Why Medicare Expansion Threatens the Bush Tax Cuts and Undermines Fundamental Tax Reform

The Heritage Foundation ^ | July 25, 2003 | Daniel J. Mitchell, Ph.D.

[FirstPrinciple]

The House and Senate have approved legislation adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and a conference committee is now attempting to reconcile these two bills. If the two chambers do manage to iron out their differences, the resulting bill will represent the biggest unfunded entitlement expansion in nearly 40 years.

Unfortunately for taxpaying Americans, however, the projected 10-year $400 billion cost is just a down payment that will not produce the necessary Medicare improvements and needed reforms. Instead, Congress will have passed a bill that in future years will require huge new taxes--new taxes that will threaten the recently enacted tax plan.

Moreover, this massive new entitlement significantly endangers future tax reductions and undermines the campaign for a fair and simple system such as the flat tax.

.....

[meenie]

And you are going to prevent the economic breakdown by more spending? I don't think so. I was always under the foolish impression that debt had to be repaid. silly me. Since we got our MBA in as President, all we have to do is follow his lead and get him reelected, regardless of what it costs the public. Excuse me, but I have reached my limit.

[FirstPrinciple]

You can't preserve political power by constantly doing unpopular things like denying medical coverage to seniors.

Huh! Who is preventing seniors to get medical coverage? You are a little too carried away by hyperbole dont you think?

[rdb3]

Yes, as written. See the 14th amendment.

The XIV Amendment was not the way the Constitution was written. It is how it was amended, but not originally written.

And I'm not splitting hairs. When I read how someone wants it as written I then have to wonder what they mean.

[freedomdefender]

The bill is reality. The complaining about it is not.

Where's the money going to come from? You sound like a liberal democrat - - you don't want to hear that there's no free lunch. Too bad Bush has bought into the free-lunch philosophy, because the price (in new taxes) is going to be steep for our children.

[freedomdefender]

You can't preserve political power by constantly doing unpopular things like denying medical coverage to seniors.

Wow, you've got the age-old philosophy of the Democratic PArty down to a T. Buy votes- with the money of the middle class. Tax, tax, spend, spend - elect, elect. That's not why I voted for Bush - - - but it might be why I won't vote for him again.

[inquest]

The XIV Amendment was not the way the Constitution was written.

We were talking about the way the Constitution is written. Article V clearly states that amendments are just as much a part of the Constitution as the original document.

And in any case, even if by some bizarre twist the amendments were to be done away with, if you're a free citizen now, you'd still be a free citizen afterwards. Nothing would change in that regard.

[inquest]

You responded to the wrong poster.

[farmfriend]

Because I'd cease being a citizen and will be 0.6 of a person again.

I knew exatly what you were getting at. I even started to reply to it then didn't. I do wish the courts would stop writing law with some of their interpretations though.

[MayDay72]

BUMP!!!

[jagrmeister]

No, I was framing the issue as its seen by the public. You have seniors who can't afford medicine. You have some politicians who are willing to provide them with it and others who seek to deny them this benefit. Personally, I'd like to see Medicare converted into private retirement accounts.

[jagrmeister]

While we may disagree on the Medicare bill, I do think we need to put Republicans on notice that they should be fighting harder against the growth of non-discretionary spending that has grown by leaps and bounds, despite a GOP President, Senate, and House. It's too bad the Groups (as Zell Miller calls them) in Washington that urge more spending outnumber those that demand less spending by 100 to 1. Those of us who want lower spending need to get organized.

[jagrmeister]

Don't forget the $1.5 trillion in tax cuts, the successful war on terrorism and prevention of attack on our soil since 9/11, deposing Saddam Hussein from power, appointing conservative justices, removing stringent business regulations such as ergonomics and environmental "studies" that take 10 years before businesses can utilize land, mandating student testing, school choice at least between public schools and banning partial birth abortion.

[FirstPrinciple]

I think Bush did as much as he could without picking any fights with the Democrats. Call it the new tone or whatever it is, Bush made sure that he doesn't infuriate key Democrats. Also, I think he changed his mind (a sober way to put it) on key issues like CFR and even prescription drugs. I am having second thoughts about the tax-cuts because they are so back-loaded and have a sunset provision. Expansion of Dept of Education, unionizing airport employees and creating a worthless Dept of Homeland Security doesn't excite me either.

[Tauzero]

bttt