Revenue-neutral

From yesterday's press briefing, Tony Snow on the "revenue-neutral" health care (my emphasis throughout):

Q The President, in the State of the Union -- I mean, in the radio address, mentioned health care. He did it in the context of tax reform. So does that mean his proposal will be revenue-neutral?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q And if that's the case, how does that differ in any way to the congressional approach to pay-as-you-go, where any additional revenue cost --

MR. SNOW: Well, this is not -- it fits within pay-go guidelines.

Q Really? If there is no --

MR. SNOW: Yes, if it's revenue-neutral.

Q So there is -- so it's tax increase to pay for the revenue increase for the other --

MR. SNOW: Well, again, we will let you analyze how this whole thing works, but it is revenue-neutral.

Revenue-neutral. That means someplace they raise taxes to offset the tax breaks they offer someone else. It's supposed to be responsible - and it is, compared to the way this administration has been cut-and-spend for six years.

But let's not fool ourselves. To offset the "tax breaks" that will allegedly make low-income people (many of whom pay little or no incomes taxes already because they earn well below the poverty level) run out and buy health insurance - a doubtful proposition to start with, since these tax breaks won't make the premiums affordable for most - to offset the those "breaks" the administration isn't contemplating raising taxes on the super-rich. No, they want to tax "gold-plated" insurance that middle-income workers now get through their employers.

"Gold-plated" coverage - don't make me laugh. Most people don't even have dental worth sneering at, and if they do the premiums are pretty damned high. And now those folks will get taxed on that coverage.

Yeah. "Revenue-neutral." In this president's mouth, it's just another code for "screw the middle class."

Here's Tony again:

Q Tony, can you just scratch just below the surface of this health care thing and just lay it out just a little bit? The tax deduction --

MR. SNOW: Rather than trying to do that -- we're going to get you briefings on this. And we're going to get you detailed briefings if not later today, early tomorrow. Rather than getting into the weeds, I'm giving you a general prospectus on it. But you'll get all the details.

Q But, Tony, your early fact sheet says health insurance would be considered taxable income.

MR. SNOW: That is correct.

Q And that means some people who are over the line would be paying more taxes for their health insurance.

MR. SNOW: They might be -- some people would be paying more for health insurance.

Q And that's a raise in income tax.

MR. SNOW: Well, on the other hand, what you also have -- that's a static way of looking at a situation where you're going to have dynamic effects. So people will be able to make choices. You will have the opportunity to make choices about what you get in terms of health care. There will be market forces for people to provide, within certain barriers, programs that are tailored to individual needs. So, again, I would suggest taking a look at it. But, yes, some people would pay more.

Some people. You know who that will be.

But what else is new?

Addenda:

Dan Froomkin points out (Jan 24):

There's still a lot more reporting to be done.

For instance, the White House insists the tax-code changes would be revenue neutral over the next decade, but it's not clear how they reach that conclusion.

And even if you take those assertions at face value, the White House acknowledges that the program amounts to a net tax cut in the short-run, i.e. the next five years, but a net tax increase in the long-run, i.e. five years and beyond, as the cost of insurance presumably rises faster than the deduction amount.

And the NYT says (Jan 26):

If the administration really wanted to help low-income people, it would have proposed a refundable tax credit that would have the same dollar value for everyone — instead of a tax deduction, which primarily helps people in high tax brackets. Even those who do not pay taxes would get a check for the dollar value of the credit, providing them at least some money to help pay for health insurance. ...

The greatest risk in the president’s proposal is that it would seem likely to lead many small- and medium-size employers to stop offering health benefits altogether on the theory that their workers could buy affordable insurance on their own. That would leave many more Americans at the mercy of the dysfunctional individual policy market, where administrative costs are high and insurers strive to avoid covering people who are apt to become sick and need costly care.

For all its fanfare, Mr. Bush’s plan would be unlikely to reduce the ranks of the uninsured very much. And if things went badly, it could actually increase their numbers. That’s not the answer Americans are waiting for and not what they deserve.