Jonathan Gruber has crunched numbers and determined that —

• If the mandate to purchase insurance is removed from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, by 2019 average insurance premiums purchased through an exchange will be 27 percent higher than they would be otherwise.
• If the mandate is removed, by 2019 about 7 million formerly uninsured people will have insurance coverage, but with the mandate in place about 32 million formerly uninsured people will have insurance coverage. However, the cost of the bill would decline by only 25 percent, because the seven million would be disproportionately older and sicker.
• If the subsidies are removed as well as the mandate, by 2019 average insurance premiums will be 50 percent higher than they would be otherwise, and the bill would have no effect on the number of uninsured Americans.

There’s a PDF report with tables showing how changes in the bill will affect outcomes. It also explains why repealing one part of the bill effectively kicks the legs out from under the other parts.

See also Eztra Klein, “Economic security — and insecurity — in one graph.”

Some headlines are saying that a federal court has struck down the health care law. Some others are saying part of the law is “struck down.”

Here’s what happened. A federal district judge in Virginia declared the individual mandate to be unconstitutional. However, two other federal district judges have declared it to be constitutional. We’re far from the last word, however.

Also, according to Ezra Klein, the Virginia judge refused to strike down the entire law, which is want the prosecutors wanted. He also refused to stop implementation of any part of the health care reform law, pending appeal. Nothing really has changed.

This eventually will go to the Supreme Court. Of course, just about anything could happen there.

Update: Gawker says the judge in this case owns a piece of a GOP consulting firm.

Cape Cod police and fire officials say there have been two recent acts of arson — one failed, the other burned a house under construction — in which the arsonist left a message saying “[bleep] the rich.”

Naturally, the Right Blosophere puts this down to class warfare, instigated by liberal envy and resentment. The Jammie Wearing Fool writes,

I blame the class warfare rhetoric of the Democrats for these incidents of arson. Maybe if the left didn’t demonize wealthy people so much they wouldn’t stoke such hatred in their supporters. … Socialist blowhard Bernie Sanders was unavailable for comment.

I guess if it weren’t for leftists rudely pointing out that America is bankrupting itself with tax breaks to rich people that do little good to stimulate the economy, these things wouldn’t happen.

The BooMan disagrees —

Or, maybe, if wealthy people hadn’t enjoyed super low tax rates for the last thirty years while we ran the government on people’s Social Security money, we wouldn’t be so upset about the idea of you using our Social Security money to pay off the debt you ran up making sure the world is safe for ExxonMobil. It couldn’t be that this random arsonist is actually pissed off about getting hosed, could it? Because I know plenty of people are about to blow a gasket at how badly this country is rigged against working people. Even when we have a Democratic president and huge Democratic majorities in Congress, we still can’t get decent reforms and we have to settle for half-ass. So, yeah, blame it on some Jewish guy from Vermont. I’m sure Bernie Sanders is to blame for every out-of-work malcontent who is fantasizing about slitting the throats of the top 2% that just got a near-trillion dollar bailout in the form of lower income and estate taxes.

In case any righties drop by here, let me be clear that no one is advocating actual arson or throat-slitting.

However, since I recently argued that there is only a difference in degree between censorship by threats of violence and censorship by threats of defunding, I suppose I should address the charge that progressive rhetoric might incite violence against wealthy people.

Rhetoric can incite violence; no question about it. As far as I’m concerned, Bill O’Reilly bears some responsibility for the murder of Dr. George Tiller.

On the other hand — among other things, Bernie Sanders said,

“How can I get by on one house?” Sanders said. “I need five houses, ten houses! I need three jet planes to take me all over the world! Sorry, American people. We’ve got the money, we’ve got the power, we’ve got the lobbyists here and on Wall Street. Tough luck. That’s the world, get used to it. Rich get richer. Middle class shrinks.”

That may be inflammatory, but it’s the truth. The middle class is shrinking in the U.S., which is a bad omen for all of us.

On the other hand, O’Reilly was telling his audience that Dr. George Tiller aborted healthy babies about to be born. If true, that would have been a clear violation of Kansas law. There is no evidence that ever stood up in court that Tiller violated the law.

Getting back to the topic — there is nothing so critical to the long-term health and stability of a nation than a stable middle class. Even if they are able to suppress the speech of progressives, if the economic trends of the past 40 years continue, sooner or later the rich will be forced to live within armed fortresses, or on their own private islands. And that’s not a threat, righties; that’s the way the world is.

The Doom of Broder

Orwellian Centrism

A few days ago rightie bloggers were having apoplectic fits over an exhibit at the Smithsonian Portrait Gallery. The exhibit include a brief video clip showing ants crawling on a crucifix, and this was taken up as a Cause by Faux News and by Bill Donohue of the Let’s Make Catholicism Look Ugly League. Glenn Beck complained that taxpayer money had funded the exhibit, although it hadn’t.

After GOP congressional leaders, including John Boehner Eric Cantor, called for defunding the Smithsonian, the offending clip was removed.

Frank Rich writes about this episode today. The video was made in 1987 by an East Village artist named David Wojnarowicz after he was diagnosed with AIDS. Frank Rich explains,

Christ figures in Wojnarowicz’s response to the plague — albeit in a cryptic, 11-second cameo. A crucifix is besieged by ants that evoke frantic souls scurrying in panic as a seemingly impassive God looked on.

Wojnarowicz died in 1992, at the age of 37.

Today the righties are outraged, and not without cause, about a Stockholm suicide bombing. The bomber was, news accounts say, protesting the publication of anti-Muslim cartoons and the war in Afghanistan. (Since the perpetrator is not around to explain himself we have to guess, but some question the official explanation)

Any attempt to suppress free expression by threats or bullying ought to be condemned. However, righties, that means any attempt to suppress free expression by threats or bullying ought to be condemned. That means your attempts, too.

Righties will complain that they don’t kill people over cartoons, or artwork. No, they only kill people for providing medical services. And when rightie terrorists bomb abortion clinics, they do so from a safe distance so that only other people are injured. I suppose that makes them less savage, somehow.

Bottom line, though, is that Islamic extremists and our home-grown U.S. Right are only different in degree. Both sides are bullies; neither side respects the freedom of speech of others.

“Invaders From Mars” — a Brit’s view of how America’s corporate hegemony is eroding civilization. Paul Krugman has a slightly different view.

These days, we’re living in the world of the imperial, very self-interested individual; the man in the gray flannel suit has been replaced by the man in the very expensive Armani suit. Look at the protagonists in the global financial meltdown, and you won’t see faceless corporations subverting individual will; you’ll see avaricious individuals exploiting corporate forms to enrich themselves, often bringing the corporations down in the process. Lehman, AIG, Anglo-Irish, etc. were not cases of immortal hive-minds at work; they were cases of kleptocrats run wild.

Ezra Klein: “Will 2012 be Different From 2010.” This is the best, concise defense of the tax cut compromise I’ve seen so far. See also “The White House’s Case for the Tax Cut Deal in One Graph.”

Most of the blogosphere continues to argue about the tax cut compromise. I’ve said most of what I want to say, but most of the argument for me boils down to these points:

One, the argument is that the payroll tax holiday is bad because if the lower tax rates became permanent they would eventually de-fund Social Security. I am skeptical the Republicans will be eager to extend the lower payroll tax rates this time next year, however, because —

• The payroll tax holiday doesn’t help the wealthy as much as it helps the working poor. Republicans don’t give a hoo haw about tax cuts for the poor. I’m not sure Republicans even count FICA taxes as real taxes. Reagan raised payroll taxes considerably to make up for the shortfall in revenue caused by his other tax cuts, and Republicans didn’t mind at all.
• Economists agree the payroll tax holiday will stimulate economic growth as long as it is in effect. The Republicans do not want economic growth stimulated in 2012, because that helps Obama.
• If I am wrong about that last bulleted item, and the payroll tax is extended another year, this will help the economy and help Democrats get elected. Worse things have happened.

Further,

• If progressive Democrats actually ever have anything to say in Congress, they can revise the FICA tax code to make it more progressive while it funds future Social Security payments. Those taxes are a real burden on lower-income people.
• If Republicans continue to call the shots in Congress for the next several congressional cycles, we’re screwed anyway. Losing Social Security will be the least of our problems.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

House Democrats have voted to not bring the tax cut extension compromise bill in its current form to a vote. This caucus decision is not binding on the House, but it’s still pretty significant, seems to me. The current bill might get enough votes to pass, assuming all Republicans voted for it (which I’m not sure can be assumed, since the teabaggers appear to be opposed), and the Usual Suspects among the Dems voted with the GOP. But if Speaker Pelosi doesn’t bring it to the floor for a vote, then that’s that.

If the bill can be made more progressive, great. I just hope the next Congress doesn’t end up passing something even worse.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans blocked a bill to provide medical care to the people who ruined their health working on “the pile” also known as Ground Zero, or the smoldering remains of the World Trade Center after 9/11. Many worked amidt the fumes for several weeks without proper ventilation equipment, which the Bush EPA and the Guiliani Administration in New York City didn’t see fit to provide. Having served their usefulness as photo props, they can be disposed of now.

There is talk in the Senate of adding the medical care bill to the tax cut extension bill, and then daring the Republicans to vote against it.

One part of the tax compromise I kind of like is the payroll tax holiday part. Low-income workers may not pay income tax, but FICA taxes still take a big hit on their paychecks.

The “holiday” is a 2 percent reduction for one year, for employees only. Employers still pay the amount they owe now. It’s not exactly a windfall, but for very low-income workers every little bit helps.

Right now a lot of allegedly liberal bloggers are bashing the payroll tax holiday and saying that another tax credit, such as the “Making Work Pay” income tax credit of $400 per person in effect for 2009 and 2010 (alas, no more), was the way to go. Several bloggers have linked to an article at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that makes this argument.

However, the article is a year old and describes a different tax holiday proposal than the one in the compromise bill. The “holiday” described in the article is one Republicans suggested a while back that would have suspended payroll taxes entirely for a short time, for employers as well as employees. Most of the specific arguments in the article against a payroll tax holiday do not apply to the “holiday” plan we’re actually dealing with at the moment.

Of the current holiday plan, Ezra Klein wrote,

Rather than extending the administration’s Making Work Pay tax credit for two years, which would’ve been worth about $60 billion a year, they’ve agreed to a one-year cut in the payroll taxes paid by employees, which’ll raise $120 billion in 2011. That’s a much stronger boost over the next year, and of course these tax cuts have a tendency to get extended.

And I’d add that FICA taxes are a bigger burden to low-wage workers than income taxes. As Republicans never stop reminding us, a lot of lucky duckies out there pay no income tax because they don’t earn enough to be taxed. But FICA taxes get taken out of everyone’s paycheck.

The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit enacted under the Making Work Pay tax credit bill were set to expire this year, also but are now extended. These credits make a big difference to the very poor.

Among the sites working overtime to bash the tax agreement is, of course, Firedoglake, and the most over-the-top criticism of the bill I saw there is by Nancy Altman, who has decided the compromise is an Obama Administration plot to destroy Social Security.

After linking to the year-old and mostly irrelevant Center on Budget and Policy Priorities article, she declares that if the “holiday” becomes permanent Social Security will be way underfunded, and Congress would be pressured to slash away at benefits promised to younger workers. And yes, that could happen.

It’s not clear to me if Altman understands that employers’ contributions to Social Security are not being cut, which would impact her calculations, but she’s assuming the Congress elected in 2012 will be even more conservative than the one we’ll get for the next two years. Frankly, if that’s the case, losing Social Security will be among the least of our economic problems. (Buy your Guernsey now, before the price goes up.)

There’s a lot about the compromise to criticize, certainly. Extending all of the Bush tax cuts is ruinous to our long-term economic health, and the more-conservative Congress Altman assumes will probably extend them yet again. Also, Paul Krugman argues that because the payroll tax holiday and unemployment extension are for only one year, the economy is likely to be stalled again in 2012 when President Obama is running for re-election.

Today some economists are arguing that the tax compromise amounts to a “back-door stimulus” that really should give the economy a boost in 2011, and given the makeup of the next Congress this may be about the only way a stimulus bill can be enacted. If the choice is this bill or nothing, the economy is better off with this bill.

It appears the Obama Administration (and the rest of us) will continue to be haunted by his failure to get a bigger stimulus package early in his administration, when he had the political capital and the majorities in both houses to make that possible. Yes, massive screwup on Obama’s part. But what’s done is done.