placeAd(1,'slate.news/slate')
Print E-mail Discuss Newsletters ... About Us
Search Slate
Advanced Search
placeAd(3,'slate.homepage/slate') placeAd(6,'slate.homepage/slate');
kausfiles A mostly political Weblog.
kf Resists "Intervention"
Plus worthwhile education initiatives.
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Friday, Nov. 14, 2003, at 11:33 PM PT
Paul Krugman's second objection to the Medicare bill now in Congress that "premium support" will lead to "cherry picking" that undermines the traditional Medicare systemseems extremely powerful. But I don't understand his first objection: [O]ne of the proposals being negotiated behind closed doors â misleadingly described as "cost containment" â would set a limit on Medicare's use of general revenue, and would require action seven years before projections say that limit will be breached. ...[snip]The effect would be to force the government to declare a Medicare crisis in 2010 or 2011. You might say it's a good idea to face up to Medicare's problems early. But the legislation would allow only two responses: either an increase in the payroll tax (a regressive tax that bears more heavily on middle-class families than on the wealthy) or benefit cuts. Other possibilities, like increases in other taxes or other spending cuts, would be ruled out. How can Congress in 2003 'rule out' possible responses by the Congress in 2010 or 2011? Is this a constitutional amendment? If not, the Congress in 2010 will do whatever the hell it wants. All it needs to do is append to its legislation a sentence saying "by the way, that bill we passed back in 2003 is hereby repealed." The provision as described by Krugman seems more "Washington make-believe," as Charles Peters would put it, than serious legislative threat. ... | |
|
