By Brigitte L. Nacos
Nobody should be surprised that Republicans inside and outside of Congress attack a meaningful health care reform along the lines of President Barack Obama’s central promise during last year’s campaign. That is at the heart of their ideology. Just listen to conservative talk show hosts and their nonsense about the advent of socialism or communism right here—starting with “ObamaCare.” Or take a look at the Wall Street Journal’s editorials, op-ed articles and letters-to-the-editor and you get an idea about the scare tactics and bogus arguments made by the defenders of the status quo.
Complaining about the House bill that would use a surtax on high income individuals and couples to help finance the health care reform package, the writer of one letter in today’s Wall Street Journal warns, “Raising taxes on those who are most likely to invest and create jobs will reduce trend-line U.S. growth and increase unemployment.” Who in heaven would believe that a modest tax hike would impede Americans with high incomes “to invest and create jobs” as the writer suggests?
Another letter writer states, “I am dumbfounded that the representatives of a nation whose economic fortunes—more than that, whose fundamental culture and identity—are entwined with the spirit of entrepreneurship can contemplate so carelessly wrecking the structure of incentives which have served us so well and for so long.” To be sure, the existing structure has served the upper strata very well for a long time. But that is not true case for the vast majority of hard-working men and women with modest incomes.
Ironically, the self-serving conservative propaganda seems to weaken public support for health care reform. Repeat the “s” word for socialized medicine often enough or tell horror stories of alleged failures in Canada’s public health system again and again-- and even the neediest among us get scared enough to oppose change that would benefit them most. You never hear about the success stories in countries with mandatory and comprehensive health insurance. Germany and its health care system as part of the country’s “capitalism with a human face” is a good example.
While the conservative shtik is nothing new, it is quite shocking that the Democrats who are in the driver’s seat at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are affected by the conservative propaganda scheme as well. Speaker Nancy Palosi retreated quickly from the house bill that would have put a tax surcharge on gross incomes of more than $280,000 for individuals and $350,000 for couples and instead proposed a “millionaires tax” for incomes of $500,000 and more for individuals and $1 million and more for joint filers. Not to mention Senate Democrats who are even less prepared than their colleagues in the House to vote for a tax increase along these lines.
Tax surcharges tend to be temporary measures. Instead, Democrats should do away with the income ceiling for social security tax—this year only incomes up to $106,800 are subject to this tax. I have never understood why lower incomes are fully taxed in this respect but not higher and highest earnings. Removing the ceiling for social security tax would go a long way in securing the future of the social security program and a comprehensive health care reform.
If self-interest could be kept out of policy-making just once for the sake of meaningful health care reform, the majority party would forget about the next elections, campaign contributions from special interest groups, and propaganda in favor of an unacceptable status quo.
Concessions in the name of bi-partisanship will not bring about much needed health care and health insurance reform. Not even with Harry and Louise on the side of reformers this time around.
Comments