Former CBO Chief: Congress Never Meant to Limit Obamacare Subsidies
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75ef3/75ef366abcd106aff1338007f52a5b4d67a02985" alt=""
A Supreme Court ruling expected this summer will determine whether the federal government can subsidize the insurance costs of individuals in states that did not establish their own health care exchanges under the Affordable Care Act.
Douglas Elmendorf was the director of the Congressional Budget Office when Congress debated the bill, and on Tuesday he provided some ammunition to backers of the law who insist that that Congress did not intend to prevent payments of subsidies to consumers in states using the federal exchange.
Related: How Obamacare Could Be Squeezing Consumer Spending
In an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood at the Peter G. Peterson Foundation’s 2015 Fiscal Summit*, Elmendorf said that before the ACA passed, the CBO analyzed the bill for members of Congress, many of whom were powerfully opposed to it. At the time, he said, there was a common understanding on Capitol Hill that the subsidies would be available to states regardless of the status of their exchanges.
“That analysis was subject to a lot of very intense scrutiny and a lot of questions,” he said. “My colleagues and I can remember no occasion on which anybody asked why we were expecting subsidies to be paid in all states regardless of whether they established exchanges or not. And if people had not had this common understanding…then I’m sure we would have had a lot of questions about that.”
Pressed by Harwood, Elmendorf added, “My colleagues and I talked to a lot of people, with a lot of questions about nearly every aspect of the analysis that we did…and we could not remember anybody asking us any questions about what would happen in the federal exchange different from what would happen in the state exchanges.”
Even so, the language of the law states that the subsidies would apply to exchanges “established by the State” and the Supreme Court will decide how literally those words must be interpreted.
*Pete Peterson also funds The Fiscal Times.
Wages Are Finally Going Up, Sort of
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f53c4/f53c4adb1a1bad61ea12bfb3ab824a9f7ecb9dc3" alt=""
Average hourly earnings last month rose by 2.9 percent from a year earlier, the Labor Department said Friday — the fastest wage growth since the recession ended in 2009. The economy added 201,000 jobs in August, marking the 95th straight month of gains, while the unemployment rate held steady at 3.9 percent.
Analysts noted, though, that the welcome wage gains merely kept pace with a leading measure of inflation, meaning that pay increases are largely or entirely being canceled out by higher prices. “The last time unemployment was this low, during the dot-com boom, wage growth was significantly faster — well above 3.5 percent,” The Washington Post’s Heather Long wrote. The White House Council of Economic Advisers this week issued a report arguing that wage gains over the past year have been better than they appear in official statistics.
Cost of Trump’s Military Parade Rising Fast
It looks like President Trump’s military parade is going to cost a lot more than the initial estimate suggested – about $80 million more.
The Department of Defense pegged the cost of the parade at roughly $12 million back in July, but CNBC reported Thursday that Pentagon officials have increased their estimate to $92 million. The total consists of $50 million from the Defense Department and $42 million from other agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security.
The parade, which President Trump requested after attending a Bastille Day military parade in Paris last year, is scheduled for November 10 and will reportedly include aircraft, armored vehicles and soldiers in period uniforms. Abrams tanks, which weigh roughly 70 tons apiece, will also be included, CNBC said, despite concerns about heavy military equipment ripping up the streets of Washington. A Pentagon analysis apparently found that the armored vehicle’s treads would not cause any damage.
The parade is expected to begin at the Capitol, continue past the White House and end at the National Mall, according to earlier reports from NBC News.
Quote of the Day: Time to Raise Taxes?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f398e/f398e834877763df6a43b613d1a64275d0a657fe" alt=""
“Tax revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product is expected to be 16.5 percent next year. The long-term average in a full-employment economy is 18.5 percent of GDP; if revenue were at that level for the coming decade, debt would be $3.2 trillion lower and the 10-year fiscal gap would be halved. Returning to past revenue levels, however, will be inadequate over time, because an aging population will increase Medicare and Social Security costs. This need not pose a problem: Revenue was roughly 19 percent of GDP in the late 1990s, and economic conditions were excellent.”
– Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Richard E. Rubin, writing in The Washington Post
Quote of the Day: When Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/aaa28/aaa286222c06b1ffae02d329004905ade31d0067" alt=""
“You … often hear the claim that a lot of tax cuts will ‘pay for themselves,’ that they’ll cause so much additional economic activity that the revenue feedback from that activity will fully offset the direct revenue loss caused by the tax cut so that you end up making money for the federal government, or at least not losing any money. Now, of course that is theoretically possible and it would happen at extreme rates. I mean if a country had a 99 percent flat rate income tax and lowered it to 98 percent, I believe that they almost certainly would collect more revenue at the 98 percent rate than they did at the 99 percent rate. But the idea that this type of effect would occur at today’s tax levels just requires responses that are much bigger than statistical evidence would support and I think much bigger than common sense would indicate if you just ask people how they themselves would react to the tax cut.”
-- Alan Viard, tax policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute
Map of the Day: Gas Taxes
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1b238/1b2384ae3b7630d10fcb93b93eae781eee00a360" alt="Slash-Your-Gasoline-Bills Saving $1.11 a gallon might not sound like much. But if you're filling up a 20 gallon tank, you could save $22. Do that once a week and you'd save $1,150 a year."
It’s summertime and the driving is anything but easy if you want to get to your favorite beach or mountain cabin for a well-deserved break. As lawmakers consider a plan to raise federal fuel taxes by 15 cents a gallon, here’s a look at the current state-level taxes on gasoline, courtesy of the Tax Foundation: