News

Opinion | Republicans, Social Security and Medicare, and the Trouble With Sunsets


Mine latest column was about President Biden’s remark that some Republicans want to end Social Security and Medicare (and practically all federal law) after five years, and the indignation that this has caused. caused by the GOP and, alas, some mainstream media figures – although Biden directly quoted the former chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

One thing I don’t quote is the rest of Senator Rick Scott proposeasserts that sunsets can do no harm: “If a law is worth obeying, Congress can pass that law again.”

Sorry, but that’s not how things work. Especially not now.

Even in our personal lives, everyone knows that starting to do something good is much harder than continuing a good habit. I don’t decide if I want to exercise every morning; I’ve made morning workouts my base, only canceled under exceptional circumstances. (For younger readers: Staying fit later in life isn’t easy. Also, kids, get off my lawn.)

In a similar way, the Senate does not have to decide every five years to actively continue these programs that many older Americans believe so strongly. For decades they have been our basis, without the recurring crises caused by debt ceilings and other recurring deadlines that require our legislators to truly unite and act. something.

One of the most famous results in commercial behavior workers are more likely to take advantage of financially profitable retirement plans when they have to decline to Are not be registered, as opposed to having to opt-in, although the cost to opt-in is negligible.

So even if politics weren’t a factor, someone who really wanted to keep Medicare and Social Security wouldn’t be asking Congress to opt back into those programs every five years.

But of course politics is a factor, and political motives lie behind the common use of sunsets in US law. Unfortunately, most of those motivations are malicious.

Now, it is true that much of what government does, as a matter of fact, cannot become legally permanent. We cannot, or at least should not, establish permanent funding for the military, because America’s military needs change in the face of events, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. . In addition, national security was at least once an area where partisanship was muted and politicians were relatively able to act in the national interest.

But we have many other areas — especially tax policy — where you might think there are big advantages to stability: Long-term financial planning is easier if you know quite clear about the tax rate that we will face in the future. However, much of modern tax law is full of sunsets.

For example, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 were designed so that the whole thing would expire at the end of 2010 – among other things, a sudden tax spike on large estates, creating a clear opportunity for wealthy heirs to find a way to hasten the death of their elders. Trump’s tax cuts of 2017 were written so that many of the cuts that benefit the middle class expire in a few years, so on paper the tax cuts became much more backward overtime. Here is a picture of the Tax Policy Center:

Why do such silly things? One answer concerns the special institution of the filter, which means that in many cases a law cannot be enacted unless one party controls 60 Senate seats – that is, in a divided country profoundly, basically never. However, financial bills can be issued through reconcile, requires only a simple Senate majority — but typically cannot increase the deficit for more than 10 years. Hence the abrupt cut at the end of a decade.

Another reason for dusk is to hide the true cost of the law. Donald Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was written with middle-class tax cuts set to expire in a few years in the belief that Congress would feel compelled to extend the cuts. this politically; Meanwhile, the official loss of revenue from the measure will be withheld because, on paper at least, many of its tax cuts are temporary.

In the end, we have what I suspect is the reasoning behind Rick Scott’s thinking: creating a sunset can affect legislation you don’t like but don’t have the votes to repeal. In terms of sheer political calculus, this increases the possible ways to destroy a program: All you need is control of either house of Congress or the White House. And there’s always the possibility that Congress won’t opt-in, even if Congress never considered opting out. Think of it like a company offering a retirement plan in the hope that some workers won’t take advantage of a good deal.

These are all pretty bad reasons for legislative sunsets!

And here’s the thing: Sunsets are important. One of the lesser known facts about President Barack Obama is that he managed to achieve a surprising increase in the real tax rate on the richest 1%. Here is the Congressional Budget Office estimate of the average effective tax rate for the top percentile:

How did Obama manage that when his party only controlled Congress for two years? Part of that are new taxes on high incomes introduced to help pay for the Affordable Care Act. But another key factor is the fact that Obama was able to raise taxes on high earners simply by not extending some of Bush’s tax cuts.

I like that particular result (even though it raises my own taxes). But in general, sunsets are a bad thing, and any politician trying to make them sound innocuous is probably trying to pull fast.

I hate his current politics, but Roger Waters wrote Good music. And Lucius sings in support!

news7f

News7F: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, Sports...at the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button