband networks in an infrastructure agenda, providing access to areas that are still off this grid, a serious economic and social disadvantage in today’s world.

(A related point in my testimony is that infrastructure investment has often been dismissed in the context of stimulus as having too long a lead time. Not so. There are tons of productive projects in all of these areas ready to go, if not already underway but starved for resources.)

But beyond the good information exchange, what stood out in this hearing was the discussion between the members of Congress and the panelists. These exchanges can too often reduce to partisans getting “experts” to confirm their biases: “Mr. X, you noted in your testimony that 2+2=5. Could you elaborate?”

In this case, members were genuinely seeking our insights into how to structure a recovery package, and providing their own amplification as to what parts made most sense to them. Reps. George Miller and Lynn Woolsey, clearly motivated by the deteriorating economy and rising unemployment, wanted to hear about ways we might extend unemployment insurance benefits to meet the needs of people like Ms. Stevens, including upping the “replacement rate”–the share of salary replaced by UI benefits (it rarely breaks 50%; I think now’s a good time to go up to 70%, at least temporarily).

John Sarbanes (D-MD) picked up on a great Pollin point about “crowding in”–how sometimes government investment creates untapped markets that later draws in private investment. The internet is, of course, a classic example, and green technologies create the same possibilities, with even greater potential benefits.

Other members, like Dave Loebsack (D-IA) stressed how the recession is cutting into their state’s revenues, and wanted to learn more about the actions states were taking. Unlike the Feds, states have to balance their budgets, and they’re actively cutting services (and jobs), as well as raising fees and taxes, actions that will only serve to deepen the recession. Thus, unlike the earlier stimulus package, this one must include state fiscal relief.

Like I said, I don’t want to get all starry-eyed here, but I couldn’t help but wonder if the dynamics of this hearing–creative, open-minded thinking about solving problems in a progressive, even green, way–might be a tiny harbinger of a new era, where government actually works to solve problems, not create them. Is this, I asked myself, the way things might operate in an Obama era?

I know, this election is by no means over, and despite the favorable polls, I’m not one iota complacent about the outcome. It’s just that this hearing revealed what may be a light at the end of the tunnel. Unless that’s the headlights of the Straight-talk Express headed right for us.

By Leo W. Gerard
International President

John McCain should not be traveling in a bus called the Straight Talk Express.
No, that equivocating multimillionaire who kowtows constantly to the wealthy should be riding in one of those private, gilded railroad cars.
That would be symbolically appropriate as well since he is trying to railroad the middle class on taxes.
He is actually proposing a brand new tax on the middle class.
This has gotten so little attention it is astounding. And frightening, frankly, as television reporters and commentators focus instead on inane incidents like the lipstick-on-pigs remark.
McCain intends to tax workers for the value of health insurance that they receive from their employers.
Really.
Although it’s not included in the description of his plan on his web site. It is, however, on the site of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit organization that specializes in health policy.
I understand McCain neglecting to mention this new tax on the middle class. If I were proposing this shocking tax increase, one that will cost the average American worker an additional $110 a month in taxes out of the blue, I would conceal it as best I could too.

Taxing health insurance

So let me provide you with some clarity. This comes from the Kaiser Foundation evaluation of the McCain and Barack Obama health plans. It says McCain would “reform the tax code to eliminate the exclusion of the value of health insurance plans offered by employers from workers’ taxable income.”
The value of the typical plan provided by an employer to a family is $12,106, of which the employer pays $8,824, and the worker pays the remaining $3,282. The median household income is $44,389, which places most American families in the 15 percent income tax bracket.

McCain wants to add the employer’s cost — an additional $8,824 — to that middle class family’s income, then tax it. The hit to the average family is 15 percent of the McCain-added income — $1,323 more in income taxes.
This new tax would affect the 158 million Americans who are insured through their employer.
Right now you should be yelling, “What?” And demanding to know why you haven’t heard about this before. That is because the media keeps focusing on McCain’s proposed health care tax credits — $5,000 for families and $2,500 for individuals.

McCain certainly wants the attention to stay on those credits. It sounds so much better to be giving families tax credits than tax increases. But what you need to know about those tax credits is that they don’t go to you – they’re to be sent to the insurance companies. You never get actual money in your pocket. McCain says it right on his web site: “the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider.”
So if you choose to remain with your employer-based insurance, there’s no guarantee that you’ll ever see any benefit from that $5,000 payment. In addition, giving young healthy workers $2,500 to buy insurance on their own, where it won’t be taxed, will encourage them to leave employer-based plans, quickly raising the costs for everyone remaining and thus eliminating benefits of the tax credits. Finally, the tax credits rise only at the rate of inflation, not the vastly faster rate of medical costs, so, again, their value will quickly erode, according to several studies, including one released last week by health economists from Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan and published in the journal “Health Affairs.”
New tax

Still, somehow, no one mentions the new tax part of McCain’s plan!
Even the credits don’t sound so great after you hear the whole story.
John McCain wants to kill employer-provided health insurance. He wants every American to go out on his or her own and try to buy insurance. He says that on his site if you read between the doubletalk. He says, for example, “The key to health care reform is to restore control to the patients themselves.. . .Health care. . . should not be limited by where you work.”
Here’s the way the New York Times put it in an April 30 story, in which there was only straight talk: “Mr. McCain’s health care plan would shift the emphasis from insurance provided by employers to insurance bought by individuals.”
Since 2000, the percentage of employers offering health insurance has declined from 69 percent to 60 percent. Many more companies would dump their plans as soon as the federal government offered tax credits to individuals who bought their own. Corporations would disingenuously justify this abandonment the same way McCain does — by saying workers would get the advantage of carrying their individual plans from job to job as they move around the country.
They won’t mention the cost, however. To buy plans comparable to what workers now receive from employers, families are going to have to shell out a lot more money from their own pockets.
The math is simple. To buy the $12,106 plan with the $5,000 family tax credit, a worker is going to have to cough up an additional $3,824. (That is the $8,824 the employer previously paid toward the plan minus the $5,000 credit.)
That is, assuming, of course, that you can get coverage. Insurance companies are notorious for rejecting anyone with pre-existing conditions, including acne, being overweight and diabetes.

McCain wouldn’t qualify

John McCain himself would likely be unable to find an insurer on the private market since he’s had the most serious form of skin cancer, melanoma, more than once.
But he doesn’t have to worry because, as a U.S. senator, he’s covered by a government plan. And he’s certainly not proposing eliminating that!
McCain could resolve the exclusion problem by requiring insurance companies to accept people with pre-existing conditions. But he doesn’t. Instead, he suggests setting up a system in which states would become responsible making sure those people get insurance. He says he won’t shift the costs to the states, but what’s the chance of that? He’s establishing a pool of all of those rejected by insurance companies – thus those with the highest risk. And he’s telling the states to deal with the problem that creates.
Meanwhile, insurance companies would be left to profit big time by providing insurance for the young, the healthy and everyone who doesn’t have anything at all wrong with them. What a deal!
He claims this plan will increase competition and drive down prices – as if an individual worker, on his own, without any real knowledge of the system, has the negotiating power of a major corporation with full-time experts on its staff whose only function is to buy insurance for a pool of hundreds or thousands of workers.
While McCain is planning to increase your taxes if you’ve got insurance at work or to force you into the insurance market at a huge financial loss, he intends, at the same time, to cut taxes on corporations — you know, like those giant oil companies that just raked in the largest quarterly profits of any firm ever in the history of mankind. And he plans to permanently retain those income tax cuts his friend George W. Bush gave to the rich, because, of course, the wealthiest Americans, like McCain and Bush, need a break today.

Lying to American workers

In the meantime, McCain is traveling to states like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, hard hit by the economic devastation caused by eight years of Bush administration fiscal policy failures. At each stop, McCain is sucking up the middle class – as if his administration wouldn’t cost workers dearly.
He needs to stop lying to America’s workers.
In fact, maybe Mr. Straight-Talk-Express needs to slap on some lipstick. Because sometimes the truth is a bitch.