Obamacare Proponents Claim It Lowers Income IN-Equality – IF ONLY ;-)

Generally, David Leonhardt, Economics Correspondent, tries to be analytical and unsparing in his columns.

Generally, David Leonhardt, Economics Correspondent, tries to be analytical and unsparing in his columns.

But in this Economic Scene piece that has gotten a lot of play on the Times’ website – In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality – I think there’s a lot of wishful thinking.

Generally, David Leonhardt, Economics Correspondent, tries to be analytical and unsparing in his columns.

Generally, David Leonhardt, Economics Correspondent, tries to be analytical and unsparing in his columns.

But in this Economic Scene piece that has gotten a lot of play on the Times’ website – In Health Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality – I think there’s a lot of wishful thinking.

As usual, his take on the background of the problem is quite good.

[quote]

Inequality began rising more than three decades ago.

Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality.

The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor … [br]

Since 1980, median real household income has risen less than 15 percent.

The only period of strong middle-class income growth during this time came in the mid- and late 1990s,

which by coincidence was also the one time when taxes on the affluent were rising.

For most of the last three decades, tax rates for the wealthy have been falling, while their pretax pay has been rising rapidly.

Real incomes at the 99.99th percentile have jumped more than 300 percent since 1980.

At the 99th percentile — about $300,000 today — real pay has roughly doubled.

The laissez-faire revolution that Mr. Reagan started did not cause these trends [Really, Dave ??? Then to what else you attribute it ???]

But its policies — tax cuts, light regulation, a patchwork safety net — have contributed to them [Indeed … but how do you separate the “revolution” from the concrete policies???] [/quote]

Completely correct, especially in dating the change from Reaganoid economic “policy”.

But then he goes off on this bizarre tangent that I think he would LIKE to be true, but doesn’t really provide any argument for it:

[quote]

Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction.

This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate.

Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.

[/quote]

WHAT ???

After everything he’s done to please Wall Street – let alone the lame collection of small-bore palliatives Obamacare embodies –

the idea that Obama is deliberately trying to end the age of Reagan seems, well, bizarre …

And not JUST because he constantly talks about what a great President Reagan was – an out and out LIE –

and his endless – and patently FAILED – efforts to have this be a “bi-partisan” bill,

which effectively meant bending over backwards to include as much of the insane Tea-Party-fearing crap the Senatorial / Congressional Republicans wanted —

and STILL couldn’t get A SINGLE ONE OF THEM to vote for it,

but also the whole Rube Goldberg aspect of it,

which, as always, benefits the drug / health insurance / hospital corporations that like to give the bulk of their campaign money to Republicans ANYWAY …

He’s trying to UN-do Reagan ???

I think even Bill Clinton, who, god bless him, moved the Democratic party significantly to the right,

was more anti-Reagan in substance than Obama – and that’s saying something …

[quote]

By 2019, 95 percent of people are projected to be covered, up from 85 percent today (and about 90 percent in the late 1970s).

[/quote]

That’s good … ONLY NINE YEARS to surpass the level of insured from three decades ago …

Now that’s what I call decisive action to reduce income inequality …

and as we’ve noted both in our overall analysis of Obamacare, as well as other ITN posts,

the whole thing requires a whole NEW set of “middlewo/men” to help guide people through a blatantly UN-transparent and insanely complex piece of legislation …

Sorry, Dave – love you, babe, but I aint buyin’ for a second this totally NON-transparent complexity is going to strike any SERIOUS blow against income in-equality …

ESPECIALLY because of everything that he has given — and seems primed to continue to give – to the TBTF banks / insurance companies etc etc etc …

who have done MORE than a little to RADICALLY INCREASE income IN-equality, and seem ready to increase it some more … 😉 …