Daniel Freilich's Blog
Senator Leahy visited FAHC today to publicize a $1.7 million earmark he secured for a new Simulator Training Program. However, despite the merits of this program, it would be preferable for Vermont’s congressional delegation to remember the bigger picture. Addressing easy pet projects at the expense of proactive leadership on the difficult elephants in the room is not leadership; it is management… bad management…and a classic rookie mistake.
Small projects like this one are all very nice but 15% of the population remains uninsured, millions more are under-insured, are at risk of losing their health insurance, or remain in nonproductive and thankless jobs simply to maintain their employer-based health insurance. As well, we spend twice as much on health care as almost all industrialized nations on the globe, amounting to 16-20% of our GDP. This cost is unsustainable, is bankrupting America, is causing a significant competitive disadvantage for our businesses and entrepreneurs, and is part of the root cause of our economic mess, budget deficit, and unemployment situation.
Lawmakers who are in touch, open-minded, objective, not conflicted by Special Interests contributions, and committed to figuring out the best way to address America’s health care, economy, and jobs maladies, would recognize that a national health insurance program (Medicare for All) would be the best medicine. This is the only type of reform that can concomitantly make America a better place (universal coverage, improved provider choice) and transformationally improve our economic competitiveness, national debt, and jobs situation (by saving HUNDREDS of BILLION dollars annually). Experts predict savings of $400 billion on administrative costs, $100 billion on drugs costs, and $45 billion on ‘uninsured’ costs. Tort reform could save an additional $50 billion annually. At the very least, lawmakers with these credentials would have co-sponsored Senator Sanders’ Single Payer Amendment last December to at least DISCUSS this promising solution publicly.
Being holed up in Washington for thirty five years would cause anyone to become out of touch and lose ability to feel the condition of most Americans. That would explain Senator Leahy’s prioritization of ‘competition’ as an important health care reform goal. ‘Competition’ should be construed a means to an end (a potential tool for improving health care), not an end onto itself. Its benefits not withstanding in other industries, competition has failed to achieve reasonable access and cost effectiveness for the public good, health care, in America. Thus, Senator Leahy would be wise to look outside the box, abandon ‘old school’ concepts, and be more evidence-based and courageous in his decisions. Almost all Vermonters I speak to are tired of policy decision making based on short-sighted political expectation and conflicts of interest rather than ‘best practice’ for America. Senator Leahy’s over staying of his welcome in Washington, may have nullified his biggest asset, experience.
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
The New York Times ran an article recently summarizing the following stats about upper uppper upper income individuals in the U.S.:
–400 tax payers had an average income of $345 million/year.
–Their average federal tax burden was 16.6%.
I did some simple back of the envelope type math.
The tax revenue from these tax payers then was $22,908,000,000.
But what if their income was taxed like most Americans with earned income without the usual breaks afforded high income earners (regressive payroll tax rates, low capital gains tax rates, etc.)? For the sake of simplicity, I’ll assume ALL of their income was taxed at 35% (the current highest marginal tax rate for income taxes)–admittedly, these tax payers would be taxed at lower rates for the first few tax brackets but this over simplification should not have a significant effect on the overall calculation and point. There are deductions that would also lower the actual tax burden too but for simplicity I didn’t calculate these right now. I also didn’t include theoretical effects of raising taxes on high income earners (while lowering taxes on middle income earners) on GDP and therefore on tax revenue (Laffer curve enthusiasts etc…).
At a 35% tax rate, more commensurate with tax rates earned income Americans are used to, these tax payers might have paid $48,300,000,000, providing potential for an additional $25,392,000,000 in revenue to the treasury. Thus, the regressive nature of our federal tax system resulted in loss of about $25 billion dollars in revenue from ONLY 400 tax payers. Can you imagine how much more revenue is lost from high income individuals in the U.S. who are taxed at a similarly unfairly low rate? No wonder property taxes are so high in Vermont. The State needs revenue from somewhere and high income earners are not paying their fair share to the federal government…resulting in low distributions to States.
Such observations demonstrate why we need tax reform in the U.S., returning fair and reasonable progressivity to federal taxation. It is simply unequitable for hard working Americans to be paying 28-35% federal income taxes, while extremely wealthy Americans end up paying little in federal taxes!
We should:
1. Increase progressivity to the federal income tax (increase the upper marginal tax rate from the current 35% to 50%).
2. Add progressivity to the long term capital gains tax so low and middle income earners might be able to garner some benefit from this capital investment incentive of the federal government.
3. Add progressivity to payroll (FICA) taxes–Medicare, Social Security. That responsibility for supporting Social Security ends at $106,800 is so cynical, it is almost laughable. Social Security withholdings should apply to income above this amount too so the burden of supporting Social Security is borne fairly by all. FICA taxes should be applied to all forms of income as well, not just income taxes.
4. Eliminate and/or reduce the tax exclusion for employer-based health insurance for high income earners.
5. Tax hedge fund income as ‘earned income’ (income tax rates).
6. Divide the increased revenue as follows: One third–allocate towards LOWERING income tax rates on middle income earners; one third–allocate towards debt reduction; and one third–allocate to other social services.
Tags: capital gains tax, fairness, income tax, payroll tax, Progressive taxation, revenue
Posted in Taxation | No Comments »
Yesterday’s bipartisan summit on health care reform was a breath of fresh air even if it didn’t accomplish much that is substantive. I didn’t see the whole meeting but I don’t think the Single-Payer option, the only form of reform likely to transformationally improve out health care system, received significant (or even any) discussion. Nevertheless, just the fact that Democrats and Republicans sat in a conference room and debated health care reform in a public and civil manner is a quite the accomplishment.
Talking about more substantive stuff, credit card reform went fully into effect this week too—a consequence of Congress having passed the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 — the Credit CARD Act.
The new act should provide some semblance of consumer protection:
The new law makes it more difficult for credit card companies to increase interest rates at will.
The new law makes credit card companies more clearly disclose real credit card costs.
The new law puts restrictions on credit card fees.
The new law requires grace periods so consumers can more easily pay their bills on time.
The new law requires cardholder permission for over-the-limit charging.
The new law requires a co-signer for those under 21 unless financially independent.
This is an accomplishment President Obama and Congressional leaders should be proud of!
Tags: Credit Card Act, Single payer health insurance, Single-payer health insurance system
Posted in Announcements, Health care reform | No Comments »
The President will be discussing health care reform with Democratic and Republican congressional leaders in two days.
I wonder if he will discuss the potential merits and deteriments of truly transformational health insurance reform — replacement of our multipayer market-based private health insurance system with a single payer national health insurance system (Medicare for All).
As almost every other industrialized nation on the globe has succeeded in achieving universal health care in a cost-effective manner with national health insurance programs, it behooves our leaders to put ideology and political expedience factors aside for the duration of the detente meeting, and discuss this potential solution to our health care crisis. The predicted savings, hundreds of billions of dollars annually, would be an economic stimulus, increasing American business competitiveness, profitability, and affordability to increase hiring.
At the very least, the single-payer health insurance system potential solution to our moral and economic health crisis should be deliberated upon publicly.
Details about the campaign’s platform regarding health care reform can be found at: http://www.danielfreilich.com/health_care.php.
I wouldn’t hold your breath but maybe we will be surprised.
Dan F
Tags: health care, Medicare for All, Single-payer health insurance system, Universal health care insurance
Posted in Health care reform | No Comments »
I had a challenging but fair WDEV radio interview today in Waterbury (by Traven Leshon). One caller asked whether Senator Leahy will agree to participate in Democratic Party debates. Others have asked this question during grassroots campaigning.
I don’t know the answer but the incumbent Senator is urged to commit to participating in Democratic Party debates prior to the Primary in September (or August).
The campaign will post more information as available.
Dan F
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
I will get right to the point.
I believe the public discussion about the merits of civilian trials vs. military tribunals is misplaced—depending on the case, both can meet tests for fairness and reasonableness.
Terrorists apprehended overseas in military operations are clearly ‘enemy combatants’. They should be afforded all the rights, and lack thereof, provided in the Geneva Convention. As such, they do not have a right to a trial and can be held until military hostilities have ended. That they belong to a non-government entity is a technicality that does not preclude treating them as per the Geneva Convention (Article 5).
On the other hand, terrorists apprehended during the course of terrorism events against civilians on American soil, as well as accused American citizens, might reasonably be regarded as ‘enemy combatants’ or criminals. As ‘enemy combatants’, I don’t believe they have a right to a trial according to the Geneva Convention. But in part because of the murkiness of their legal classification, the Supreme Court has afforded some a right to a trial. Thus, many will have to be tried. No worries. It may be to the American government’s advantage to try many of them because life and other severe punishments may ensue.
So, the question of the day is where to try them.
I believe that entities within both sides of the political spectrum have elevated this issue to a political level that can only be rationalized by acknowledging that their motive is service to their special interest rather than the country. The Left (e.g., ACLU) has advocated for personal rights for these terrorists commensurate with those afforded to everyday Americans who may have gone astray briefly in a singular criminal event. Their argument is almost without regard to national security concerns. The Right has argued that national security interests require that the trials be held by military commissions, almost without regard to objective data about the efficacy of the two legal systems for terrorist cases.
Thus, neither of these arguments is reasonable. Terrorists are not common criminals and their trials must be handled differently (e.g., Classified Information Procedures Act of 1980). And civilian courts can successfully try and convict terrorists, supporting national security interests. In fact, of the 200 or so terrorists brought to trial in civilian federal courts, over 90% have been convicted. In contrast, of the three military tribunals, only one has resulted in a conviction—likely to due to lack of clarity about the terrorists’ legal status and consequent trial procedures.
The Left and Right should at least agree that from a moral point of view, both civilian trials and military commissions may be reasonable. There is just so much political oxygen available and both sides are using it up at the expense of addressing other more important issues affecting Americans (e.g., health care reform, comprehensive energy legislation).
There are practicalities that must be considered. A practical advantage of having civilian trials is that the international community will regard these as more legitimate (whether this conclusion is evidence-based or not). Another potential advantage is that predicted conviction rates may actually be higher in the civilian legal system. However, the economic and other disruptive consequences of civilian trials must be taken into account. The currently planned trials have been purported to cost $200 million to $1 billion, depending on where they are held.
A moral imperative argued on behalf of holding the trials in civilian courts must be compared with other moral imperatives, such as fighting poverty, providing health care, and addressing environmental threats. For example, such expenditures could otherwise be used to provide health insurance for one year to 14,286 to 71,429 uninsured American families (assuming an average annual family premium of $14,000). These numbers are staggering and should not be ignored in deciding on where to hold the trials.
So, let us transfer the decision about how and where to hold the trials to professionals (the Attorney General, Mr. Holder) who can weigh case-by-case objective factors, including likelihood of a successful prosecution, cost, and security and other disruptive effects. For example, an extraordinarily expensive and disruptive trial held in Manhattan seems unreasonable. On the other hand, if the Attorney General determines that secure and reasonably cost-effective civilian trials can be held for some of the terrorists at the Stewart Air National Guard Base (Newburgh, NY) in NY’s Southern District (which has successfully prosecuted terrorist cases), this is reasonable. If this cannot be accomplished for some of the terrorists, holding military commissions for these is also reasonable.
Tags: Daniel Freilich, military commissions., terrorism, terrorism trials, U.S. Senate
Posted in Announcements | 1 Comment »
I was invited by the Bennington County Campaign for Liberty for an open community meeting to discuss our campaign’s platform. The meeting occurred on January 21, 2010, at the Bennington Free Library. Although gross over simplifications, the Campaign for Liberty can be thought of as being for smaller government; in contrast, our populist platform might be considered to accept larger government. Thus, not surprisingly, there was initial suspicion on both sides, but the discussion rapidly evolved into a respectful two-way discussion. Surely we did not agree on many policy issues, but there was agreement about many policy goals and need for better governance.
We thought it would be useful to share our answers to the very apt questions posed by the meeting hosts in preparation for the discussion:
1. Patrick Leahy is an entrenched incumbent – why are you taking him on?
I am challenging Senator Leahy for a number of reasons but the two overriding themes are that I believe we have lost a sense of fairness and reasonableness in American public policy and governance. Life has become unreasonably and needlessly difficult for most Americans due to inequities in our economic system. As well, the manner in which elected officials gain office and serve casts doubt on their ability to objectively represent the people. I believe the power within the Democratic Party, including Senator Leahy, has allowed this loss of fair play to happen and/or is pursuing incremental changes which are unlikely to significantly improve on the status quo. I further believe we need new congressional representation which will prioritize effort to try to restore fair play to American public policy and governance.
2. What are the most significant differences between you and Senator Leahy?
There are significant policy and governance differences:
Regarding economic policy, I support a return to progressive taxation (income, capital gains, and payroll taxes) and a single-payer (Medicare for All) primary health insurance system. I believe Vermont should lead in advocacy for restoration of an equitable economic system. In contrast, Senator Leahy has not prioritized tax reform, did not co-sponsor Senator Sanders’ single-payer Amendment (objective data show this is the only means to reasonably achieve universal coverage and cost-effectiveness). Senator Leahy has simply supported whatever incremental health care reform legislation is proposed by the Democratic Party.
Regarding environmental and energy policy, I support transformational federal legislation aimed at achieving a ‘green revolution’ in the American economy, akin to the industrial revolution of the 19th Century and the information revolution of the 20th Century. I believe this is important because energy insecurity is a potential existential threat to the U.S. and certainly represents economic, security, and life-style threats. I advocate for comprehensive multi-faceted reform that will lead to cessation of oil importation within approximately 20 years. Federal tax policy (incentives and penalties) and standards should be used to encourage smart development, building design, appliances, cars, and fuel. I advocate a progressive carbon tax in lieu of a ‘cap and trade’ system as the latter is too complex and therefore inherently non-transparent and ripe for abuse. I believe that with Vermont’s values, it should lead in promoting federal legislation and work on establishing a ‘Silicon Valley” like center of excellence in Vermont, creating lots of high-paying and rewarding jobs. In contrast, Senator Leahy has not led in this area and can be expected to support whatever incremental legislation is proposed by the Democratic Party.
Regarding foreign policy, I believe we need to pursue an ‘enlightened security’ by optimizing the way in which we treat our own people (restore economic fairness) and overseas (increase effort to address developing world poverty) and the environment. However, we need to concomitantly fully support our troops in their duties in the Global War on Terrorism. In contrast, Senator Leahy is likely to continue the U.S.’s incremental contributions to addressing poverty in the developing world and to half-heartily support our efforts in the War in Afghanistan.
Regarding governance, I believe we need significant campaign finance reform, but I also believe that in the interim, Vermont should insist on optimal ethics from its federal elected officials, whether required by law or not. I believe ethical standards of elected officials should be the same as those for non-elected officials. All significant potential conflicts of interest should be avoided. As a consequence, I believe Vermont representatives should NOT accept PAC funds, and where they have, they should recuse themselves from voting on the manner. Additionally, I believe in term limits for congressional representatives to minimize patronage that goes along with a life-long political career in Washington. Thus, I will not accept PAC contributions. In contrast, Senator Leahy has received significant PAC contributions and has not recused himself from health care reform voting (for example) despite accepting significant PAC funds from the health care industry.
3. What unique qualities and perspectives do you bring to this campaign?
After 13 years of public service as a naval officer, physician, professor, and father, I believe I can provide Vermonters with representation in Washington with fresh, creative, and unbiased ideas. Moreover, I believe in public service simply for ’service’-sake and hope to restore a sense of fair play, decency, and honor to the process of seeking federal political office. If elected, I would try my best to address our economic inequities, aim for a green revolution in our economy, and work towards an enlightened security for the United States.
Tags: Bennington, campaign finance reform, Daniel Freilich, Enlightened security, equity, Green revolution, Progressive taxation, Single payer health insurance, U.S. Senate, Universal health care insurance, Vermont
Posted in Announcements | 1 Comment »
Pursuit of optimal rather than politically expedient health care reform
The Vermont Workers Center’s Healthcare Is A Human Right Campaign will be delivering thousands of postcards to the Vermont Legislature on Jan 6, 2010 at noon. If you haven’t already signed a postcard, please sign one at www.workerscenter.org/Jan6postcard. If you can attend, please email kate@workerscenter.org.
Our campaign fully supports the concept that healthcare is a human right and that health care cannot be traded fairly as a commodity (as is the case in the current U.S. multi-payer market-based health insurance system). I support pursuit of a single-payer system in Vermont in the interim while working on a national system. This is suboptimal but realistic.
I support a national single-payer health insurance system (Medicare for All) as evidence shows it is the only system that can be reasonably expected to extend medical and dental coverage to all Americans in a cost-effective manner. More than $300 billion annually would be saved in lower administrative costs; $100 billion in drug costs due to improved bargaining power with pharmaceutical companies; and $40 billion in eliminated costs for the currently ‘uninsured’. As such, Democrats and Republicans alike should support a single-payer system.
It is mystifying to see how the Democratic Party has pursued the more politically-expedient compromise of further institutionalizing our current broken system with ‘reform’ that leave millions without health insurance and many more millions without dental insurance, and won’t extend coverage for years anyhow. It is similarly surprising that the Party would give a bonanza to the insurance industry by imposing a mandate such that millions of healthy young people will be signing up for private insurance. Finally, there is little reason to believe the ‘reform’ will ‘bend the curve’ in any meaningful way. I believe it will dramatically increase the national debt or be curtailed in the first place in the ensuing years to prevent that from happening.
The biggest irony of the single-payer debate has been the Republican Party’s (and business’) refusal to consider the cost-savings of a single-payer health insurance system. The savings would lead to a significant stimulus to the economy as a consequence of improved competitiveness, profitability, and job creation. It appears that raw ideology has usurped serious thinking.
I believe our three congressional representatives (Senators Leahy and Sanders, and Representative Welch) should vote against any conference health care bill that is similar to the recently passed House and Senate bills. There is an opportunity for a Vermont revolution leading to the export of robust Vermont values of fairness , reasonableness , and decency to the rest of the country.
Our congressional representatives should insist on an open and public debate about the potential merits of a single-payer system by the President and Congress.
They should also insist on a renewed professional and ethical commitment to public service by disposing of any PAC funding that may have established a conflict of interest, and thus, potentially clouded their objectivity. In the absence of such a ‘return to sender’, they should recuse themselves from voting on the matter. Such ethical requirements are standard for non-elected federal government officials and should be followed by elected officials as well.
History would judge such courage, enlightened thinking, and leading by example generously.
Daniel Freilich
Tags: health care, Healthcare is a human right, Medicare for All, Representative Peter Welch, Senator Bernard Sanders, Senator Patrick Leahy, Single-payer health insurance system, US Senate candidate Daniel Freilich, Vermont Workers Center
Posted in Health care reform | 1 Comment »
Dr. Daniel Freilich will be talking at a University of Vermont Public Forum, 01 Dec 2009, at 7 pm at the Dudley H. Davis Center (4th floor Livak Ballroom). The public and press are invited.
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
| 
