The implementation of Obamacare is also rife with fiscal stories. Here’s one: the insurance industry and the National Federation of Independent Business have been working behind the scenes to eliminate the tax on insurance companies called for by the Affordable Care Act. Those taxes, which will ultimately be passed on to employers, fund subsidies for the uninsured. What happens to the subsidies if eliminating the tax sneaks into some final bargain?
And for those wanting to take the deepest of dives, there’s reason to explore aspects of just why and how we got to this fiscal Armageddon in the first place. Here’s one theory: In late fall, Thomas Edsall, the former Washington Post political reporter, wrote a long piece in The New York Times about what he called the “underlying and inadequately explored theme of the 2012 election.” He considered the work of a number of economists about the prospects for growth and then argued:
The conservative political class recognizes that the halcyon days of shared growth with the United States leading the world economy may be over. The wealthy are acutely aware that the political threat to their status and comfort would come from rising popular demand for policies of income redistribution.
That’s why, Edsall argued, Republicans are determined to protect the Bush tax cuts, prevent tax increases and further cuts in domestic social spending, and kill off the welfare state. Hence the debate over whether the US can afford Social Security and Medicare.
It’s a big argument. Is he right? This and many related questions require a hard look at the nation’s economic pie—how it’s cut up now and in the future. It’s a good bet audiences will be interested in that, and no reporter will be bored.
Related Content
A hunger for the food-stamp story
How an anti-tax HIT squad employs the press
Medicare, Paul Ryan, and beyond: a primer
The ideas expressed here are immensely important. So far the discussion has been primarily emotional, designed to incite hatred. The Republicans want to protect the rich while the Democrats do give-aways to keep themselves in power. Yada yada. Everybody's greedy and evil.
Journalists underestimate us by thinking we aren't interested in our country's economic situation and would be bored by an in-depth discussion. On the household level, people know exactly how much money they have and where it goes. We think about it constantly, sometimes argue, make many of our personal decisions, and accept lifelong consequences based on our finances. Nobody doesn't know how much money they have, or how much they owe, or who owes money to them. Money is not boring. It's right up there with the basics of relationships, sex, children, food, housing, and survival. How could it not be?
I've been searching for real facts about the US and world economy. How much comes in? Where does it come from? How much goes out? where does it go? Just like a household or efficient business. These facts are hard to find. Journalists could really help -- just the facts, ma'am, without the slant. All the facts.
Further, I'd like to see visuals. If the debates had taken place in a business boardroom, there would have been plenty of charts and diagrams. If we can't have them on TV, let's have them in print or on the Internet.
Ladies and gentlemen, there's work to be done.
#1 Posted by Gennavette, CJR on Mon 7 Jan 2013 at 12:38 AM