Congressman David Obey is advocating imposing a “war surtax” on Americans’ income to pay for President Obama’s military surge (troop increase) in Afghanistan. Instead of a “war surtax” the federal government should confiscate the illegal drug money being collected by a number of Afghanistan officials to help pay for the President’s military surge
A “war surtax” is a terrible economic idea. America is still in the midst of what is considered the worst recession since the Great Depression. The nation’s overall unemployment rate is still over 10% and over 15% for African-Americans. Millions of other Americans are underemployed or just a paycheck or two away from bankruptcy and millions move have lost their homes or are on the verge of foreclosure.
Representative Obey says he wants to impose a “war surtax” to make sure that all Americans share in the sacrifice of the war against terror.
Congressman Obey must not be paying attention, but tens of millions of Americans are sacrificing. As it is now, poverty is increasing in our nation, “[m]ore than a third of all black children in America are poor, and that tragic percentage is expanding”, and on Sunday, November 29, 2009, The New York Times reported that “[t]he number of food stamp recipients has climbed by about 9 million [people] since the recession began in December 2007, resulting in a program that now feeds 1 in 8 Americans and nearly 1 in 4 children.”
In 2010 the taxes Americans pay will increase as the Bush tax cuts expire (unless they are extended by Congress), the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) continues to eat into the income of an increasing share of middle-class taxpayers, Health Care Reform tax increases will also start (if legislation is passed by Congress), and the cost of “cap and trade” (a carbon tax currently being debated in Congress) could also begin. Taxes and fees at the state and local levels are also likely to be increased.
Even with taxpayers subsidies to: (1) help low income Americans buy health care insurance to comply with the “individual mandate” of the Health Care Reform legislation, and (2) to mitigate the economic cost of “cap and trade” a “war surtax” if it became law would undercut those efforts. Inflation, the decline in the value of the dollar and the increasing cost of agricultural produce such as corn will also negatively impact the pocketbooks of American workers and taxpayers.
Instead of a “war surtax”, Congress needs to prioritize spending within the billions in existing tax revenues already being collected from taxpayers. Before talking about new taxes or raising taxes, Congress must make the tough decisions necessary to: (1) eliminate projects and programs that are no longer needed, (2) clamp down on and vigorously prosecute fraud, theft and waste in federal contracting, and (3) eliminate pork barrel spending. Congress should also establish the bi-partisan debt reduction commission being proposed by several member of the United State Senate and sent to the states for ratification a Balance Federal Operating Budget Amendment and a Presidential Line Item Veto Amendment.
Our growing national debt is both an economic and national security liability along with our dependence on foreign oil.
To fix our economy and create jobs in America, Congress needs to focus on supporting and incentivizing small businesses and entrepreneurs. A “war surtax” will not help this effort. “Americans are already suffering and sacrificing, there is no need to place another economic burden on their shoulders while they are struggling to keep their heads above water.”
###
Carroll G. Robinson is an Associate Professor at the Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs at Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas
We support health care reform that is rational, responsible and successful at controlling cost for individuals, businesses and the government.
Fixing our nation’s health care system is long overdue.
Notwithstanding our personal support for health care reform, as scholars, we do have a serious concern about the long term constitutional implications of the proposed “individual mandate” that people living in the United States must buy healthcare insurance or pay a financial penalty if they don’t do so.
As we write, there are clear indications that the final version of the health care reform legislation will not cover all the people currently uninsured in America and that there will likely be at least a freedom of religion exemption to the “individual mandate” requirement.If these observations turn out to be correct, the current version of health care reform will not completely eliminate the “free rider” issue.Even when you do eventually get to universal coverage domestically, you will still encounter some instances of the free rider problem.For example, a tourist visiting the United States who has no health care insurance and becomes sick will be treated rather than being allowed to become a public health risk.(We know that attempts will be made to try and collect the cost of that treatment.)
The Real Issue
Our concern about the constitutional implications of the “individual mandate” requirement grows out of the broad arguments that Professor Mark Hall is advancing in support of its constitutionality.
According to Professor Hall, an “individual mandate” is constitutional because there is “no fundamental right to be uninsured” or “to decline insurance”.The force of Professor Hall’s analysis and conclusion is compelling if you accept his characterization of the issue.We do not.
We believe that the issue that must be resolved is this:Can Congress order American citizens to purchase a specific good or service or category of goods and services and impose a financial penalty if they do not do so?
Both Professor Hall and the Congressional Budget Office have acknowledged that an “individual mandate” is “unprecedented” in American history.(Mark A. Hall, The Constitutionality of Mandates to Purchase Health Insurance, O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University, pg. 3, www.oneillinstitute.org; Robert Hartman and Paul Van de Water, The Budgetary Treatment of an Individual Mandate to Buy Health Insurance, CBO memorandum, August 1994.)
“Citizens”hip
The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
“Citizens”hip is a constitutionally defined and protected status that has a history and meaning that stretches back through the Declaration of Independence to the Magna Carta and which has expanded as our nation moved forward from the 3/5 Clause and the Dred Scott decision to the Civil War Amendments and the Civil Rights statutes of Reconstruction to the Nineteenth Amendment – the right of women to vote – to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment and the Supreme Court decisions of the Warren Court that helped remove obstacles to all Americans exercising the full freedoms of citizenship.(See generally, Thurgood Marshall’s Speech on the Bicentennial of the Constitution of the United States.)
The Supreme Court has on numerous occasions acknowledged that it was the people who ordained and established the Constitution of the United States.The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
Commerce Clause Concerns
Professor Hall’s Commerce Clause analysis of the constitutionality of the “individual mandate” requirement, as we read it, essentially concludes that as it relates to the economic activities of individual citizens, no matter how infinitesimal, so long as Congress is not trying to regulate noneconomic criminal conduct there is no limit on its power to impose individual mandates.(Hall, pg. 5.)
In a limited form of government there must be some limit to how far Congress can go in imposing individual economic mandates under its Commerce Clause authority.
If Professor Hall’s position is correct then not even the Supreme Court or the ballot box is a true safeguard against Congress’ Commerce Clause authority.If that is the case where then do you draw the line between individual mandates and involuntary servitude?
Hopefully our understanding of Professor Hall’s arguments and conclusion is incorrect and he will share with us his answer to our question and his view on the limitations of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority over the economic activities of individual citizens.
More Substance Than Substantive Due Process
As we see it, determining the constitutionality of an “individual mandate” to buy health care insurance is broader than a question of substantive due process.It is a question about the fundamental meaning and rights of United States citizenship.
Through the penumbra of the Bill of Rights the Court has established constitutional protection for the Right to Privacy and demonstrated that there is constitutionally protected fundamental substance beyond substantive due process.
Freedom of Association, the Right to freely travel throughout the country and Freedom of Speech are all constitutionally protected rights.
The economic purchasing decisions of citizens in our capacity as consumers are a form of expression and association.If Congress can’t tell Americans which politicians they must contribute to or which organizations they must join, how then can Congress tell citizens what goods or services they must buy or be subject to a financial penalty for not doing so?
The right to freely choose who a citizen wants to spend their money with is “deeply rooted in the history and traditions of the United States.”(See Hall, pg. 10 and citation therein.)
It’s Not Taxation – It’s the Mandate
Finally, even if you characterize the “individual mandate” requirement of health care reform as a tax, it is our opinion that it remains a burden being imposed on the fundamental right (status) of citizenship.
We know that many Americans are opposed to raising taxes but that is a political issue that does not raise any of the constitutional concerns of an “individual mandate” on citizens to buy a specific good or service where they would suffer a financial penalty if they did not do so.If Congress wants to raise more money to expand health care coverage, it has the constitutional authority to raise taxes.What raises constitutional concerns is mandating citizens buy specific goods or services or be subjected to a financial penalty for not doing so.
Conclusion
Improving our nation’s health care system is an important public policy goal but it should not be achieved by diminishing the meaning and protections of United States citizenship.
Citizenship is a constitutional defined and protected status growing out of our nation’s unique struggles and continuing journey to form “a more perfect Union.”Any governmental burden imposed on citizenship should be subject to the highest (strict scrutiny) or no less than heightened review by the federal courts.The power to tax does not give Congress the power to dilute the meaning of citizenship.
Congress has the authority to increase taxes or create a new tax to help fund health care reform, but we do not believe that it has unlimited authority under the Commerce Clause to impose “individual mandates” or the power under any constitutional provision to tell American citizens what goods and services they must buy or be subjected to a financial penalty for not doing so.
Health care reform will likely pass the political test of the legislative process but could fail to pass constitutional muster because of the “individual mandate” requirement.At a minimum, an “individual mandate” requirement guarantees that any health care reform legislation that passes Congress with it included will be subjected to protracted litigation, likely all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
###
*Robinson and Adams are members of the Masters of Public Administration (MPA) faculty at the Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs at Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas.
If we want to fix the American economy for the long term, then Congress has to do more than simply extend unemployment benefits and assistance to the unemployed and underemployed to maintain their health care coverage or continuing incentives to buy homes when there are millions of Americans without a job and the income to pay a mortgage.
America needs a pro-growth, pro-jobs creation plan of action.Government assistance is a start, but it alone is not enough.
Congress needs to adopt policies that will (1)help small business owners and entrepreneurs create new jobs;(2) reduce the national debt and eliminate deficit spending;(3) protect Middle Class taxpayers;(4) prioritize federal spending-national and homeland security, veterans care, health care, education and (5) strengthening entitlement programs.
To achieve these goals, we recommend that Congress implements the following policies.
First, Congress should use the unspent portions of the stimulus plan not dedicated to securing the social safety net, education, green jobs and transportation and infrastructure projects to help provide an immediate tax cut to Middle Class Americans and small businesses.Congress should also immediately and permanently fix or repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
Americans need to keep more of the money we earn if we are going to help our economy recover.Two-thirds of the U.S. economy is built on consumer spending.Robust consumer spending will only occur if more Americans have a good paying job and get to keep more of the money they earn to spend on goods, services and buying houses.
Second, Congress should reduce the Social Security payroll tax rate for employees and employers and lift the cap on income subject to the payroll tax.A portion of the employers’ savings should be used to bolster employees’ wages.
Congress must also begin to pay off the Treasury bills (T-bills) owned by the Social Security Trust Fund and give the Trust Fund the authority to invest in state and municipal infrastructure bonds as well as private equity stocks and bonds.
Taking these steps will help (1) strengthen the Social Security Trust Fund and other entitlement programs, (2) create new public and private sector jobs, and (3) increase wages.
Third, Health Care Reform should not raise taxes on the middle class or be built on punishing individual Americans.Americans now spend billions of dollars on our current health care system – more than any other country in the world.We need to fix the health care system so that what we are now spending will provide coverage for all Americans, lower premiums for middle class Americans and provide all of us with access to quality, affordable prevention, wellness and healthcare services.It can be done if we move from an employer based system to a “consumer driven” system.
Fourth, Congress needs to commit to a plan of action to balance the federal budget by 2015.To ensure that this is a real and binding commitment, Congress should send to the states a federal Balanced Budget Amendment.This amendment should require a balanced federal operating budget with an exception for homeland and national security emergencies, and major national disasters.
Paying down our national debt and balancing the federal budget are both economic and national security priorities.If we don’t do these things we will be held hostage by the foreign governments that own our debt and want to be the world’s new great power.
Fifth, to attract private investments that will help create private sector jobs in America by small business owners and entrepreneurs, Congress needs to lower the capital gain tax and reduce the impact of the estate tax.America needs a fairer and flatter tax system that promotes economic growth, jobs creation and broad based prosperity.Congress also needs to use the government’s ownership interest in the nation’s banks to increase lending to small business owners and entrepreneurs.Small businesses and entrepreneurs create two-thirds of the jobs in our country.Without these jobs we will not have a broad, strong and long lasting economic recovery.
Ultimately, America will need policies that (1) incentivizes wages that lift all working Americans out of poverty; (2) provides access to quality, affordable prevention, wellness and health care services without raising taxes on the middle class; (3) ensures energy security and independence that helps create green jobs; (4) provides our nation with a workforce educated to compete in a global economy and “networked” world; and (5) strengthens our existing entitlement programs.
Our goal as Americans should be a strong and growing economy that creates good paying jobs and full employment, ensures shared prosperity and the elimination of poverty and hunger in our nation.If we do those things, educate our people to compete and succeed in the 21st Century, secure energy security and independence and reduce our childhood mortality rate - our best days, as a nation, are ahead for all of us, our children and grandchildren.
## #
*Robinson and Adams are members ofthe Masters of Public Administration faculty of the Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs at Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas.
Carroll G. Robinson, Esq. and Dr. Michael O. Adams, PhD*
America has had wage and price control and we’ve had rationing of goods and services during a time of war, but as far as we know, Congress has never mandated that Americans must purchase a specific product or service. That is what the individual mandate contained in all the major healthcare reform bills being debated in Congress will require.
The individual mandate to purchase healthcare insurance has raised serious questions as to whether or not Congress has the constitutional authority (power) to do so.
Attached are several articles discussing the arguments on both sides of the issue.
*Robinson is an Associate Professor at the Barbara Jordan – Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs. He has taught at the Thurgood Marshall School of Law and the South Texas College of Law. Adams is a Professor at the School of Public Affairs and Director of its MPA program and the program’s E-Government Center.
All Americans must have access to quality, affordable prevention, wellness and health care services and procedures.It can be done, and should be done, in a way that:(a) provides private coverage for those who now can’t afford it and aren’t eligible for an existing government program, and (b) empowers those who now have private coverage to keep what they have if they want to or to change it based on access to multiple private providers and clear, concise and objective information on cost, coverage denial rates and customer service performance.
Following are six (6) principles that should guide Congress’ reform of our health care system.
Six Principles
First, Americans should be allowed to buy health care insurance from any insurance company in the country.They should also have the right to sue to enforce their policy either in their home state or the home state of the insurance company.This option should be expressly written into the contract that constitutes their insurance policy.This is consistent with the existing law of personal jurisdiction.
There are reportedly 1300 health care insurance companies in America.This change would increase competition, help lower the cost of health insurance and provide Americans with more options and choices.
Congress can make this change based on its express power under the Commerce Clause of Article I of the United States Constitution.
Second, Insurance companies should be prohibited from denying health care coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions.If this issue is not addressed, it will be a growing and even more complicated matter in light of the emergence of genetic testing growing out of the decoding of the human genome.Some of the scientific work to decode the genome was done in Houston at the Texas Medical Center.
If an outright prohibition cannot be achieved, then incentives should be provided to those companies that provide coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions.Health Care Insurance Redlining should also be expressly prohibited.Insurance companies that increase their coverage in historically underserved neighborhoods and communities above a predetermined percentage should receive performance incentives as is now done under some government construction contracts.
Third, Hospitals and Doctors should be required to provide clear and concise information on the cost of their professional services and procedures, how often they perform each procedure, and the success and mortality rate of each service and procedure.
A national Health Care Cost and Services Website should be developed and maintained by the federal Health and Human Services Department that can be searched by state, city, zip code, procedure, hospital, or doctor.
Fourth, reforms focused on increasing health care services facilities and enhancing patient safety standards for all facilities must be adopted.
Additionally, incentives to expedite, increase and expand the use and deployment of Health Information Technology should also be adopted.This is an investment that will reduce health care costs across the board, improve patients’ safety and reduce health care services mortality rates.
Fifth, money now spent by employers to pay for health care insurance for their employees should be paid directly to employees to pay their own premiums now and into the future with continuing cost of living adjustments based on the annual rate of inflation. (See generally, David Goldhill, How American Health Care Killed My Father, The Atlantic, September 2009, pg.38, 52; and articles on “consumer-driven” care written by Harvard Business School professor Regina Herzlinger.)
The federal revenue generated by this change in health care insurance purchasing should be used to help provide coverage for those Americans who now don’t have coverage and can’t afford to purchase it on their own.
Sixth, reasonable and responsible steps should be taken to eliminate the need for the practice of defensive medicine and its ever increasing costs – from financial to reduced access to care – which have resulted from health care workers and service providers’ fear of unwarranted litigation.
The cost of prescription drugs also needs to be brought under control by providing consumers with broader purchasing options.Americans should have the right to purchase prescription drugs from any place in the world where they have been certified as safe by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).(See generally, G.S. Osho and Michael O. Adams, Drug Company Profit in the United States:Are They Excessive?, Journal of Business and Economic Research, Vol. 4 No. 2, 2006, pg. 85.)
Improving our health care system, reducing health care costs across the board, providing access to affordable private health care coverage and high quality care for all Americans, and empowering each of us with the right to exercise the option of selecting any private health insurance provider we choose based on easily accessible and objective information on cost, coverage denial rates and customer service can be achieved and must be.
*Robinson is Chairman of the Houston Citizens Chamber of Commerce, an Associate Professor at the Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs at Texas Southern University and Associate Director of the school’s MPA program E-Government Center.Adams is a Professor at the School of Public Affairs and Director of the MPA Program and its E-Government Center.
For people who are truly interested in the issue of expanding access to quality, affordable, health and wellness care, they should read David Goldhill's article, How American Health Care Killed My Father, in the September 2009 issue of The Atlantic magazine, THEATLANTIC.COM Please share this information with your family members, friends, and colleges.
Direct link to article: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care
Carrol G. Robinson, Esq Dr. Michael O. Adams, Ph.D.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Making the Most of Your Alumni Connections A University's greatest asset is its alumni. Alumni are a valuable resource for recruiting, marketing, and creating a successful network of professional connections. Texas Southern University is one of the largest HBCU's and is located in the 4th largest city in the nation. With over 70% of the University's alumni living in the Houston area, and connected to some of the most influential companies and organizations in the world, our resource potential is unlimited. So the question is how do we utilize our resources?
Believing that the best solutions start at home, Dr. Michael O. Adams, Director of the Master's in Public Administration (MPA) program, has been working with a group of alumni from the Barbara Jordan Mickey Leland (BJML) School of Public Affairs to come up with ideas for organizing the alumni involvement and efforts within the School of Public Affairs. Below are suggestions from this group of alumni:
- Petition TSUNAA for a School of Public Affairs (SOPA) alumni chapter - Utilize social media, such as Myspace and Facebook, to organize alumni and keep them informed about TSU and SOPA - Conduct an information request campaign; directly reaching out to alumni of SOPA to get updated contact information - Create and maintain a SOPA newsletter -Host quarterly SOPA alumni events
We want your opinion of these ideas. What do you think? Would you be willing to participate in the SOPA alumni movement? Blog back and hit us on Facebook with your ideas and contact info.
The Public Administration program has as its purpose the preparation of professionals for extraordinary careers in the public sector or continued study at the graduate level. The program’s greatest single asset lies in its potential to alleviate the shortage of professionally educated individuals, especially those from minority groups, at local, state, national and international levels of public service. The program is designed to prepare students to resolve the increasingly complexdynamics of working, leading and managing public organizations. It is a response to the increasing importance of planning and management as major instruments in developing solutions to problems of cities and metropolitan regions. Students leave the program with an array of conceptual, quantitative and professional skills.
