Senate

“Goodwin Liu’s nomination to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to be done for” thanks to a Republican filibuster, says David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner. The Senate has blocked his nomination to sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the western fifth of the United States. By a 52-to-43 vote, the Senate failed to override a Republican filibuster. All Republicans except Lisa Murkowski of Alaska voted against Liu. All Democrats except Ben Nelson of Nebraska voted for Liu.

Liu, a Berkeley law professor, has many radical positions, and is a big user of politically-correct psychobabble designed to hide judicial activism.  For example, he has written that a judge is supposed to be a “culturally situated interpreter of social meaning” rather than an impartial umpire who interprets the law in accord with its plain meaning or its framers’ intent. Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro notes that Liu has suggested that the Constitution creates a right to welfare entitlements in areas like health care.

The defeat of Liu’s nomination could affect a great many high-profile cases.  As lawyer and former federal appeals court clerk Ted Frank notes,

“The Ninth Circuit is a court that was one vote away from striking down the Pledge of Allegiance; regularly abuses the law to disregard states’ wishes to impose capital punishment; has ordered California to release 25% of its prisoners; has forbidden Los Angeles from enforcing laws against sleeping on sidewalks; has said it has seen no reason why animals should not be allowed to sue the federal government; held an ex-police officer could sue his employer for firing him for running a porn site in his uniform; said that gun manufacturers could be held civilly liable for the shooting sprees of the mentally ill.”

[click to continue…]

The Washington Post‘s “Senate Panel Ban Seen as Double Standard” deals with the latest attempt to eliminate so-called “conflicts of interest” between appointees to government defense-related positions. Appointees must divest themselves — often at great cost — of all investments in any firm that does business with the military.

The article notes this same prohibition has not been extended to federal legislators serving on military committees. A more relevant point is that this policy discourages individuals knowledgeable about military procurement (that is, those involved in the process) from serving in government. This point was raised recently in a C-SPAN interview with Lord John Wakeham, a distinguished parliamentarian from England.

He argued that before going into politics, an individual should first make some money, learn how the world operates.  Banning links to the market weakens the ability of legislators to make reasonable policy decisions. Lord Wakeham instead favors “disclosure.” And he, in my view, is quite right. A vigilant media can be expected to scrutinize the decisions of individuals in government in any event.

The recent trend to ban “conflicts of interest” threatens many things. The challenge is not to eliminate such conflicts, an impossibility in any event, but rather to manage them to achieve more creative outcomes. Moreover, the bias which sees only economic conflicts as meriting policy reform means the relative weight given ideological conflicts is exacerbated. History suggests there are much greater risks involved in enhancing the power of ideology than in economic scandals.

Unfortunately, the power of ideology has increased greatly in the last few decades. Those worried about the bitterness of partisan conflict in recent years should reconsider. After all, the tyrants of history were not primarily motivated by money, but rather power. Do we wish these “public servants” to be our role models for the future?

Reason’s Ron Bailey, in an “I told you so” article today, points out that Senate Democrats are poised to support a bill that would give the federal government the power to regulate insurance rates.  He was referring to a NYT articleburied on page A12 — that said that Senator Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Senate health committee, was going to push for a bill, possibly one introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein, that would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to block rate increases “found to be unreasonable.”

Here’s what the California senator had to say about her bill:

Mrs. Feinstein said her bill would close what she described as “an enormous loophole” in the new law. And she said health insurance should be regulated like a public utility.

“Water and power are essential for life,” Mrs. Feinstein said. “So they are heavily regulated, and rate increases must be approved. Health insurance is also vital for life. It too should be strictly regulated so that people can afford this basic need.”

Looks like the Dems are really pushing their agenda to expand the list of “basic needs” that the federal government has to regulate – read that as take over. Better check out Maslow for what comes next.

“They won’t be so opposed to it once they see what’s in it.” That’s the rationalization House leaders have given skittish Democrats to get them to walk the plank on Obamacare Sunday night.

But one of the first things millions of Americans will “see” is an effective 40 percent tax hike on the over-the-counter medicines – from an antihistamine such as Claritin for allergies, pain relief medicine such as Tylenol or Excedrin, Pedialyte to prevent their kids from becoming dehydrated when they are sick, and even prenatal vitamins if they are expecting another one.

All of these items have two things in common.  One is that they are classified as “over the counter” (OTC) medicines and available without a doctor’s prescription. The other is that if you pay for any of these items with money in your flexible spending account (FSA) or health savings account (HSA) – and according to this guide from FSA administrator Benesyst , all of these are eligible expenses  – you will face an effective tax increase of up to 40 percent on these items in the health care bill that President Obama signed today.

The bill restricts individuals with these pre-tax accounts to buying a “medicine or drug only if such medicine or drug is a prescribed” one. And ironically, this tax that will raise health care costs substantially by creating incentives for the use of more expensive prescription drugs even when OTC drugs are just as safe and effective.

And while the tax on “Cadillac” plans for union members was delayed in the reconciliation bill until 2018, no such luck for HSA and FSA account holders, many of whom are self-employed and entrepreneurs. These heath care consumers and voters – and there are more than 40 million of them according to the Washington Times – will still “see” this tax hike go into effect at the beginning of 2011, the same as when I last reported on this “medicine cabinet tax” in BigGovernment.com and here atOpenMarket.org. And if there were a couple smart politicians, Americans would “see” this tax as soon as this week’s reconciliation debate.

Both FSAs and HSAs allow Americans to pay for medical expenses with pretax dollars. An HSA goes along with a high-deductible insurance policy and gives individuals a tax deduction for money saved that can be used for health care expenses. An FSA has similar tax advantages, but contributions to it are deducted from an employee’s salary, and money in the account must be used by the end of the year.

In 2003, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service ruled that OTC medicines could be paid for by FSAs and the newly enacted HSAs. In a press release that sounded unusually compassionate for the IRS, the agency stated:

Drugs are increasingly becoming available over-the-counter without prescription. Many health plans no longer cover the cost of these drugs as over-the-counter. While an over-the-counter drug is less expensive than the prescription drug, the cost to many consumers increases because the price paid by the consumer for the over-the-counter drug is greater than the co-payment by the consumer when the drug was covered by insurance. This is especially an issue for individuals who remedy chronic health problems by regularly taking an over-the-counter medicine.

Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow added in the release, “Since many prescription drugs have moved to the over-the-counter market, this action today makes paying for them a little bit easier to swallow.”

Specifically, the government ruled that since the tax code written by Congress did not specifically require that “only medicines or drugs that require a physician’s prescription be taken into account” for health expenses, OTC medicines were eligible. The ruling made clear that although health accounts could not purchase items for general health such as toothpaste, they could be used for medicines that treat specific conditions, such as an “antacid, allergy medicine, pain reliever and cold medicine.” Companies that administer FSAs and HSAs have developed extensive lists of a variety of OTC items that are covered.  The Benesyst guide fills two pages with an alphabetical list of eligible expenses that includes everything from analgesics to wound care.

But Section 9004 of the Senate bill the House ratified Sunday night, as well as Section 531 of the House bill that passed in November, changes the tax code so that “distribution for medicine” from HSAs and FSAs are “qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin.” Yes, the bills are merciful enough to allow diabetics to purchase insulin under these tax plans, but if you or your family members need Pedialyte, prenatal vitamins or numerous other over the counter health items, you will see a tax hike that could be huge.

Since HSAs and FSA contributions are exempt from both income taxes and 15.3 percent payroll tax for Social Security and Medicare, and since these together can reach more than 40 percent of an employee’s salary, the effective tax increase on these medicines could be more than 40 percent.

And this tax change will almost certainly cost the health care system billions more dollars in unnecessary spending both to the government and private insurance plans. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the tax hike will bring in $5 billion in revenues over ten years – itself a drop in the bucket when compared to the bill’s new trillion-dollar entitlement – but that estimate doesn’t take into account behavioral changes as a direct result of this provision.

OTC drugs are much cheaper those available for prescription, but they could now be more expensive to individual consumers given that prescription drugs would still be eligible for favored treatment in the tax plans, and that insurance companies would be mandated to cover many of them. Consequently, any time a consumer has the slightest headache, the financial incentive would often be to see a doctor and get a prescription rather than go to the store and get medicine off the shelf.

This could mean that billions will be wasted on the additional costs for prescription drugs in instances when OTC medicines could be just as safe and effective at treating the illness.  A 2005 study in the American Journal of Managed Care found that the Food and Drug Administration’s clearing of antihistamines such as loratadine (Claritin) for over-the-counter sale saves about $4 billion a year in health care costs. Ironically, the liberals and Democrats who normally rail against big pharmaceutical companies are now creating a huge windfall the firms that make expensive prescription drugs by penalizing users of OTC medicines.

The rallying cry for opponents of Obamacare has been “Hands off my health care.” In addition, they now could say, “Hands off my medicine cabinet.” And the fight could begin as soon as reconciliation. A smart politician could introduce an amendment to strike the medicine cabinet tax, arguing that under dynamic scoring which takes into account behavioral changes of taxpayers, the tax would cost the government more. If they need something else to pay for this fix, there is always the House’s costly repairs to certain “Cadillac” that 51 Senators could decide to ditch.

2005< l}}@}e-converted-space”> study in the American Journal of Managed Care found that the Food and Drug Administration’s clearing of antihistamines such as loratadine (Claritin) for over-the-counter sale saves about $4 billion a year in health care costs. Ironically, the liberals and Democrats who normally rail against big pharmaceutical companies are now creating a huge windfall the firms that make expensive prescription drugs by penalizing users of OTC medicines.

The rallying cry for opponents of Obamacare has been “Hands off my health care.” In addition, they now could say, “Hands off my medicine cabinet.” And the fight could begin as soon as reconciliation. A smart politician could introduce an amendment to strike the medicine cabinet tax, arguing that under dynamic scoring which takes into account behavioral changes of taxpayers, the tax would cost the government more. If they need something else to pay for this fix, there is always the House’s costly repairs to certain “Cadillac” that 51 Senators could decide to ditch.

The Senate just passed an $18 billion spending bill. Since the House already passed it, the legislation is now headed to President Obama’s desk to await his signature and become law.

The hope is that the spending will create jobs. If you’re reading this blog, then you probably know enough about economics to know that isn’t what will actually happen. Remember: anything that Washington giveth, it must first taketh away from somewhere else. It’s a zero-sum game. All those new jobs that politicians will be touting for the cameras will have come at the expense of other jobs elsewhere. On net, they’re not creating a thing.

Take, for example, the bill’s payroll tax break for small businesses. Yes, those small businesses benefit. Maybe the money they save will even be used to hire more workers. That’s easy enough to see. But that money had to come from somewhere. That is harder to see. Too hard for the Senate to see, at the very least.

The reason is this: the government is foregoing some payroll tax revenue. But since it isn’t cutting spending to match, it has to borrow more. And there’s only so much investment capital to go around. Because Washington is borrowing more, less is left over for private investment opportunities. At the very least, companies will have to offer investors higher interest rates to lure them away from government bonds.

That makes getting loans more expensive. And when something gets more expensive, there tends to be less of it. Because of today’s bill, about $18 billion less capital will be available for the private sector to create jobs.

The legislation the Senate passed today is no jobs bill, at least on net. It is a spending bill. It doesn’t create jobs, it only redirects them.

If you’re gay, you can’t donate blood. It’s illegal. The ban was put in place in 1983, during the early days of the HIV/AIDS scare. It may have made some sense in those days, when HIV testing was less than trustworthy. But it sure doesn’t now, with modern screening technology.

Obviously, keeping HIV-positive blood out of circulation is a wise policy goal. But most gay people don’t have HIV/AIDS.  Rather than screening donors for sexual preference, they should be screened for blood-borne diseases. Straight people already are. And it works quite well. Current policies are keeping healthy, willing donors out of the system.

The outdated ban could soon be coming to an end. Sen. John Kerry and 15 of his colleagues, usually more prone to passing regulations than repealing them, are urging the FDA to repeal this one. You can read their letter here.

The one disconcerting thing about the letter is that every single one of the signees is Democratic. Not one Republican joined in. That could be because Sen. Kerry and the others deliberately excluded them for political reasons. But the GOP is famously behind the curve on gay rights issues. So maybe Republicans were asked, and said no. I don’t know.

Republicans should send their own letter supporting Sen. Kerry’s position. Enlarging the pool of eligible blood donors is an unabashed good. It’s a classic gay rights issue. It’s also a health issue. Blood would be more readily available for patients who need it. Economists would add that increasing the supply of blood will lower its price – a good thing in this age of rapidly rising health care costs.

Your host Richard Morrison teams up with collaborators Jeremy Lott and William Yeatman to bring you Episode 72 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We begin with UN climate hypocrisy in Copenhagen, presidential arm-twisting on health care and a cloudy look at government transparency. We conclude with the end of the tobacco road in Virginia and scandal of banking and nepotism in Venezuela.

Those pushing the Senate health care bill were ecstatic when the Congressional Budget Office reported that the bill “would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010-2019 period.” But it’s more budgetary legerdemain, as Cato’s Michael Tanner pointed out today.  Tanner notes that new health care taxes are the revenue-raising tools:

The bill imposes a 40 percent excise tax on health-insurance plans that offer benefits in excess of $8,000 for an individual plan and $21,000 for a family plan. Insurers would almost certainly pass this tax on to consumers via higher premiums. As inflation pushes insurance premiums higher in coming years, more and more middle-class families would find themselves caught up in the tax.

In fact, overall, the tax increases in the bill are more than double the amount of deficit reduction. This isn’t a health care efficiency bill or a cost containment bill. It is a tax and spend bill, pure and simple.

The CBO report clearly states that the “savings” come from new taxes:

. . . net revenues from the excise tax on high premium insurance plans, totaling $201 billion; penalty payments by uninsured individuals, which would amount to $4 billion; penalty payments by employers whose workers received subsidies via the exchanges, which would total $23 billion; and other budgetary effects, mostly on tax revenues, associated with the expansion of federally subsidized insurance, which would reduce deficits by $83 billion.

It’s not surprising that policymakers and pundits ignored that statement. After all, everyone knows that spending more billions will save billions.

Leading trade lawyer Gary Horlick testified yesterday on carbon tariffs before the Senate Finance Committee.  As the Senate prepares an energy suppression/global warming bill, it is attempting to find ways to soften the “border adjustment” provisions in the House-passed bill (H.R. 2454).

Horlick points out some of the practical problems of setting up a carbon tariff system and cautions about the potential effects of such measures on the international trading system.  As he notes, if the production method rather than the end-product is focused on, such processes as agricultural biotechnology may face increased challenges in the World Trade Organization:

It is tempting to say that we can re-interpret existing WTO rules to permit whatever measures are necessary to protect our environment. But do we really want to change those existing rules? The key to the U.S. economy is constant innovation.

One of the important fields where we lead the world of innovation is biotechnology, which is revolutionizing medicine, agriculture, and even many of the environmental concerns dealt with in proposed legislation (such as environmental remediation and renewable fuels). So far the United States has resisted efforts in Europe and elsewhere to limit our market access for our products because of how they are produced – from biotech means. But if we re-interpret WTO rules to allow trade barriers based on how things are made, we open up a can of worms – and might permit other countries to block our biotech exports, including major items such as corn, soybeans, and other crops.

Talk about creating chaos in the world trading system!

Apologies for the late notice, but I had an article on the potential of solar power in last Friday’s Washington Examiner:

If the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which passed narrowly in the House of Representatives this week, also passes the Senate, does this mean that we’ll soon replace coal-derived electricity with clean and green solar power? Don’t count on it. Solar has a lot of problems, and those relying on it for the promised “green jobs” will probably be let down.

You might also be interested in the levelized cost-comparisons for building new power plants in 2016 from the Energy Information Administration, helpfully compiled by the Institute for Energy Research.  The cheapest form of energy (assuming a cost of carbon at $15 a ton)? Nuclear.  The most expensive? Solar thermal and solar photovoltaic.