The nonpartisan, nonprofit organization Citizens for Tax Justice released a report Tuesday, downloadable here, comparing the costs of the two Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 over a ten-year period (2001-2010) against the costs of the health care proposals put forward by House committees.
And as those of us in the reality-based community would expect, the Bush tax cuts come out vastly more expensive, to the tune of two and a half times more, than the group of proposals passed by the three House committees that worked on health care reform legislation this past spring and summer.
Newly revised estimates from the Citizens for Tax Justice show that the Bush tax cuts cost almost $2.5 trillion over the decade after they were first enacted (2001-2010). Preliminary estimates from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office show that the House Democrats' health care reform legislation is projected to cost $1 trillion over the decade after it would be enacted (2010-2019).
And yet, many of the lawmakers who argue that the health care reform legislation is "too costly" are the same lawmakers who supported the Bush tax cuts. Their own voting record demonstrates that health care reform is not a matter of costs, but a matter of priorities.
It's difficult to see how the Bush tax cuts could provide us with two and a half times the benefits of health care reform. In 2010, when all the Bush tax cuts are finally phased in, a staggering 52.5 percent of the benefits will go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers. President Bush and his supporters argued that these high-income tax cuts would benefit everybody because they would unleash investment that would spark widespread economic prosperity. There seems to be no evidence of this, particularly given the collapse of the economy at the end of the Bush years.
Well that's the clinical way of saying it, but that's their job.
Here we have the unmitigated, demonstrable failure of the Bush administration's rigid adherence to ideology at all costs going up against the morally and financially sound, responsible effort to provide health care for all Americans at a more reasonable cost.
The hypocrisy from Republicans on this is staggering, of course, as the "fiscal conservatives" have suddenly descended on Washington again, now that their hands aren't all over the money, able to distribute it to their rich buddies.
Just look at this atrocity from the Senate Finance Committee, with you-know-who (and you-know-who from the Dems) at the helm (from May 2001):
Grassley-Baucus Tax RELIEF Act Heads to the President
The Senate today gave final congressional approval to legislation that will provide substantial tax relief over the next decade to Americans across the income spectrum. The landmark measure provides the biggest tax cut in 20 years; it came from the Committee on Finance, led by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman, and Sen. Max Baucus, the leading Democrat.
"This bill will help struggling families make ends meet," Grassley said. "It will help parents and students afford a college education. It will let a son who finally earns a good paycheck after years of work to better provide for his aging mother. The ways to use this refund vary as much as the number of households across America."
Grassley said the RELIEF Act was built upon bipartisanship; consultation with many senators, including all Finance Committee members; and the recognition that nobody in a 50-50 Senate can get everything they want, but maybe a majority can get something they can support. The conference report of the RELIEF Act includes:
Affordable tax relief. The budget surplus is projected to exceed tax cuts every year covered in this legislation, from 2001 to 2011, with a comfortable margin. The ratio of surplus to tax cuts gets bigger toward the end.
Secure funding for national priorities. The budget resolution takes care of this. That blueprint provides record levels of funding for education, prescription drugs and defense. It pays down every dollar that is possible to pay down on the national debt over the 10 years of the budget resolution.
Didn't that turn out marvelously? And these are the clowns who've been holding the whole thing up for over a month.
In an assinine oped published in May, Grassley had this to say:
Second, health care costs need to be brought under control in a fiscally responsible way.
We must provide affordable coverage to the millions of uninsured. But we shouldn’t pat each other on the back if we provide access to unaffordable coverage in an unsustainable system.
I'll agree with you on that last sentence, Chuck, but since when have your votes been based upon what's sustainable or "fiscally responsible"? And you had the nerve to call the President and Speaker Pelosi "intellectually dishonest." Oh, how the mighty project!
And as for the minority leader?
Resolve to lower capital gains taxes. (Aug 2008)
Voted NO on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
Voted YES on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (May 2001)
Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001)
Voted YES on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 2000)
Voted YES on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)
You know which one really bothers me? Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May 2001) All those tax cuts, and you couldn't help out college kids and their families? My God, sir. Where is your conscience?
Not noted, for some strange reason, in that list is McConnell's vote for the 2001 tax cut bill itself. But what's more is the Republicans' use of reconciliation to pass tax cuts for the rich that have gotten our country into incredible debt.
McConnell was one of 51 senators -- all 50 Republicans and Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) -- who voted in favor of a 2001 amendment to the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution that allowed for the consideration of President Bush's 2001 tax cuts -- the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 -- through the reconciliation process. McConnell subsequently voted for the tax cut bill itself.
Further, in 2003, McConnell voted for the Senate version of the fiscal 2004 budget resolution that called for additional tax cuts to be considered under reconciliation and for the final version of the 2004 budget resolution. He also voted against an amendment to the Senate version of the budget resolution, proposed by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), that would have stripped reconciliation instructions from the resolution. In 2005, McConnell voted for the final version of the fiscal 2005 budget resolution, which also called for tax cuts through reconciliation. McConnell subsequently voted for the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 itself.
Bernie Sanders, aptly, wanted to know
why reconciliation was such a good idea when it came to giving tax cuts to millionaires but such a bad one when it comes to trying to provide health care to average Americans.
Oh, but of course Mitch McConnell doesn't want health care reform. It'd help out too many people, like those college kids he wanted to deny tax credits, and end up hurting his insurance buddies. In a GOP weekly blathering, McConnell said the following:
"Throughout this debate, the administration's central argument has been that America needs health care reform for the sake of the economy. Yet according to independent estimates, every health care proposal Democrats on Capitol Hill have offered would only hurt the economy."
Guess Mitch would know about hurting the economy. Oh, how the mighty project.