Tag Archives: federal subsidies

The Special Olympics and Tax-Funded Philanthropy

30 Saturday Mar 2019

Posted by in Big Government, Education, Federal Budget

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

The federal government’s contribution to funding the Special Olympics (SO) illustrates the widespread view of government as a limitless font of subsidies for appealing causes. People were up in arms over the elimination of $17.6 million dollars in federal grants for the SO in President Trump’s budget proposal. Granted, that’s a pittance as budget items go. Later, Trump promised to restore the funding. That is, of course, in addition to the millions in federal tax subsidies already granted on private gifts to the SO.  As Nick Gillespie explains, SO funding is like so many other things people want from government that government has no business doing. Why, exactly, should the federal government, or any level of government, fund the SO? It is a wonderful program, but it simply does not have the character of a public good, nor is it a safety net issue.

The SO certainly benefits the athletes and families that take part, but those benefits are strictly private. Perhaps the larger population of disabled individuals takes inspiration from watching the SO, along with good-hearted people everywhere. Most everyone is happy to know that the SO happen, but those are no more public benefits than the good vibes you get from viewing an inspirational film or theatrical production. For that matter, sports fans and patriots are inspired by great efforts on the part of the U.S. Olympic team, but the federal government does not fund the U.S. Olympic Committee. It’s therefore absurd to assert that the public bears an obligation to pay for the most athletic of disabled individuals to have opportunities to compete and win medals just like Olympic athletes.

Gillespie explains a little about the history and funding of the SO:

“Founded in 1968 by Eunice Kennedy Shriver, the Special Olympics is a 501(c)3 nonprofit, meaning that deductions to it are tax deductible. According to its 2017 financials (the most-recent available on the web), the organization had total revenues of about $149 million, including $15.5 million in federal grants. It’s not a stretch to assume that if federal funding disappears, the resulting outcry would lead to record donations.”

And again, let’s not forget that corporate gifts to the SO are tax deductible up to certain limits. Gillespie also quotes Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos:

“There are dozens of worthy nonprofits that support students and adults with disabilities that don’t get a dime of federal grant money. But given our current budget realities, the federal government cannot fund every worthy program, particularly ones that enjoy robust support from private donations.”

Families with disabled children have extraordinary needs. It’s probably better to think of federal support for those needs as a safety net issue, a form of social insurance. There are several federal programs that provide funds to support low-income families with disabled kids. And while the cut to SO funding was in the budget originally submitted by Secretary DeVos, Gillespie notes that the DOE’s budget “allocates over $32 billion for ‘high-need students,’ which includes intellectually disabled students.” 

DeVos was widely criticized for her budget, but as Gillespie says, she sets a fine example for anyone in a position to help rein in the growth of federal spending and ultimately the federal budget deficit. Given the DOE’s track record of poor programmatic guidance (Common Core), counter-productive school disciplinary mandates, and it’s complete lack of impact on educational outcomes after 40 years of existence and many billions of dollars spent, the continued existence of the DOE is difficult to rationalize.

Once a program appears in the federal budget, no matter how inappropriate as a public priority, and no matter how ineffective, its constituency will always defend its funding with rabid enthusiasm. That defense is multiplied by a chorus of statists in the media and elsewhere who, in their benevolent intentions for the taxes paid by others, can be counted upon to call out the “cruelty” of any proposed cuts, or even mere cuts in a program’s projected growth. The Special Olympics episode, and the DOE, are cases in point.

Heal, You Dogs!

26 Tuesday May 2015

Posted by in Obamacare, Shortage, The Road To Serfdom

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Doctor-shortage

In bondage to the State: The Classical Values blog has this interesting quote from Dr. Rand Paul:

“With regard to the idea of whether or not you have a right to healthcare, you have to realize what that implies….I’m a physician, that means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me, it means you believe in slavery. It means you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the assistants, the nurses…There’s an implied threat of force, do you have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away, and force me to take care of you? That’s is ultimately what the right to free healthcare would be.”

It would be “free” only in nominal terms to the patient, and greatly degraded. The gap between the need for health care and the available supply cannot be solved via “conscription” of providers. And caring for the sick is one thing, but granting a “right” to well-care or health maintenance makes the gap much larger. Inadequate compensation to providers is an important subtext here, and it goes to the heart of the conflict. Basic economics tells us that the gap in access will expand if buyers are subsidized and providers are penalized by artificially low prices. The expanded eligibility for Medicaid in many states under Obamacare only exacerbates shortages, as physician reimbursements remain generally low.

Obamacare may have improved access to health care for a small minority of individuals, but only at the expense of penalizing many others, including providers. The program has fallen far short of its goal of covering the uninsured and has failed to “bend the cost curve” (despite false claims to the contrary, which attempt to take credit away from the Great Recession for slowing costs). Obamacare still looks to be unsustainable, as many have predicted. Insurers are now seeking large rate increases in many states, and going forward, they will not have the cushion of government-funded “risk corridors” when premiums fail to cover claims.

A Supreme Court ruling in the King v. Burwell case is due next month. The case has been discussed on this blog twice this spring. The plaintiffs have challenged federal subsidies in states relying on federal insurance exchanges in direct contradiction to the “plain language of the law”. The subsidies were intended to be an inducement to states to set up their own exchanges, but a number of states chose not to do so. A ruling for the plaintiffs would severely damage the Obamacare program, since the subsidies are key to making the relatively extravagant mandated coverage affordable to low-income individuals. However, Joel Zinberg insists that ending federal subsidies will not cause a death spiral.

Still, such a ruling would seem to give Congress and the Republicans an opportunity to craft legislation to replace Obamacare with a more viable program. Republicans seem have been unable to craft a strategy for dealing with this contingency, but their best strategy might be to wait, pass an extension of subsidies until 2017, and dare Obama not to sign it into law.

The Incredible Glibness of Being Gruber

16 Tuesday Dec 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Gruber Comic

Jonathan Gruber is apparently a man of contradictions. He told a congressional committee last week that he “did not write any part of the Affordable Care Act.” He was asked at the hearing why he had claimed in 2012 that he did write part of the law. According to Peter Suderman, writing in Reason, Gruber replied “that it was ‘an effort to seem more important than I was,’ and that he was ‘speaking glibly.’” Video evidence of Gruber’s glibbery keeps stacking up in the wake of his sworn testimony.  He made the same “glib” claim at least twice in 2010 and again in 2012. In those videos, Gruber seemed pleased to issue disclaimers to his econ classes at MIT and other audiences that he “helped write” the ACA (Obamacare). From Suderman:

“There is no way to reconcile his multiple past statements with the statements he made this week while under oath. Either Gruber spent two years lying about his role in writing the law, or he was lying this week in his sworn congressional testimony.”

Now, Gruber has been subpoenaed again by the House Oversight Committee, this time in relation to his work and the income he earned as an Obamacare advisor. However, the subpoena covers all documents and exchanges with government employees, including work product, the results of economic model simulations, and any communications related to contracts and the funding of his research. Poor Gruber is in hot water. Lying to Congress, if that charge were pressed, could earn him up to five years in prison.

Of greater importance is that he very likely furnished the administration, as the law was being drafted, with economic projections showing that some existing private health plans would be cancelled. In his testimony last week, he admitted that his model simulations showed as much. Of course, President Obama was quite glib in his repeated assertions that “if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan.” From Reason:

“Shouldn’t that mean that Gruber knew that administration’s repeated promises that those who like their health plans could keep their plans under the law weren’t true? 

Gruber was asked about the promise…. ‘I interpreted the administration’s comments as saying that for the vast majority of Americans the law would not affect the productive health insurance arrangements that they have,’ he said. ‘I did not see a problem with the administration’s statement.’

Of course he didn’t. Gruber is, after all, someone who argued that ‘lack of transparency’ was key to passing the health law.”

In fact, on the question of lost coverage, Gruber’s own comic book on the ACA made the same assurances as the Administration. See the frame at the top of this post! More contradiction.

Another crucial point is that Gruber claimed to have written the part of the ACA related to state health insurance exchanges. He stated on multiple occasions (captured on video) that the federal health insurance subsidies created by the ACA were intended as incentives for states to create their own exchanges. The “plain language of the law” is consistent with that claim; it is explicit in providing for subsidies only when a policy is purchased through a state exchange, not a federal exchange. Next year, the Supreme Court will hear the case King vs. Burwell, which turns upon whether the law itself disqualifies ACA insurance buyers in 36 states from collecting federal subsidies. Gruber’s videos appear to be quite damaging to the government’s case.

Obamacare Web Weavers Tangled Again

27 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Speak-O 

Did Congress intend to deny subsidies to those purchasing health insurance on federal exchanges under Obamacare? The DC Circuit Court ruled that it did, based on the “plain language of the law,” in last week’s Halbig v Sebelius decision. Shikha Dalmia writes that the howls of protest from some ACA supporters are disingenuous at best, especially those from health economist Jonathan Gruber, who was a key player in designing the law. In 2012, his standard talking points included assertions about incentives for states built into the law. On at least three occasions, Gruber said that any state would be crazy not to set up its own exchange because that would deny its citizens the right to federal tax credits on premium costs. Obviously, Gruber did not anticipate the backlash against the ACA, as manifested (among other things) by 36 “crazy” states refusing to set up their own exchanges.  

Earlier this week, before proof of Gruber’s earlier statements had surfaced, he insisted to Chris Matthews that the “plain language” on this point in the ACA was something like a typo. Later, when the first Gruber video was revealed, he stated that his comment was mistaken, that it was a “speak-o.” Hahaha! Nice try.

Key legislators certainly knew that the state exchange requirement was built into the ACA, as this video of remarks from Max Baucus at a Senate Finance Committee hearing proves. Of course, many legislators might have missed this point, but the bill never went through a careful mark-up process, and of course some lawmakers, like Nancy Pelosi, felt that they had to “pass the bill to find out what’s in it.” Well, after all, should busy legislators be bothered to read a 1,400 page bill prior to a vote?