Senate Finance Committee

Pressure Mounts for Three Free Trade Agreements to be Submitted

by Fran Smith on March 10, 2011

in Agenda for Congress, International, Trade

Bi-partisan pressure mounts for the Obama administration to move on long-pending free trade agreements (FTAs). At Senate Finance Committee hearings yesterday on the trade agenda, both Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Ranking Member Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) gave the Obama administration a hard time on not moving on pending trade pacts as U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Ron Kirk testified before the full committee.

Sen. Hatch took a particularly tough line in his questioning. He noted that while the Obama administration is prepared to submit the U.S.-Korea FTA, he questioned why it has dragged its feet on setting any definite timetable for considering the pending free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama. Both trade pacts have been negotiated and re-negotiated for several years now, and yet the administration still claims there are still some outstanding issues that need to be resolved, mainly relating to labor unions.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) also expressed concern about the pace with which these agreements are being submitted to Congress. According to USTR Kirk, the U.S.-Korea FTA is ready for technical drafting and submission to Congress, but the Colombia and Panama FTAs don’t have clear timetables for congressional consideration. Sen. Thune asked what further changes the president wants in the agreements and questioned whether U.S. credibility about future agreements will be hurt if more revisions are required after the FTAs have been negotiated and signed.  He said, “A deal with the U.S. ought to be a deal.”

In response, Kirk said that “a vast majority of people in the U.S. don’t believe in the wisdom of our trade policy” and we have to “keep faith with American workers.” He noted that the Korea trade pact is ready, and Congress should move on that, while the other two agreements are moving forward and should be ready this year.

[click to continue…]

Baucus wants border measures in climate bill

by Fran Smith on November 10, 2009

in Energy, Environment, Global Warming, International, Nanny State, Trade

Uh-oh.  Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana) is raising the stakes on a U.S. climate bill by endorsing the idea of some sort of tariff on goods from countries that haven’t taken steps to suppress fossil fuel use.  According to Reuters, Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, yesterday said:

“We must push our trading partners to do their part to curb harmful emissions and we must devise a border measure, consistent with our international obligations, to prevent the carbon leakage that would occur if US manufacturing shifts to countries without effective climate change programs.”

Currently the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer, has rushed through its own bill without minority input to try to catch up with the House, which passed its cap-and-trade bill – H.R. 2454 — on June 26, 2009. The House bill contains a border tax adjustment measure, while the Senate bill does not.  At least, yet.  But Baucus’ comments are a strong signal that the Senate bill will also include tariffs or border “adjustments,” i.e., taxes.

This unfortunate idea is gaining greater traction among global warming advocates as a way to maintain U.S. competitiveness for industries, such as steel and cement, that would be facing higher costs if an energy suppression bill to address global warming is passed.  Proponents of “border measures” also see this as a way to curtail so-called leakage of carbon-intensive industries and related jobs to other countries without similar constraints. Of course, the common justification for those who want to hobble their competition is the refrain: “Level the playing field.”  In Washington politics, that usually means bringing your competitors down to your level.  Check out this article for some possible consequences.

These endorsements could portend a carbon tariff push in Copenhagen when world climate pukkas gather on December 7, 2009. Luckily for people in the U.S., it’s not likely that a newly minted global warming bill will be in their pockets.

A Cure Worse than the Disease

by Greg Conko on October 22, 2009 · 2 comments

in Culture, Features, Health and Illness, Healthcare, Insurance, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation, Zeitgeist

With Democratic support coalescing around Sen. Max Baucus’s (D-Mt.) health care reform proposal, passage of a comprehensive overhaul now appears more likely than ever.  Opponents had their summer of protests.  But, Democrats have shown a renewed sense of energy since discrediting Sarah Palin’s “death panels” and Sen. Charles Grassley’s claim that ObamaCare would “pull the plug on grandma.” Still, while those charges may have been a little overwrought, there is plenty to be concerned about with the Democratic health reform effort.

As I explain in a new Competitive Enterprise Institute paper out today, “A Cure Worse than the Disease: Obama Care Won’t Cut Costs, But May Cut Quality,” most of the alleged cost-cutting measures in the Baucus bill merely shift costs from the federal government onto the states or private payers, without affecting long-term health care inflation.  The only measures that could reduce the annual rate of growth in health care costs would erect government barriers between patients and their doctors, while jeopardizing long-term medical innovation.

Skeptics have made hay arguing that the so-called Sustainable Growth Rate can’t be counted on to cut $245-billion in Medicare spending. But Senate Finance Committee negotiators have designed a Medicare Commission—what the White House previously called an Independent Medicare Advisory Commission—to make similar cuts in physician and hospital payment rates in a more opaque way.

In an April New York Times interview, President Obama suggested that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost…the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives.”  That’s not exactly a death panel roving the country to pull the plug on innocent grandmas who’ve survived past their sell-by dates, but the effects could be equally pernicious.

What the Medicare Commission is likely to do is work with the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute also established by the Baucus bill to incorporate comparative clinical effectiveness recommendations into Medicare and Medicaid payment policies.

In theory, there’s nothing wrong with comparative effectiveness research, or what used to be called evidence-based medicine.  Good research comparing the clinical effectiveness, risks, and benefits of two or more medical treatments can help doctors better understand the likely benefits of the treatments they prescribe and improve the quality of care they deliver.  But patients vary substantially in their individual physiology, their response rates to drugs and surgical procedures, and their willingness to tolerate side effects.  Doctors know this, and they realize that one size definitely does not fit all. That’s why, in practice, evidence-based medicine in the U.S. and abroad has produced incrementally useful information, but has failed to systematically change the practice of medicine.

Generally, we should encourage efforts to eliminate waste and reduce the use of ineffective treatments, especially when we’re talking about public programs and taxpayer money.  But the only way these programs would result in significant savings is if legislation or subsequent implementation tries to force the square peg of comparative effectiveness research results into the round hole of clinical practice by requiring physicians to always pick the treatment deemed best for the average patient.

That’s not just bad for patients in the near term, it would also wreak havoc on long term medical innovation.  If every new medicine were required, immediately upon gaining regulatory approval, to be effective and cheap enough to get the support of bureaucratic bean counters, research on the next generation of treatments for cancer, heart disease, and countless other serious conditions would slow to a snail’s pace.

Get used to the innovative medical treatments that we already have today.  If these programs become part of our health care system, we’ll be seeing a lot fewer treatment innovations tomorrow.

Health Insurer Competition and Democratic Saber Rattling

by Greg Conko on October 20, 2009

in Culture, Health and Illness, Healthcare, Insurance, Regulation, Zeitgeist

Last week, after the industry association America’s Health Insurance Plans released a study showing that premiums would rise 18 percent under the Senate Finance Committee’s reform proposal, top Democrats took to the airwaves to condemn the industry for standing in the way of health care reform.  President Obama used his Saturday radio address to accuse the industry of using “deceptive and dishonest” attacks to derail reform legislation.  And Obama and congressional Democrats threatened to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which exempts insurers from most federal regulation, including antitrust laws.

It is true that a handful of states have highly concentrated markets.  In Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Alaska, for example, 95 percent or more of the health insurance market is served by just two insurers.  But, federal intervention would do nothing to address this problem.  After all, insurers are still governed by state competition law, which prohibits anticompetitive practices.

The main benefit insurers get from McCarran-Ferguson is antitrust immunity for sharing the actuarial data on which firms individually base their premiums.  Ordinarily, information sharing of that kind of  would be a big no no, since it suggests pricing collusion.  But, state insurance laws permit it because it helps small insurers gain access to a sufficiently large pool of information to set premiums at an appropriate level.

The only way federal antitrust enforcement could significantly reduce market concentration would be to break up the firms into smaller pieces—think of the dissolution of John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil trust, or the break up of AT&T’s local service monopoly into seven regional Baby Bells.  But, as Boston University health economist Austin Frakt  notes:

“Taxpayers will be best served by insurers with sufficient market power to bargain down provider rates, but with not quite enough power to keep the savings (“rents”) for themselves.  … How to balance the power of insurers and providers is far from simple. Many have pointed to the alleged dominant market position of insurers as a substantial source of high health care costs. However, the health economics literature supports the notion that recent increased market power of insurers does not lead toward monopolistic pricing, but rather it provides a counter-balance to the power held by hospitals and provider groups.”  (Hat tip, Tyler Cowen.)

Democrats know this of course.  And, in the end, it’s not clear that they really do intend to repeal McCarran-Ferguson, or if they’re just sending a signal to health insurers and other dissenters that “this is how we deal with people who stand in our way.”  As my wife said yesterday, they’re playing Chicago hard ball now.  They’ll do whatever it takes to win.

LibertyWeek 42: Hugo Chávez, Robber Baron

by Richard Morrison on May 12, 2009 · 1 comment

in CEI Projects, Podcast

Richard Morrison and Cord Blomquist bring back special guest co-host Jeremy Lott to create the work of art known as Episode 42. We start with the continuing buzz over the Supreme Court’s next member, President Obama’s trillion dollar healthcare plan, and an update on how Hugo Chávez is turning Venezuela’s petroleum reserves into his personal piggybank. We add good news from East Texas for beer drinkers, bad news from Europe for technophiles and sad news from Philly for basketball fans.

Listen to the episode HERE.