Settle in, because it looks like it will be a long hot summer debate about taxing and spending. We're already hearing the old saws from Republicans about how we spend too much, tax cuts don't increase the deficit, and we're saddling our children and grandchildren with enormous, horrible debt that will surely bankrupt them before they're even born.

It isn't like we haven't all heard this before, or like we don't hear it over and over, but this time perhaps we could start by shattering myths. One begging to be shattered is this idea that we must limit spending to a certain percentage of GDP in order to be "fiscally solvent".

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains:

Simply put, aiming to stabilize the budget at the recent historical spending average of 21 percent of GDP might be appropriate for the years ahead if the age distribution of the population remained the same as it was in recent decades; if health care costs grew no faster than the economy; if Medicare had no drug benefit; if we were willing to leave more than 30 million Americans without health coverage; if there were no terrorist threats and hence no need for homeland security spending; if no wounded veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan needed medical care and income support; and if decisions and events over the last decade had not nearly doubled the national debt as a share of GDP. But that’s not the world in which we live, and it’s not the target at which we should aim.

This report hits at the heart of why today's spending debate is such a non-starter: Historically, we have not had revenues that come close to what is needed to maintain public services and programs. (As an aside: the unspoken but clear message is that taxes should NEVER have been cut in the first place)

The historical record shows a persistent mismatch between revenues and the funding needed for public services. Revenues at the 40-year average — a little over 18 percent of GDP — would not have balanced the budget in any of the last 40 years. The only balanced budgets over this period occurred from 1998 through 2001, years in which revenues were markedly above the 40-year average. Revenues in these years were in the 20-to-21-percent-of-GDP range. As a result of this mismatch between revenues and funding needs, the government ran deficits that averaged 2.6 percent of GDP over the past 40 years.

In case that wasn't clear enough, let me make it clearer: Bill Clinton's budget put us on the path to fiscal solvency without cutting services, and George Bush's tax cuts derailed it. To further complicate the picture, the whole "Homeland Security" spending package along with a couple of wars finished the job.

Indeed, the CBPP report confirms this, and urges policymakers to rethink how they approach Federal debt and spending.

The bottom line is that arbitrary numerical targets for federal spending and revenues are misguided. Although history provides useful information and guidance, it should not be a straitjacket. What will be appropriate in 2020, 2030, or 2050 is not necessarily the same as in 1970 or 1980. Budgetary policies, like other policies, must respond to changing circumstances. “As our cause is new,” wrote Abraham Lincoln, “so we must think anew, and act anew.”

And this:

In our view, the aging of the population, the continued importance of Social Security and Medicare, the growth in federal responsibilities in recent years in areas such as homeland security, and rising health care costs justify higher levels of federal spending and revenues over the next 40 years than over the past four decades.

Let the Congress have ears to hear.

Might be time for Steve Poizner to come in from the campaign trail and have a look at the newest rate increases. According to the LA Times, the Gang of Five here in California is ganging up on small business owners with less than 50 employees.

Five major insurers in California's small-business market are raising rates 12% to 23% for firms with fewer than 50 employees, according to a survey by The Times.

Similar increases are being felt by many small businesses across the nation, including those in Texas, Ohio and Florida — mainly the result of escalating costs for medical care and pharmaceuticals, insurers say.

Insurers claim they either underpriced their policies or had unusually high claims.

Blue Shield, for example, said hospital charges rose nearly 20% last year, while physician costs and pharmaceutical fees increased almost as much. Anthem Blue Cross also cited the cost of medical care in explaining its average rate hikes of 13% this year.

"We understand that one group that has been most hard hit by the economic downturn of the past few years is the state's more than 3 million small businesses, who we all rely on to be major contributors to our local economy," Anthem spokeswoman Peggy Hinz said.

"We want to be competitive in the marketplace, but we also want to take care of our members," Hinz added. "We work each day to do both."

Forgive me if I'm skeptical of this. It seems suspect to me that the group slammed with high increases is the same group who is eligible for a Federal tax credit of up to 35%. Further, why wasn't that tax credit mentioned in any of the reports about the rate increases? The employers they use as examples are likely to be the same ones eligible for the 35% break.

Why not mention that in this context, LA Times?

I have heard anecdotal reports that health insurance agents here in California representing one of these companies are visiting small business clients and telling them the apocalypse is upon them. Statements range from claims of outlandish premium increases to the outright falsehood that employers will only have one plan to choose from after reform. They begin by informing employers who they finally managed to shift into high deductible plans with Health Savings Accounts that HSAs are dead. (They're not dead, just reduced to reflect improved insurance options).

By the time they're done, they've convinced these small business owners that Satan lives in the form of health care reform. This is no different than what they did when California passed laws limiting auto insurers' rate increases. While these stories are anecdotal and not indicative of a widespread policy on the part of those companies, it still strikes me as part of a larger strategy to undermine confidence in the health care reform law.

What we have here is a group hissy fit thrown by the insurers who, until now, have had complete freedom to raise rates and lower benefits at will. While increases may be warranted in some cases, there's no reason to believe they're warranted to this extent or only on this group. It seems to me they chose the most vulnerable and least powerful group to pick on.

Kevin Drum has exactly the right answer for the insurers' woes:

If conservatives want to avoid the specter of federally funded single-payer healthcare in the United States, this is what they need to come to terms with. Canada provides high quality healthcare for everyone — including small businesses and the elderly — for a cost per person of about $4,000 per year. Ditto for France and the Netherlands. Britain and Japan do it for about $3,000. Ann Terranova is being asked to pay more than $6,000 per person — and that's for three working-age employees.

Insurers know single payer is still a hammer over their heads. We're seeing Vermont adopt an experimental program with it now. If it's successful, I expect other states to try it. Here in California, it's only a governor's signature away, provided we actually elect the right Governor.

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were guests on "Meet the Press" today to talk about Haiti relief, and I was struck once again by the contrast between the two. As always, Clinton has a grasp of all the logistical and political factors in play, and Bush speaks in emotional but general terms. I can't imagine the basis for this friendship:

DAVID GREGORY: Let me start by asking you both, President Bush, what's your biggest concern right now?

FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: My biggest concern is the-- the Haitian people have security, water, and food.

DAVID GREGORY: And those are big ifs right now.

FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well they are. But-- the President briefed us-- about-- military efforts to get-- food and water to the people. And surging a lot of material. And it's gonna take a little bit of time to get it there. But-- I came away from the briefing confident it's gonna happen.

DAVID GREGORY: President Clinton, the basics are so important right now.

FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: This is about water, food, medical supplies and care, and-- and shelter, secure shelter. We-- I have some protection concerns. But-- we were just told in the briefing that 40 percent of the Haitian police forces signed back in, volunteered for duty. A lot of them don't have uniforms or weapons or anything anymore. But-- the American military's working closely with the U.N. troops that are there. And-- they'll get this organized. They're doing a good job. We just need more help. We literally don't have enough food to feed them now. We don't have-- and-- and there are two issues. One is buying it. And the second is getting it in and distributing it. But that's what everybody's working on now.

DOWNLOADS: (1192)

PLAYS: (1901)

Embed

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, chair of the largest caucus in Congress -- the Congressional Progressive Caucus -- refuted Fox's daylong talking point, that President Obama somehow took the public option off the table in his speech last night health-care reform, earlier today on Fox with Jon Scott:

Woolsey: I applauded, because ... public option is on the table. There's no question about it.

Scott: It's on the table, but it didn't seem to have his -- you know, it wasn't his ... He didn't say it's got to be there.

Woolsey: Well, he knows that 84 members of the Progressive Caucus, and many, many members besides ourselves are absolutely intent on the public option being part of the House health-care reform bill.

Scott: What's your chief argument for why you think it's got to be there?

Woolsey: Because it's the best way to cut costs and bring competition into the program, and actually to bring security for those who are already covered by health care, and might lose their jobs or want to change jobs, and want to have a choice. And one of those choices could be the public option.

Scott: You don't think that the free market would be the more efficient way to deliver that?

Woolsey: Well, has it been? Fifty years, private health-care insurance companies have not been able to do the job. Why would we think they could do it now?

Scott: What about Medicare and Medicaid? Are they examples of well-run, you know, government programs for dispensing medical care?

Woolsey: They're very popular programs, sir, as is the Veterans Administration and the military health care. Those are government programs that run well, they run at an overhead of less than 5 to 7 percent, versus 30 percent for the private health care insurance companies.

Funny that Scott should bring up precisely the programs that prove that "government run health care" can be a good thing. Woolsey hit that meaty pitch right out of the park.

Hopefully, she's right about the public option, too.

You surprised? Gee, me neither!

Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.

Yet the survey also revealed considerable unease about the impact of heightened government involvement, on both the economy and the quality of the respondents’ own medical care. While 85 percent of respondents said the health care system needed to be fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt, 77 percent said they were very or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their own care.

Gee, New York Times, do you think the paradox might be that even if they like their insurance (and by that, they usually mean their doctor and the ease of use), they also know their insurance can be yanked if they ever get really sick?

That paradox was skillfully exploited by opponents of the last failed attempt at overhauling the health system, during former President Bill Clinton’s first term. Sixteen years later, it underscores the tricky task facing lawmakers and President Obama as they try to address the health system’s substantial problems without igniting fears that people could lose what they like.

Across a number of questions, the poll detected substantial support for a greater government role in health care, a position generally identified with the Democratic Party. When asked which party was more likely to improve health care, only 18 percent of respondents said the Republicans, compared with 57 percent who picked the Democrats. Even one of four Republicans said the Democrats would do better.

The national telephone survey, which was conducted from June 12 to 16, found that 72 percent of those questioned supported a government-administered insurance plan — something like Medicare for those under 65 — that would compete for customers with private insurers. Twenty percent said they were opposed.

AmericaBlog provides this info:

Paula Zahn: How can it be that hundreds and hundreds of thousands of victims have not received any food and water more than 100 hours after Katrina hit

I will tell you this though, every person in that convention center, we just learned about that today. And so I had directed that we have all available resources to get to that convention center to make certain that they have the food and water, the medical care they need...

Download | play -WMP-(compressed a bit small)

A clearly pissed Paula Zahn: Sir, you're not telling me, you're not telling me you just learned that the folks at the convention center didn't have food and water until today did you? You had no idea they were completely cut off?

FEMA's Brown: Paula, the federal government did not even know about the convention center people until today.

via Huffington Post: ...Days later, with my friend's situation still on my mind, I met a new neighbor who was a Wal-Mart sales clerk. He worked there full time but could not afford the health care plan they offered. Wait a minute, I thought. This clerk worked full time for a company whose profit was ten BILLION dollars annually, and they did not provide health care? But it got worse. The clerk said that the company had very kindly advised him how to apply for Medicare, so he could get public aid. So taxpayers were paying for Wal-mart employees to get medical care! I really found it hard to believe. I assumed that if it was true, it had to be an isolated incident...read on

The NY Times: Taking On a Giant:

Robert Greenwald, the producer and director of "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism," thinks his next documentary-cum-indictment will appeal to gun-toting Bush voters in the Bible belt as much as to the latte-drinking lefties who made his last movie a hit at house parties on both coasts. His new project? "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price." ...read on

Here's the website called Walmart movie

(AgapePress) Senator Specter apparently wants a place on your wall. Here's why he shouldn't get the chance.

Pick your poster child: Arlen Specter, bald from chemotherapy treatments for Hodgkin's disease, saying that he is Exhibit A for embryonic stem-cell research ... or those cute little kids in the AP photo with this caption: "President Bush appeared at the White House with babies and toddlers born of test-tube embryos, some wearing shirts that read 'former embryo.'" "I look in the mirror every day," says Specter, "barely recognize myself. And not to have the availability of the best of medical care is simply atrocious."

Meanwhile, President Bush was busy praising a Christian agency that helps couples adopt frozen embryos. Amidst 21 babies and toddlers who began their lives as frozen embryos left over after fertility treatments, the president said, "there is no such thing as a spare embryo."

So, again, pick your poster child. The man with a disease who thinks there is vast medical potential in destroying babies described as embryos, or the children who developed from their embryonic state to roll around on White House carpet....read on

These people are despicable. They are using Arlen Specter's health as a propaganda machine for their cause.

via Eshaton: George Bush signed the law which allows the hospitals to make this decision:

A patient's inability to pay for medical care combined with a prognosis that renders further care futile are two reasons a hospital might suggest cutting off life support, the chief medical officer at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital said Monday.

Dr. David Pate's comments came as the family of Spiro Nikolouzos fights to keep St. Luke's from turning off the ventilator and artificial feedings keeping the 68-year-old grandfather alive. read on