ataxingmatter

the GOP version of negotiation: you won, but we get to cut Medicare anyway

Some in the GOP have realized what progressives have been saying all along--that by winning the election, President Obama is in a much better negotiating position on taxes and spending than before, and the GOP really doesn't have many hands to play.

The trouble is, the GOP thinks if it "gives" on any tax increases on the wealthiest Americans that it should have the "right" to a "balanced deal" and get the Dems to go along with the decimation of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.  This is the main battle of the radical right's class warfare against ordinary Americans--their goal is to eliminate, reduce, or privatize Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits.  They created the fiscal cliff with brinkmanship temper-tantrum threats to throw the United States into default unless they got their way, and they are trying to use the December 31 deadline that they themselves set in place to push the Democrats into being the ones to destroy the most effective social welfare programs that the Democrats have created.

See, e.g., Hiedi Przybyla, Republican Defectors Ready to Back U.S. Tax-Rate Compromise, Bloomberg.com (Dec. 5, 2012).  Some members of the GOP have "signed a letter calling for exploration of 'all options' on taxes and entitlement programs"; Petition signers like Mike Sampson (R-ID) say this means he would be willing to "accept higher rates for married couples earning more than $500,000 a year, in exchange for an overhaul of spending on entitlements such as Medicare."  "We've [the GOP,that is, has] got to have entitlement reform," he says.  Id.

Steny Hoyer--the center-right Democratic whip in the House--said that "proposals to raise the eligibility age from 65 to 67 and other entitlement changes 'clearly are on the table'."

Hoyer is writing a suicide note for the Democratic party with that statement, for two reasons.

1) Tax increases cannot be significant enough if they are limited to married couples with $500,000 or $1 million of income, as Simpson suggested, nor if they do not raise the top rate to at least the Clinton era rate of 39.6 percent. 

In reality, they should introduce additional brackets above that rate level for the top earners (e.g., 4o% for 750,000 or more, 45% for 2 million or more , 50% for 10 million or more, up to perhaps 65% for those who make hundreds of millions of income per year). 

And the capital gains preference should be eliminated.  But the GOP is also digging its "line in the sand" against any increases in taxes on investment income--even though this is an income category that creates tax arbitrage opportunities for the wealthiest Americans and high-income Americans (like Mitt Romney) end up paying tax at rates substantially less than ordinary Americans because of the preferential treatment of their capital gains income.  See, e.g., James Politi, Republicans in capital gains tax fight, Financial Times.com (Dec. 4, 2012) (noting that Republicans in the House are "fighting tax increases on capital gains and dividends, ruling out investment income as an acceptable source of additional revenues in increasingly urgent talks to avert the fiscal cliff") [hat tip--Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism].

2) Democrats were elected as the party most likely to protect earned benefit programs, not destroy them.  There is no way that Democrats should accept ANY "overhaul" of Medicare or the other social program eligibility requirements as a way to cut spending.  They are vitally essential to Americans, and the GOP suggestions take the brunt of cuts out on the most vulnerable populations.  The GOP's cuts include lowering the COLA for the elderly for Social Security, when the elderly actually have a HIGHERr cost-of-living than ordinary Americans, or raising the eligibility age for Medicare, when those who labor all of their lives often need EARLIER eligibility because they need to retire earlier and have no health care outside of work and can't afford to pay what private insurers will charge. 

The savings from these stingy GOP proposals are de minimis, but the impact will be to create a momentum for reducing benefits as a way to save.  That is treating a symptom and not the problem. 

The problem of increasing health care costs comes from the inordinate profit-taking by parties at every link of the health care chain--consultants who bid out to insurers, insurers, hospitals, doctors, Big Pharm, Big Nursing Home, and shareholders.  The only way to address the problem is to do what every other advanced civilization in our era has already done--move to a single payer system that treats health care as a citizen's right and treats the provision of health care as in some sense a public good that the government must provide.  Single payer allows the government to bargain on behalf of its citizens, reducing the monopolistic rights of pharaceutical, hospital and other health care intermediaries.

The article notes that about 120 Dems would need to "buy in" to entitlement cuts in the House for the GOP to agree to tax increases.  The Dems should say no.  The tax increases will come into law on January 1, and then the Dems can propose a bill that will cut taxes for those for whom it makes sense, without decimating the star programs that have supported the middle class since FDR.  (Note to Dems--progressives will not vote for anyone who goes along with such entitlement changes.)

Related articles

The GOP's extortion demands: cut Social Security or we'll shoot the country in the foot

There are no "per se" tax or spending caps: lame duck negotiations no place for Medicare/Medicaid cuts

Leading House Dem wants Medicare, Social Security benefit cuts on the table...

GOP proposes Medicare eligibility age increase

After Promising To Preserve Medicare For Current Retirees, GOP Demands Immediate Cuts In Fiscal Cliff Talks

Boehner Counter Offer To Obama Includes Higher Medicare Age, Social Security Benefit Cut

Paul Krugman: GOP Plan Only 'Sounds Serious Because It Hurts Vulnerable People' (VIDEO)

There are no "per se" tax or spending caps: lame duck negotiations no place for Medicare/Medicaid cuts

When George W. Bush got reelected with a minority of the popular vote and contested state counts, the GOP claimed a mandate to keep going with the fiscally irresponsible program of high military spending combined with tax cuts particularly advantageous for their wealthy and corporate-owning supporters.

When Barack Obama got reelected with a clear majority of the popular vote and a resounding majority in the electoral college, the GOP says Obama has no mandate because the GOP managed to retain the House though Democrats in the House got more votes than Republicans in the House.

Anybody notice the partisan inconsistency there?

What we do know is that a majority of Americans--even lots of those Republicans who voted for Romney--want this Congress to preserve Medicaid and Medicare.  There is a huge effort by some--like the Peterson Institute, the Simpson-Bowles comedy tour, and right-wing propaganda tanks--to cast Medicare as impossible to sustain because of the current trend in health care costs.  The argument goes this way:

• health care costs in the US are rising
• the population that is eligible for Medicare in the using is rising as baby boomers age
• Medicare costs will therefore inevitably increase
• even though Medicare costs are rising less rapidly than non-Medicare health care costs (because of the ability of the government to mandate certain cost controls), those increases will eventually require significantly higher government outlays
• the US has unprecedented levels of debt and annual budget deficits
• the US spends too much compared to its tax revenues (the tax take is several percentage points less of the GDP than the spending percentage)
• therefore the US can't afford to pay those increasing amounts for Medicare health care costs
• therefore we should cut back on eligibilty for, and benefits from, Medicare.

But this argument has several fatal flaws that include the following:

• debt is extraordinarily cheap right now
  • if you can borrow at very low rates, it is better to borrow now than later
  • if you can borrow at very low rates and there are important projects on which to spend the money, the borrowed money acts as a stimulant to the economy
  • if the economy is stimulated by the borrowed money, the GDP growth will likely support continued low interest rates and faster revenue growth that will repay the debt faster
• deficit spending by the government is vital when there isn't private spending
  • and if the economy grows, private spending will grow and deficit spending can pull back
• spending priorities have to be determined: 
  • there is no per se rule that higher spending is necessarily bad (though the right-wing in this country presupposes that there is and based almost all policy prescriptions on that presupposition, because the right-wing ideologically wants to divert public spending to its private pocketbooks)
  • there is no arbitrary and fixed percentage of GDP that is the "right" amount to be spent by the government on government programs
  • we spend too little now on public infrastructure ( public transporation, national roadways, electrical grids, and sewage systems are badly deteriorated), basic research (we have cut back on funding for NIH and NSF, major drivers of advancements in scientific and medical knowledge), and major priorities like combatting global warming/ supporting renewable energy
  • we spend too much now on the military (the military-industrial complex constitutes about 60% of the federal government)
  • we should support continued spending on Medicaid and Medicare, because those programs fill a vital need and serve the population well--we should not reduce benefits but rather increase them, at least for those who rely on Medicare/Medicaid as their primary or only health care plan

• We've already built in various cuts to the spending for Medicare and Medicaid (possibly too much) and the question of what the costs will be ten years down the road depend in part on what else we do along those lines and how those things work out. See Editorial, Health Care Entitlements, New York Times (Nov. 29, 2012); Yves Smith, Naked Capitalism.

• tax policy should be based on fairness in the way we raise revenues and spending priroities in the amount of revenues we raise

• An equation that says "X (health care costs) is increasing and Y (Medicare coverage of health care costs) is increasing (because the number of people needing the program that pays for health care costs is increasing) and Z (taxes for coverage of health care costs) is increasing" and then concludes "therefore we must reduce Y" is using false logic: 
  •  to maintain a relative constant, there are more options than "reduce Y" since the country could:
    • reduce X (move to single payer, as every other advanced nation has done, and halve the cost of health care)
    • increase Z (increase the tax support for Medicare, because it is a high priority that a majority of the citizens of our democracy support)

What we have to do is get away from the kind of thinking that seems to permeate so much of the discussion in Congress and in the media--that there are pre-set limits to how much we should borrow, how much we should spend, or how much we should raise in tax revenues. 

The deficit hawks want us to think that the coutnry will be just another Greece if we don't rein in spending and debt and keep taxes low.  Traditionally our spending has ranged around 21% of GDP, but there is nothing magical about that number--it could rise to 24% or 26% without harm.  And we are not Greece, because we remain a powerful economy, one that can print our own money and one that commands interest from the global economy, so our debt (mostly caused by the Bush tax cuts combined with the Bush wars, and the Reaganomics deregulatory mania) is not an unbearable yoke around our necks.  We should be discussing the real needs of the country for infrastructure and provision of public goods and then figuring out how to pay for them with a combination of taxes and debt.

Related articles

The GOP's extortion demands: cut Social Security or we'll shoot the country in the foot

1,061,501 Wisconsinites Could Be Harmed By Lame Duck Congressional Deal to Cut Social Security

Contra the Deficit Scolds, We Can Keep Medicare and Medicaid Strong Simply By Keeping Them Intact

On Raising (and Lowering) the Medicare Age

Senate Dems divided over cuts to benefit programs

More on the Threat to Social Security and Medicare from the so-called "Fiscal Cliff"

In several posts recently I have discussed the harmful demands the right is engaging in related to the so-called "fiscal cliff" created by the original Bush tax cuts (set to sunset en masse), the artificial debt ceiling (used by the GOP to exact promises of spending cuts during a recession along with extension of unneeded tax cuts for the rich), and the ill-conceived notion that the U.S. military should continue to be funded at dangerously high levels that (i) ensure that the military-industrial complex will find a war or quasi-war in which to engage their newest toys while (ii) sucking resources from public infrastructure projects and education that are vitally needed to sustain our economy.  See, e.g., The GOP's extortion demands: cut Social Security or we'll shoot; If the Dems got backbone; Is it a fiscal cliff or merely a bump in the road; We face an 'austerity crisis' not a 'fiscal cliff. 

A. The Explanation.

At least the national media and a slew of bloggers are beginning to provide some background information to ordinary Americans on just what is driving the national discussion of "fiscal cliffs" and "austerity" demands.  See, e.g., Richard Rubin & Heidi Przybyla, Tax Pledges Confound Math as Obama Seeks Deal with Republicans, Bloomberg.com (Nov. 16, 2012) (noting that "The $607 billion fiscal cliff is the combination of tax increases and spending cuts that will take effect in January if Congress doesn’t act" and characterizing the positions of the parties as follows: "Republicans want to extend expiring tax cuts for all income levels and are demanding an overhaul in 2013 of entitlement programs and the tax code" while "Obama wants $1.6 trillion in higher taxes for top earners over the next decade, achieved through a combination of limits on breaks and higher tax rates on ordinary income, capital gains, dividends and estates"); Jackie Calmes, Demystifying the Fiscal Impasse that is Vexing Washington, New York Times (Nov. 16, 2012), at A19 (the online article is dated Nov. 15). 

[A] slew of tax cuts — $400 billion for 2013 — expire on Dec. 31: All of the Bush-era rate reductions; smaller tax cuts that periodically expire for businesses and individuals; and the 2-percentage-point cut in payroll taxes that Mr. Obama pushed in 2010....  Also, 28 million taxpayers — about one in five, all middle- to upper-income — would have to pay the alternative minimum tax in 2012.... That is because Congress has failed to pass an inflation adjustment....

***

An emergency unemployment-compensation program is expiring, which would save $26 billion but end payments to millions of Americans who remain jobless and have exhausted state tax benefits.

Medicare payments to doctors would be reduced 27 percent, or $11 billion, because this year Congress has not passed the usual so-called 'doc fix' to block the cuts....

The biggest cut would be $65 billion, enacted across the board for most federal programs over the last nine months of fiscal year 2013, from January through September.  This cut, known as the sequester, was mandated by an August 2011 budget deal between [President] Obama and Congress that ended [the GOP] standoff over raising the nation's debt limit.   Demystifying the Fiscal Impasse that is Vexing Washington

It is surely accurate that our still-weak economy would do better if we do not hit it too hard with decreases in government spending--especially decreases to government spending that supports the most vulnerable amongst us who need unemployment support in order to provide the basic necessities.  Similarly, it is surely true that some of the Bush tax cuts and the Obama payroll tax reduction are still vitally important to those in the lower 60% or so of the income distribution because of the slow growth in the economy.  We will want to find some resolution to the situation that accommodates the need to avoid a harmful austerity approach.

So the Times' explanation of the components of the so-called "fiscal cliff" is okay.  And it is reasonable in noting that the situation is currently "vexing" to Washington.  Similarly, the Bloomberg article succinctly characterizes the clear poles of the Democratic and Republican positions--a Democratic insistence on higher taxes paid by the rich, and a Republican insistence on so-called "tax reform" and spending cuts, aimed in particular at the earned benefit and safety net programs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 

B. A Grand Bargain or a Devil's Bargain--How the Heck Did Social Security Even Get In the Picture?

Where the Times article fails is in its discussion of the "reasons"  for excessive worry about the "fiscal cliff" (if one can really call the GOP recalcitrance to immediately pass an extension of at least a good portion of the Bush tax cuts for individual taxpayers in the true middle class any form of reason).  

The Times article asserts that the "main disagreement" between Dems and Republicans is merely the question of extending the Bush tax rates for the top 2 percent of taxpayers.  That is a considerable understatement, one that results in part from the way the media reduces complex issues to easily retained soundbites, in that it ignores the considerable disagreement about whether and to what extent there should be any changes at all to the various earned benefit programs. 

The  article author appears to operate on an unstated assumption that because President Obama seemed ready to trade off changes in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits for higher taxes on the very richest of the rich in August of 2011, he will still enter into such a "Grand Bargain" to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff."  Progressives hope, at least, that Obama will not fall prey to those same conclusions: Obama is now in a position of considerable leverage, and he must recognize that he cannot allow the Democrats to be extorted into a Devil's Bargain to reduce Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare benefits in exchange for the pittance of slightly higher taxes on the upper crust.

The article goes even further astray at the end with its label of a "two-part deal" as the "best-case outcome".  It claims that "[m]any budget experts and economists are hoping for a two-part deal.  The first part would extend many of the tax cuts and repeal the automatic spending cuts to avert the changes scheduled after Jan. 1.  But it would be contingent on the second part: a framework for reducing projected long-term deficits by overhauling both the tax code--to raise revenues--and entitlement programs--chiefly Medicare and Medicaid, whose rising costs in an aging population are unsustainable."  Id.

Of course, here the "many" is simply put out there without any context, so one can't challenge the statement as accurate or inaccurate.  The right-wing has a stable of market fundamentalist economists who want to see earned benefit programs reduced, and there are certainly the Blue-Dog Dems and a number of others (like the Bowles Simpson group) who go along with that with little questioning of the ultimate negative impact on quality of life and decency of those determinations.  Overall, there is considerable parroting of the right-wing rhetoric that suggests that these vitally important programs have to be overhauled, rather than recognizing that it is the factors that lead to ever-increasing costs for medical care in the United States that must be addressed.  And it mistakenly suggests that there is a consensus in that regard. This is a perfect example of the way today's journalists buy into the rhetoric that is promoted (at great expense) without questioning the fundamental presuppositions underlying it.  In fact, the sequester deal did not touch Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid because there was no consensus that these programs should be reduced.  And the election results demonstrate that there is no consensus now that these program benefits must be reduced, though there is likely a consensus that health care costs in this country are increasing well beyond what is reasonable.  It is absolutely critical that the distinction be made.

So let's take these issues into consideration here.

C. Thinking about the two key components of the so-called "fiscal cliff"--tax cuts and spending cuts.

1. The Bush tax cuts, job creators, and uncertainty

The right has, not unexpectedly, argued that not extending all of the tax cuts--including those that amount to significant dollars for the wealthiest upper crust--will create a dire situation since, the right argues, the wealthy are the "job creators".  There is no empirical evidence supporting the idea that tax cuts for the upper crust do anything to create jobs: most jobs are created by small businesses, and those with incomes above $250,000 make up only about 3% of small businesses. 

Others argue that the uncertainty of letting the Bush tax cuts expire on December 31 is itself a dire blow to the economy.  But in the same breath, the media and most members of the Democratic and Republican parties acknowledge that they do not disagree on the need to extend the tax cuts for the middle income group at this time--the Democrats because they recognize that the tax cuts are still needed at a time of continuing slow growth out of the Great Recession caused by the profligate regulatory and tax policies of the Bush years, and the GOP because they recognize that they have no opportunity for an electoral majority if they continue to ignore the middle class. 

Thus,  savvy political advisers note that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and then enacting judiciously selected tax cuts targeted at the middle class (perhaps similar to the Bush tax cuts for the lower income groups or perhaps more carefully selected and without the many corporate tax giveaways) are fairly sure things, so that the arguments from uncertainty reduce to the same-old right-wing scare tactics.

2. The sequester, military spending, health care costs, and the importance of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid

Some conclude that neither side wants the sequester, with its domestic spending cuts and military cost-cutting, to go into place.  This, too, may be incorrect and overly simplistic. 

Many progressives recognized that we have a substantial imbalance in spending, in which we neglect public infrastructure (roads, bridges, public transportation especially rail and inter-and intra-city rail) and human capital development (funding for public education and for basic research) while pushing money at the military-industrial complex.  The latter step merely encourages the military to find ways to use the military investment it makes--i.e., more money essentially fosters war-mongering simply by providing plenty of the tools to carry it out through exorbitant expenditures on the military.  Letting the sequester take place is probably the only way that our dysfunctional Congress--with far-right-wing/Tea Party dominance in the House and the minority-control rule through the filibuster in the Senate--will be able to undo the disastrous emphasis on military spending above everything else that began with Reaganomics.  

Accordingly, a better course might be to let the sequester take hold, too, and then selectively undo cuts that jeopardize sound government--such as cuts to research, centers for disease control, public transportation, public infrastructure, education, and funding of public pension obligations.  Surely the right recognizes that Americans are not happy when lax regulation results in deaths from medical care because Congress was lobbied out of regulating compounding pharmacies or deaths from bridge collapse because Congress refused to spend sufficiently on upgrading our antique transportation infrastructure or continually falling behind in research on Alzheimers and cancer and the many other modern afflictions because Congress has been so stingy with federal funds supporting basic research at our research universities.

OF course, we know from the election that today's GOP sees no problem with cuts to various domestic programs that the Dems (and many ordinary Americans) hold dear--the right's admitted goal since Reagan has been to reduce the size of government, on the ill-founded belief in market fundamentalism that private markets can do everything better.  

But we have years of evidence that disproves that belief, and progressives must start publicizing the absurdity of the right's claims about market fundamentalism and the right's denials about basic scientific theory.  Climate change is real, and investments will be required to protect our great cities.  Social Security is not bankrupt, and there is no reason that it cannot continue for years (even indefinitely) without reducing benefits.  Markets like medical care simply don't work without governmental intervention because Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Med (especially for-profit hospitals, nursing homes but also too highly compensated doctors combined with too lowly compensated aides and other assistants) exercise near-monolithic control of access and pricing, rendering the health care "market" dysfunctional, and government intervention will be required to create health-care delivery systems that serve the people. 

(Even those who ascribe to Milt Friedman's views of how markets work--views which in my view are based on unrealistic and overly simplistic assumptions that leave out most of the truth of human behavior in order to arrive at neatly mathematical formulas--recognize problems with the health care market where physicians operate in a structure of monopolistic competition.  In Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman noted that state licensing acts as a barrier to entry that gives physicians considerable market control, thus resulting in rent profits.  Friedman's market fundamentalism solution would be to allow anyone to practice medicine without a license, thus creating consumer "choice."  Query whether anyone without considerable wealth would actually prefer a return to those "quack" days of frontier medicine where such a market existed or would rather have a version of today's regulated system of health care professionals with both affordability and competence. I argue that the latter is both preferable and attainable.  See below.)

The following provides some of the factual evidence for the importance of government intervention in the medical care market--European and Canadian health care, which are generally forms of government single-payer or single-payer/single-provider care, and Medicare, which is a form of government single-payer care, are both considerably less costly and substantially more universal in coverage than the standard, private market U.S. medical care model.   See, e.g., the OECD's comparative statistics on medical care provision in the US compared to OECD countries and Canada, available here (see statistical spreadsheet here).

Total Healh Care Spending Per Person, 2010: US (8233); OECD avg (3268); CA (4445)

Total Health Care Spending* as Share of GDP, 2010: US (17.6); OECD avg (9.5); CA (11.4)

Pharmaceutical Expenditure* Per Person, 2010: US (983); OECD avg (496); CA (741)

Practicing Physicians Per 1000 Population, 2010: US (2.4); OECD avg (3.1); CA (2.4)

Practicing Nurses Per 1000 Population, 2010: US (11.0); OECD avg (8.7); CA (9.3)

Physician Consultations Per Person, 2010: US (3.9); OECD (6.4); CA (5.5)

Medical Graduates Per 100000 Population, 2010: US (6.6); OECD (10.3); CA (7.2)

*expressed in dollars adjusted for purchasing power parities (rates of currency conversion that equalise the cost of a given 'basket' of goods and services in different countries)

The U.S. medical care market's high costs are attributable to a variety of factors, but perhaps the most significant is the potential for "rent" profits to Big Med, Big Pharm, and Big Insurance. 

Note that the right's "reaganomics" rhetoric has been that we have to reduce the size of government by cutting government costs specifically for the social justice programs that serve a majority of our citizens, particularly in their old age.  The right's most important priority for reductions in government services, that is, are reductions to the earned benefit programs that it calls "entitlements" (a term that it does not extend to the various tax expenditures that provide all kinds of gravy for the upper crust and multinational corporations like Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banks, etc.).  The right wants to reduce the deficit on the hides of the poor, the elderly and those who have little besides Social Security and Medicare for retirement (because of their reasonable reliance on their availability to buffer the viscisitudes of private markets in their old age).  So the right proposes either privatizing ("voucherizing" Medicare; "optionalizing" Social Security) or shifting programs to the States (where reductions in Medicaid funding for the poor can be hidden more easily) and/or reducing benefits by increasing the age for eligibility and decreasing potential payments.  In other words, the right treats a problem caused by the unduly high costs of a wacky, quasi-monopolistic, market-based medical care system as best solved not by bringing the costs down the way every other civilized peer nation has done, but instead by preventing the majority of Americans from having access to decent medical care if they are poor or old and dying or physically handicapped or otherwise unable to afford private insurance.

 *****

After all, as Robert Reich argues, the "fiscal cliff" and "looming budget deficits" aren't the worst of our problems. 

The central problem of our economy is widening inequality. It's reducing the purchasing power of the vast middle class on which job growth depends, and turning the economy into a speculative casino for multimillionaires and billionaires.  It's also undermining our ability to turn the economy around, as those millionaires and billionaires subsidize politicians who refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy and seek to cut spending critical to the middle class and the poor.  Robert Reich, Stop income inequality!, Salon.com (Nov. 15, 2012) (formatting changed).

The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that, as Kenneth Thomas says, Democrats Should Just Sit Back and Ride Over the Fiscal Cliff (in a post at Middle Class Political Economist, republished on BusinessInsider.com, here). 

[The fiscal cliff] is the combination of spending cuts and tax increases set to take place on January 1 based on several different laws.  Estimates of the consequences run as high as $800 billion next year, or 5.2% of the country's $15.29 trillion gross domestic product in 2011.  Yes, that would mean a recession, with obvious consequences for the middle class.  But this is only true if we did nothing after January 1, and that's not going to happen.  Id.

Romney shows he's a "know-it-all" who has no real ideas at all

I missed almost all of the first debate but watched most of this one.  My quick sum-up of the action was the Obama was straightforward, prepared, and much more energetic than in the first debate.  While I don't think he has been a great president, he has nonetheless acted on a number of matters in ways that move us away from the disastrous policies of the Bush years--fairer immigration actions, more interest in the middle class and jobs, wise action to save the auto industry when Romney would have allowed one of the midwest's major industries to rot on the vine, attempting to move the corporate tax debate away from giveaways for the multinationals and towards more reasonable tax policies, movement on health care reform (though still not towards the single-payer option that we must eventually embrace), movement on financial institution reform through Dodd-Frank (though still not sufficient control of the financialization of the economy).

Romney, quite frankly, came across as an arrogant shell who doesn't have any substance underneath the expensive coif of hair and Armani suit.  He constantly blames Obama for the Great Recession that stemmed directly from the failed Bush economic policies favored by the Republican party's right wing, the same policies that Romney and Ryan want to re-install if they take over the White House.  He consistently fails to acknowledge that the deficits under Obama were temporary ones caused by the trillions of dollars of unnecessary Bush individual and corporate tax cuts, the Bush preemptive wars, the class warfare of tax policies that favor the 1%, privatization of education and the militaryh, and the financialization of the economy egged on under Bush by the right's misguided views of "free" trade (meaning business can run over the workers and the environment at will and pay less taxes even while causing more societal harm).  Romney (as Obama noted in the debate tonight) goes George W. Bush even further--he would ruin Medicare by turning it into "voucher-care" that was insufficient to meet vulnerable seniors' needs, and he would destroy Social Security by privatizing it so that seniors are at the whim of the stock market and Wall Street traders for their very livelihood.

Yet this guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth and with a family of connections to power really thinks that he got where he is on his own!  What a laugh.  And then he thinks that he can bamboozle the American people by saying "I know how to do that" about creating jobs, getting rid of the deficit, creating growth, solving immigration, making us "energy dependent in 8 or 5 years" and everything else he can promise us.  But he doesn't think he has to bother to tell us anything about how he will do that.  Often when asked specific questions, he fell back on his "The last four years with Obama have been awful and I feel your pain" absurdity,   His claim of empathy with the ordinary folks asking questions in the audience was absurd because one only has to harken back to that tape of his disdain for the 47%--and his arrogant view that anyone in that group was dependent on government and unwilling to take personal responsibility for themselves--to know that he doesn't really give a damn about ordinary folk like those in the audience tonight.  He'd follow that with another claim that he would fix everything because "I know how to do that", yet in every instance there was nary a specific word about  exactly what he would do.  

 One thing is for sure--Romney's view that cutting tax rates across the board by 20% will jump-start the economy is "nonsense", as even conservative GOP economist Bruce Bartlett acknowledges.  See Bruce Bartlett, Romney's Tax Plan and Economic Growth, Economix Blog, New York Times (Oct. 16, 2012) (statng that "the idea that tax reform will jump-start an economy suffering from the after-effects of a cyclical downturn is nonsense" and concluding that "even if Mr. Romney’s plan is enacted as proposed the growth effect will be small to nonexistent").

On taxes, Romney now claims that he will not cut the amount of taxes paid by the top 5% but will give everybody else a tax cut.  Note that isn't the same that he has said for months on end, when he made clear that everybody would get the same 20% rate reduction (which would give the wealthy a huge dollar cut, and the middle class a piddling cut) and mocked Obama for wanting to hold the upper-crust more accountable for helping reduce the deficit.  He claims he'll not increase the deficit, even though he wants to cut taxes and eliminate the estate tax and increase military spending.  He won't say what deductions he'll cut or what protections for the poor he'll keep.  He claims the numbers add up but won't tell us what the numbers are.   I think it's perfectly clear:  he won't say how he can do that in a revenue-neutral way because it can't be done.  The New York Times editorial yesterday chimed into the growing list of reputable organizations asserting that his numbers simply don't add up, noting "the many deceptions in the campaign’s blue-sky promises of low taxes and instant growth."  See Editorial, Mitt Romney Needs a Working Calculator, New York Times (Oct. 15, 2012). 

[The Joint Committee on Taxation] asked its staff what would happen if Congress repealed the biggest tax deductions and loopholes and used the new revenue to lower tax rates. The staff started adding it up: end all itemized deductions, tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary income, and tax the interest on state and local bonds, along with several other revenue-raisers.

The answer came last week: ending all those deductions would only produce enough revenue to lower tax rates by 4 percent. 

Mitt Romney says he can lower tax rates by 20 percent and pay for it by ending deductions. The joint committee’s math makes it clear that that is impossible. Id.

Note that Romney doesn't intend to tax dividends and capital gains at the same ordinary income rate that us ordinary folks pay on our compensation income, so he wouldn't even get to a 4% reduction in rates with his version of tax "simplification."  He wants to keep allowing people like him to get a tax-advantaged "preferential rate" on carried interest that they get as their compensation in vulture capital "private equity" funds that buy up American businesses and load them with debt and offshore their jobs.  He wants to keep taxing capital gains and dividends at the ridiculously low rates achieved by the Bush tax cuts that were a major factor in driving us from surplus to deficit.  He even wants to cut capital gains and dividend and interest tax rates to zero for those making less than $200,000.  (Of course, that group doesn't have much of that kind of capital income--it is mostly the province of the very rich at the top.  One suspects the rate cut for the upper middle class that would apply to is just a prelude, like most of the Bush-era tax cuts, to a Republican push to eliminate taxes entirely on capital income, which Romney and Ryan have supported in the past.)  He wants to cut taxes for the huge multinational corporations and encourage them to continue moving our jobs offshore.

There is no way that such a tax policy makes sense for America.  It will let the rich get richer, when we are already at a point where the middle class is shrinking because of the way big business has grabbed all the productivity gains for the managers and owners and left ordinary workers hanging out to dry.

Reaganomics--with its push for privatization, tax cuts, militarization, and deregulation--stabbed at the heart of the US economy.  The Bush tax cuts drove us from surplus to deficit in one fell swoop and set the stage for the Republican obstructionist games that have gone on during the four years of the Obama administration, in which the radical right GOP has cared more about pushing for extremist policies beneficial to the wealthy and the big corporations they run rather than considering what is good for the country.  Romneyomics would be even worse--right-wing market fundamentalism at its most extreme, with the rich making off like bandits and the rest of us left to scramble for crumbs. Surely the American folk aren't going to buy this idea of rehashing the very ideas that got us into the Great Recession mess from the guy who says "I know how to run the country because I got rich as a vulture capitalist". 

Romer's deficit reduction suggestions worth a read

Christina Romer's recent piece in the New York Times is worth reading.  See C.D. Romer, Cutting the Deficit, with Compassion, New York Times at BU5 (Sept. 9, 2012).

Now, I generally have found Romer too willing to advocate austerity economics and too unwilling to support progressive tax policies.  But nonetheless, this piece hits some good notes.  For example, while arguing that reducing the deficit needs to be a priority, she acknowledges that it must be done "in a way that does as little harm as possible to people, jobs and economic opportunity."  Similarly, she recognizes that requires going slowly--" a comprehensive, aggressive deficit reduction plan [should be passed] as soon as possible, but the actual spending cuts and tax increases should be phased in as the economy recovers."  Why?  Because "[a] crude rule of thumb is that every $100 billion of deficit reduction will cost close to a million jobs in the near term."  A big price to pay that makes it reasonable to consider not only LONG-TERM deficit reduction plans but also SHORT-TERM job creation measures.

ASIDE:  And in case you wonder, tax cuts for the wealthiest amongst us, as advocated by the Romney-Ryan team--are NOT job creation measures.  The Romney-Ryan budget proposes to achieve revenue neutrality, huge tax cuts for the rich, and no tax cuts for the middle class by not proposing any specifics.  The reality is that the Romney-Ryan plan is just politico-wishspeaking:  there is no plan that will do what they claim, because they depend on the now-well-disproven idea that huge tax cuts for the wealthy will generate more tax revenues while creating more jobs.  Nope.  Neither likely nor even possible.  And by not specifying what they'd cut, they are merely trying to fool the people.

Here are what Romer proposes, with some commentary:

1) tax credits for businesses that actually increase employment

Not a bad idea to replace the endless suggestions of business tax cuts, but any accountability will have to be long-term--i.e., payroll will have to increase over a period of 2 years and the particular jobs created will have to stay in place for at least 2 years before any tax reward should be available

2) "well-designed tax reform that raises at least some additional revenue" and "let[s] the Bush tax cuts expire for those earning more than $250,000 a year [while] [i]ncreasing rates on top earners" and "lowering tax expenditures" including "the low tax rate on capital gains and dividends"

Hmmmm.The clarion call for tax reform has consistently been used by DC lobbyists to push for tax CUTS for the wealthy and big business.  It is not so clear that we need a huge tax reform.  What is usually meant by tax reform is "simplification," which is just another way to justify unneeded tax cuts  .We do not need to cut the corporate tax rate.  We do not need to reduce tax regulations. 

 But I do agree with Romer's notion that we need some tax increases.  My preference would be to allow the entire panoply of Bush tax cuts--passed by a Congress that unfortunately and wrongly believed the Laffer lie that cutting taxes would increase revenues--to expire as the Republicans originally purported to intend.  Let the sunset happen.  And then come next year, think about what, if any, of the cuts make sense. Perhaps a cut to the income tax rates of those who make less than $100,000 a year.  But an increase for those that make more than that, and a significant increase for the top two quintiles, would be in order.  We should raise rates on the wealthiest by creating additional tax brackets for those making 500,000 to a million, 1-2 million, 2-10 million, and above 10 million.   We could reasonably examine the many tax expenditures/subsidies in the Code and begin to cut back on them--starting with the capital gains rate preference, and moving through the exorbitant support for wealthy mortgages (limit it to an interest deduction on the first $250,000 of mortgage interest and phase that out for anyone with an income above $500,000) and including the R&D credit (rather than deduction), the "active financing exception" and the subsidy for moving active businesses offshore (and along with that, eliminating any idea that there is such a thing as a "profits" partner who isn't taxed on a "transfer" of a partnership interest at the time the interest is provided).

3) slowing spending growth for government health care spending- by reducing overpayments to health care providers (as the $716 billion cut misrepresented by the GOP does); by increasing those cost-cutting reforms to find other ways that we are inefficient; by "making the wealthy pay a larger share of their Medicare costs and gradually raising the Medicare eligibility age"

Here we see the problem that no one in government dares to say what must be said--that until we move to a single-payer system like the rest of the advanced world, we will see private parties continuing to rip off rent profits from providing health care.  We must eventually expand to "medicare for all"--and we should do that soon.  In the transition, it would be reasonable to have a means-adjusted payment scale, so that the Medicare tax is higher for those with more income (corresponding to the increased brackets for the income tax).  And it might be reasonable to have a few major categories of jobs for determining base retirement age--workers in steel plants who work in 115 degree interiors when it is 90+ degrees outside likely should retire earlier than workers in academia who work at their desks in air-conditioned offices.  But that won't be easy and will need to be developed by consensus over some reasonable time, rather than through partisan, anti-worker politics.

4) cut other spending--protecting children, displaced workers, and wounded veterans in the process,as well as money for education (including Pell grants) and infrastructure and scientific research--but cutting "agricultural price supports and subsidized crop insurance programs that mainly benefit large commercial farmers," the Pentagon's budget, and high-speed rail.

We certainly can cut a lot of waste and warmongering out of the Pentagon's budget, which is one reason that I'm all for letting the sequester approved by Republicans go through.  We could save a great deal there that could be used for infrastructure and other spending that builds opportunities and jobs instead of supporting the military-industrial complex.  I'd also support  cutting most of the agricultural subsidies, which primarily support Agribusiness that produces tasteless food at a high environmental cost.  But I disagree strongly on high-speed rail.  If we don't as a nation invest in transportation infrastructure that moves us beyond the costly highways (costly in human lives, dollars to build and maintain, and environmental degradation), we will not advance our economy as we must.

 

Paul Ryan's tax and other lies

It's interesting that Paul Ryan is being cast by the GOP and the media as an intellectual who is sharp with numbers and that rare breed--a truth-telling politician.  Too bad none of it is true.

Ryan is an Ayn Rand devotee who somehow failed to recognize the anarchism and me-ism of the Randian philosophy.  He's a scion of a wealthy family who pretends that his short stints at humble jobs like waiting tables were the same as what the disadvantaged suffer when they are stuck in dead-end jobs and have no recourse to a wealthy family to create new opportunities. 

And he is a person who has devised plans that privatize and cut Medicare benefits for the most vulnerable, leaving them to pay more and more out of pocket over time while cutting taxes for the wealthiest--eliminating the estate tax to hand billions more of windfall dollars to heirs that do nothing to earn them; eliminating capital gains taxes entirely to hand billions of dollars to the weallthiest few who own most of the financial assets and passing the burden of supporting important government programs to the middle class. 

Joan Walsh's article in Salon is worth reading, Paul Ryan's Brazen Lies, Salon (Aug. 29, 2012).

Paul Moreno's "short history" of the taxing power

At the May meeting of the American Bar Association Tax Section, Jaspar (Jack) Cummings  (a well-renowned tax practitioner who has written extensively on the Supreme Court's tax jurisprudence) and I gave a joint keynote speech for the Tax Section's Diversity Committee.  Our address covered various aspects of Supreme Court jurisprudence past, present, and expected future.  While we disagreed on many interpretative details, there was one thing that we were both quite clear on:  the insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act should (and, we predicted, would) be upheld as a constitutional exercise of the taxing power. 

Today's Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by Paul Moreno, titled "A Short History of Congress's Power to Tax" (July 7, 2012).  The problem with the history is that it mentions a few items from the Constitutional Convention history, and then selectively wanders through a few Supreme Court cases.  It ultimately asserts that Robert's opinion for the majority on the health insurance in the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v. Sibelius was "dangerous to constitutional government" because it supported an "unlimited taxing power."

Maybe historians (Moreno is a historian at Hillsdale College) should leave tax analysis to tax experts.  Let me say this here for the record:  the Supreme Court would have looked utterly foolish if it had failed to uphold the mandate as an exercise of the taxing power.   As noted by another commentator, failure to recognize the mandate's legitimacy under the taxing power would suggest that it was unconstitutional to tax to insure those under age 65, while Medicare is constitutional for taxing those at 65 or over.  Further, it would make an impossible distinction between the insurance mandate's penalty provision and what could be called the Internal Revenue Code's marriage mandate penalty provision".  That is, the income tax sometimes taxes singles more than married couples, resulting in what is called a "singles penalty"--higher taxation on earnings to a single person than would result for that person in a married couple.    (There is also sometimes a marriage penalty.  All this depends on how the progressivity of the Code rate structure interacts with the fact that we don't treat every "tub on its own bottom".)

 

Health Care Act before the Supreme Court Continues Tuesday

Tuesday's arguments regarding the health care reform act dealt with the key question of the mandate for coverage--whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority to regulate commerce by enacting the insurance mandate.  Download Heath Care Act. SCt transcript032712. 

The arguments suggest that the Roberts Court may continue down its path mimicking the Supreme Court of one hundred years ago--sticking to an outdated and distorted view of the Constitution framed by a radical right majority on the Court (comprised of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and often Kennedy) and unsuited to the real challenges that our society faces today.  As the New York Times noted, the administration lawyer arguing in support of the mandate "faced a barrage of skeptical questions on Tuesday from four of the Supreme Court's more conservative justices, suggesting that a 5 to 4 decision to strike down the law was a live possibility." Adam Liptak, Justices Split in Questions on Insurance Requirement , New York Times (Mar. 27, 2012).

Like the Court that FDR threatened to pack, this Court's majority is an activist Court with a right-wing ideology, with many of its cases strenthening the corporatist agenda and others leaning towards the radical right in other matters.

The Times reporter read Scalia and Alito as "consistently hostile" to the law, Roberts as "a little less so" and Kenney as asking hard, skeptical questions. Id. Thomas of course hardly ever asks a question from the bench but hardly ever deviates from a rigidly right-wing position on cases, and doesn't show much regard for the Court's precedent.

 A key statement by the government lawyer demonstrating that the Commerce Clause power should extend to the mandate provision is the following:

[T]he health care market is characterized by the fact that (aside from the few groups that Congress chose to exempt from the minimum coverage requirement--those who for religious reasons don't participate, those who are incarcerated, Indian tribes--) virtually everybody else is either in that market or will be in that market, and the distinguishing feature of that is that they cannot--people cannot generally control when they enter that market or what they need when they enter that market.

He should have added that being able to participate in that market when you need to is a matter of life and death.

The justices asked a lot of questions that essentially treated health care as just another commodity that one could buy so they had trouble seeing what limitations on the Commerce Power existed if the mandate is legal.  (Roberts made a poor analogy to cellphones, asking whether the government could force a citizen to purchase a cellphone since it would be handy for emergencies.)

 Of course their precedent makes it clear that matters that of high urgency to the wellbeing of the nation are of a different status in this regard than ordinary commodities (the Fillburn case of the wheat farmer being restricted in what he was allowed to grow on his own farm for his own use).  But the issue here is even more important--the point is that the Commerce Power surely allows the Congress to regulate a market to protect the public's human right to decent health care, when the following is true:

1) you don't "choose" when, how, or whether to participate in the health care market--you are forced to by your own particular body's timing and fortuitous encounter with deadly or near-deadly substances and other matters beyond your control

2) it is a matter of life and death that you be treated, or for nondeadly diseases/injuries, a matter of quality of life

3) Everyone will need medical treatment at various points in their lives and in particular near end of life.

4) Our society and moral values demand that people who haven't wisely insured themselves nonetheless be entitled to life-saving treatment when necessary, at other people's cost.

 

 

Health Care Reform Arguments Begin at the Supreme Court--Flavored by Tax

[edited to correct date of arguments]

The Court began hearing arguments Monday on the Affordable Health Care Act, passed by the Democratic majorities in House and Senate under the Obama Administration.  In an unusual staging of arguments, the discussion will extend over three days. 

Monday''s arguments dealt with the question of whether the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), which prohibits suits to restrain assessment or collection of any tax, should be read as a procedural block to the Court's deciding this case on the merits before any penalties have been collected.  The Court appointed a "friend of the court" to argue that the Act does apply to the health care legislation.

 "The Anti-Injunction Act imposes a pay first, litigate later rule that is central to Federal tax assessment and collection."  Transcript of Proceedings, Robert A. Long, court-appointed amicus curiae arguing on behlaf of applicability of the act.

Long went on to delineate three reasons for applying the act here:

1) Section 5000A indicates that the penalty should be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes, and since the AIA is an integral part of the collection process for taxes, it should also apply here even if the penalty is not a tax. 

2) Penalties are included in taxes for assessment purposes.

3) The Section 5000A penalty "bears the key indicia of a tax."

In his elaboration of this argument, Long noted that the failure to apply the AIA would result in a quite different process for collection of the penalty. Because of the AIA, a taxpayer must pay a tax to litigate; must exhaust exhaustive remedies before going to court; and must receive a notice of deficiency from the Secretary, which serves as the trigger starting the dispute process.  None of those would apply to the collection of the health care act's "penalty" if the AIA doesn't apply here, so that there would be no way for the penalty to be collected "in the same manner" as a tax is collected.

However, C.J. Roberts responded that there is also a common law doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies that could apply, so the inability to apply the particular Code provisions that apply to taxes (with their specific time limitations, etc.) wouldn't undo remedies entirely.  And he brought up Helvering v. Davis, an older case in which the government "waived" its right to insist upon application of the AIA before the Court considered the constitutionality of the Social Security Act's taxes.  To which Long answered that Williams Packing and subsequent cases like Bob Jones Univeresity really undid the early interpretation of the AIA as merely codifying pre-statutory equitable principles and hence not being uniformly applicsble.

J. Breyer asked Long to explain why this comes under the AIA, which applies to taxes, when the Health legislation doesn't use the word "tax."  Long replied that the AIA uses "tax", but doesn't define it, and even the Internal Revenue Code doesn't define "tax.  But by the time the AIA was passed, tax was understood very broadly and should be read to include something that is part of a taxpayer's annual return (liability based on income) that is assessed and collected by the IRS.  J.Scalia intervened, but Long asserted that the AIA applies to any "tax" or any "tax penalty".  But Ginsburg objected, noting that the Tax Injunction Act (modeled after the AIA) applied only to assessments for the purpose of raising revenue.  Hence, one could conclude that the AIA should not apply here, since the penalty isn't intended to raise revenue but to discourage people from not buying insurance coverage.  Long countered with the Bob Jones case--the court isn't in the business of deciding "whether an exaction is primarily revenue raising or primarily regulatory."  Id. at 19.

Heatlh Care Reform and Religious Exemption--Whose Freedom Are We Talking About, Anyway?

 The Treasury, IRS, Department of Health and Human Services, and Department of Labor finalized regs Firday that exempt certain religious employers from covering contraceptive care under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.    T.D. 9578 (available here now to subscibers to BNA) will be published Feb. 15 in the Federal Register and become effective April 16.

Seems like the Catholic Church wants to impose its own views on these matters of religious theology on all of the people its employees.  And they try to use the idea of religious and individual freedom to allow them to impose their views on people who may or may not share them (whether or not they are Catholic themselves).

Under Supreme Court precedent, religious Native Americans can be told they can smoke peyote because it is a regulated substance and the laws regulating that substance are "laws of general application" so they aren't discriminating towards Native Americans.  See the Wikipedia entry for Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), excerpted below.

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.

The Smith result was replace with a "strict scrutiny" review in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, described here on Wikipedia.

Yet here are the Catholic Bishops claiming that even the direct accommodation provided by the Obama administration--that the church does not have to pay for contraceptive coverage, but the insurers must provide that to the church's employees who want it--isn't enough. See e.g., Newcomb, Contraceptive Compromise Doesn't Please Bishops, ABC News (Feb. 11, 2012).  And Mitch McConnell in the Senate is threatening to try to take down the contraception mandate as "just another example of government meddling."  See Flaherty, Top Republican Wants Vote on birth control mandate, AP (Feb. 12, 2012)--the flap over contraception provided the GOP what seemed like an opportune chance to pile on against the health reform act yet again: "And this is what happens when the government tries to take over health care and tries to interfere with your religious beliefs."

But individual freedom and interference with religious beliefs is one of those things that looks different depending on whose perspective you take.

The Obama administration compromise means the religious institutions don't have to provide that which they disagree with.  There is minimal or no cost to insurance companies from providing the contraceptive coverage separately to employees of such religious institutions.  In fact, it is likely that contraceptive coverage is much cheaper in the aggregate to women, government and insurance companies than having more (unwanted) pregnancies. Yet the Bishops think the Church should be exempted from the health care provision requirements --and their employees shouldn't have this option to get covered outside the church's plan--just because the church doesn't agree with it.

In part, they are relying on that statutory protection enacted after Smith--the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, under which the federal government is subject to strict scrutiny regarding laws that impose on religious freedom.

But the question here, of course, is whose freedom are we talking about? 

The freedom of individuals of various religious backgrounds to work and receive the kind of coverage that they know they need and that is compatible with their own religion? or the freedom of the institution of the church to impose its religious dogma (and the consequences thereof) on all of its employees, no matter their religious faith?  Whenever the two are not consistent--and they will not be for any woman, whether Catholic or not, who wants to use contraception and in fact believes that her faith permits her to do so or even that it requires her to do so to be able to provide appropriately for her family--then the position supporting greater religious AND individual freedom is the one that requires contraception to be covered, one way or another.

Yes, the Obama compromise is a little gimmicky--sort of like the Islamic finance arrangements which justify interest by camoflaging it in ways that make it look like some traditional accepted payments (leases, rents, etc.).  But if that helps make it possible to do what needs to be done in this modern age--provide opportunities for borrowing funds to people that need to borrow to start businesses, or opportunities for decent contraceptive health care for people who work for a church that doesn't believe in it--then by all means, use the quasi-gimmicks in order to achieve the better public good.  But don't cave to the shrill cries of the mandate amounting to religious persecution.  It's nothing of the sort.

PS the same-sex marriage issue is another one where the Catholic Church shouldn't be able to impose its views on its workers who are not teaching theology.  There, however, the Supreme Court (with a significant number of Catholic justices who might be expected to empathize with the church on these dogma questions) recently decided a case that supports a "ministerial exception" to laws that otherwise protect employees from various kinds of invidious discrimination in employment for employees of religious organizations.   Personally, I see this as a black mark against religious freedom for individuals, and another example of corporatism at work, this time in support of institutionalized views being imposed on individuals that make up the institution.   See, e.g., Music director's marriage leads to his firing from St. Gabriel Catholic Church (Feb. 12, 2012) (gay music director--who had worked in the church while having an openly gay relationship for years--suddenly fired for taking advantage of New York's new law permitting same-sex couples to marry, even though his state (South Carolina) and his employer (the Catholic Church) would not recognize the New York marriage anymore than it had recognized his earlier common law marriage).   Much like the fundamentalist protestants who accuse the government of discriminating against Christians when the government appropriately uses "happy holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" to wish its employees well, these religious groups are seeking to have the government impose restrictions on workers that take away worker rights in the name of religious freedom for some, but with the result of limited freedoms for others.