Democrat Support for Obamacare Jumps

A lot of political reporters have commented on the Kaiser Family Foundation poll released today with numbers in the aftermath of the Supreme Court upholding the Affordable Care Act. Overall, Americans seem to want the opponents of the law to move on and support for the law has moved slightly in the Democrats’ favor, though it really has not changed much.

There was one graph that immediately jumped out at me though:


Democrats who have a very favorable opinion of the bill has skyrocketed from before the health care decision until afterwards, up from 31 percent to 47%. In fact, Democrats have never had a more favorable opinion of the bill. What does this mean? Probably nothing, the economy will be the main focus come November and health care won’t have an affect, but it has to be nice for Obama to finally see some appreciation from Democrats for his health care bill.

The poll also finds that the decision makes Democrats 18 percent more likely to vote and Republicans 31 percent. I would imagine that the rise in Democrats who have a very favorable opinion of the law would make them more likely to vote, but conservative hatred of the law is a stronger driver of votes than liberal approval of it. I will be highly surprised if it actually matters in the presidential election, but interesting nonetheless (especially on a slow news day).

Is Obamacare the Biggest Tax Increase in History? No

Nope. Not at all. Kevin Drum debunks this one:

“There have been 15 tax increases of significant size since 1950, and Jerry Tempalski, a tax analyst in the Treasury Department, has estimated the size of all of them as a percentage of GDP.  Tempalski hasn’t estimated the eventual size of ACA, but PolitiFact took a crack at it using the same methodology, and they figure that ACA amounts to a tax increase of 0.49% of GDP seven years from now. That places it tenth on the list.”

And he supplies the table to the right as well.

Since the mandate is now defined as a tax, Obamacare does raise (optional) taxes. The President can no longer say otherwise. Politifact has dug up the transcript of an interview Obama did with ABC’s George Stephanopoulous and it’s good stuff:

Stephanopoulos: Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

Obama: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…

Stephanopoulos: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

Obama: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

Obama is right about everything here except declaring it not a tax increase. It is a tax increase, but it is a tax increase to correct a market failure. The President points the market failure out, but does not acknowledge that the way to correct it is through the tax. When Obama says “take a responsibility,” he means that individuals can either buy insurance or face a tax increase (which, in reality, is just the withholding of potential tax refunds). The reason for the tax seems to have been lost in the discussion of the Supreme Court’s ruling this past week, but it’s important to remember why it’s there. Without it, only unhealthy individuals would sign up for insurance and insurance companies, who can no longer discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, would get sucked into the “death spiral.”

By the way, check out what tax increase is fifth on the list: Reagan’s tax in 1982.

Taibbi Still Wrong About NYC Parking Meters

New York City will lease out its parking meters.

Matt Taibbi wrote a post on June 13 strongly arguing against New York City leasing its parking meters. The piece was titled “New York to Repeat Chicago’s Parking Meter Catastrophe.” Felix Salmon shot back at Taibbi and I added a bit more to Salmon’s post as well. Now, it’s back to Taibbi:

“The city might get $11 billion in the deal, but if that’s even a dime less than the real present value of these parking meters (to say nothing of the actual amount of revenue that will be collected over the life of this arrangement), then to me that’s bad and shortsighted public policy.”

First of all, Taibbi’s first post assumed that the real present value of the parking meters must be a lot higher than $11 billion. He assumes the same in this piece as well:

“If $11 billion can do a lot of good, then I’m sure $20 billion or $25 billion – or whatever the investors buying into this deal end up calculating the real value of those meters is, and it’s surely more than $11 billion, or they wouldn’t be doing the deal in the first place – would do a lot more good.”

We don’t even know the length of the contract yet and Taibbi is jumping to conclusions that the state must be valuing it wrong. I admit that that is probably the case. States have never proven great at valuing their assets and selling them off, but New York is also determined to avoid repeating Chicago’s mistake when the city sold off its parking meters for dramatically less than they are worth. Continue reading “Taibbi Still Wrong About NYC Parking Meters”