The Excise Tax Takes Center Stage


Second only to the public option, probably the biggest intra-Democratic healthcare feud is over the excise tax, a tax on high-value healthcare policies that’s designed to rein in the “Cadillac plans” favored as tax-free compensation by corporate executives, but that also takes a bite out of the high-end plans negotiated by blue-collar unions over the years in lieu of big raises. President Obama’s plan, unveiled yesterday, cuts back the excise tax considerably but doesn’t get rid of it completely. So how are liberal Dems likely to react to this? David Corn reports:

At that meeting with columnists a few weeks ago, Pelosi estimated that at most there were 20 Democrats in her caucus who might support an excise tax. The White House appears to be banking on a wholesale conversion of House Dems. But it’s unclear whether Obama’s alterations to the tax—which also include not counting dental and vision benefits as taxable and easing the tax for firms with higher health-care costs due to the age or gender of their employees—will win over Democrats on the House side. According to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, the White House did not brief the House Democrats regarding its intentions on the excise tax until after the plan was devised. And during a White House conference call about the overall proposal, economic aide Jason Furman was asked if the administration had attempted to work out an excise tax deal with the House Democrats before releasing the plan. He replied that “everyone would appreciate it” if the Obama proposal led to lower premiums. In other words, no.

If this is true, it’s surprising — and a little disturbing. There’s no reason the White House has to agree to everything that House Dems want, but it would be nice to think that they at least have an idea of what might be a deal killer and what isn’t. My own take is that House Dems got a lot of other things they wanted and that the excise tax has now been so weakened that it’s no longer much of a threat. (For one thing, under Obama’s plan it won’t take effect until 2018. That gives liberals a lot of time to try to kill it entirely.)  Still, I wonder if the folks who have to vote on it agree? And more to the point, I wonder if the White House knows?

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.