George Will: Repeal of ‘Cadillac tax’ shows hazard of bipartisanship |
George F. Will, Columnist

George Will: Repeal of ‘Cadillac tax’ shows hazard of bipartisanship

George Will


Acting on the principle “Why put it off until tomorrow when you can do the wrong thing today?” the House of Representatives last week voted to repeal a tax that is not scheduled to take effect until 2022. The vote against the “Cadillac tax” was 419-6, a reminder that “bipartisanship” often is the political class coming together to sacrifice the national interest to its own.

Repeal of the promised tax of 40% on a portion of the most lavish employer-provided health care plans would enlarge projected budget deficits by almost $200 billion in a decade. This, however, is minuscule considering the projected — and planned — deficits of $11.4 trillion in a decade. For the political class, the beauty of enormous deficits is that they make increments of mere hundreds of billions seem not worth bickering about.

Employer-provided health insurance is not taxed as what it obviously is: compensation. With this enormous subsidy to fortunate employees, the government forgoes about $300 billion in annual revenues. But lost revenue is not the primary problem. This is:

The tax was proposed not just to help fund Obamacare but also as an incentive for restraining the rapid growth of health care costs. Because the tax break — treating important compensation as untaxable — is unlimited, Alan D. Viard of the American Enterprise Institute says, it encourages employers to provide high-cost plans “that cover routine care and feature low deductibles and copayments. Those plans increase the demand for medical services and drive up costs for other patients.”

James Capretta, also of AEI, recalls that candidate Barack Obama campaigned in 2008 against “taxing health benefits” but as president became convinced that it was too costly to leave the perverse incentive in place. Capretta says Republicans are mistaken if they “think that reforming the tax treatment of employer-based health insurance is not central to building a market-driven health system.” He says “it is impossible to rid the system of inefficiency and waste when so much private insurance is financed by open-ended federal tax subsidies.”

So here we slouch:

Republicans, having vowed to “repeal and replace” Obamacare, didn’t when they controlled Congress and the presidency, and now will settle for — wait for it — a tax cut (repealing a scheduled tax). Democrats, having denounced Republican tax cutting as “regressive” and deficit-swelling, have voted for a tax cut that would partially repeal Obamacare, swell the deficit and disproportionately benefit households in the top fifth of income distribution.

Rather than continue the never-plausible pretense that the tax will someday be enforced, the House has voted to euthanize it. A Senate bill to do likewise has 21 Democratic and 21 Republican co-sponsors, but repeal might be prevented by the Senate’s aversion to legislating. But repeal this year does not matter: The tax will never be collected.

The tax is integral to the structure and financing of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. That fact and the fact that it is a tax probably were, for Republicans, sufficient reasons to justify repeal. The distilled essence of today’s Republicanism is denial of the axiom that there are just two ways to finance government — contemporary taxes or future taxes.

The margin of 413 for repeal of the tax was convenient. The House has a rule that a tax cut cannot be passed without commensurate expenditure cuts. There is, however, a second rule: The first rule is nullified if a two-thirds majority considers obnoxious the first rule’s requirement of offsetting cuts. This second rule is necessitated by a third rule: Legislators must never be forced to make choices involving unpopular trade-offs. About all this, there is bipartisan agreement.

George Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and can be reached via email.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.