Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Congress will quickly devise a new health-insurance system after moving to repeal the Affordable Care Act in coming days. Reported by Wall Street Journal 5 hours ago.

If one of your New Year's resolutions was to plan better for your taxes or simply to file your tax return earlier this year - good for you! With 2017 came a lot of changes to IRS systems and process and therefore changes to your tax return. Some of the changes are required by laws and others because of new security measures - regardless of the cause here is what you need to know.

Safety first! The IRS indicated, "The 2017 safeguards are aimed at those of you who prepare your own federal and state tax returns using tax software." Though many of the safeguards happen behind the scenes and you won't need to do anything, there are some services and self-help tools that will require you to use Secure Access. Secure Access is designed to protect your data and IRS systems from thieves. You must have a mobile phone, an email address, and various pieces of your personal information to register. Plan ahead and review the article Tips for Successfully Authenticating Your Identity through Secure Access on the IRS website. If you prepare your own tax return and plan to file electronically, you will need much of the same information listed and your prior year adjusted gross income (AGI) or prior-year Self-Select PIN; you will no longer be able to use an electronic filing PIN. If you use a Tax Pro, they should collect only the appropriate data needed to file your tax return and manage the safeguards for you.

Despite some rumors to the contrary, the Affordable Care Act is NOT dead for 2016, which means a) You had to have insurance for the entire year, b) Qualify for an exemption, or c) May be subject to a penalty. For many people, the various Forms 1095 contains the information they need - who was covered and when. However, the deadline for issuing the form depends on who is issuing it: Form 1095-A, issued by the Health Insurance Marketplace must be provided by January 31, 2017, but both Form 1095-B, which is issued by health insurance providers, and Form 1095-C, issued by certain employers for self-insured coverage, aren't due until March 2, 2017. According to the IRS, for those that obtained insurance through the Marketplace it is important to receive Form 1095-A before you file your tax return; however, you do not need to include the form with your tax return. If you aren't sure how to prepare your tax return correctly with regard to the ACA information, consult your Tax Pro or review the information on the IRS Affordable Care Act Tax Provisions page.

Tax refunds, some of the biggest ones, are often a result of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and/or the Child Tax Credits (CTC/ACTC). One of the changes that will have the biggest impact on taxpayers is a result of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act of 2015. Among other things, the PATH Act requires the IRS to hold refunds for returns that claim the EITC or the CTC/ACTC until February 15. The IRS has been releasing various posts, articles, and tweets about the refund delays and how they should help stop fraudulent returns. For frequently asked questions, see Refund Timing for Earned Income Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit Filers on the IRS website. However, just because the IRS won't process your refund until February 15 does not mean that you shouldn't file your return early though. The sooner you get your tax return filed, the sooner you don't have to worry about it anymore and the less likely you are to be a victim of Tax ID Theft.

For people without a Social Security number and who must file a tax return, an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) is required. Many ITINs expired December 31, 2016 either because they were not used for a tax return in 2013, 2014, or 2015, they were issued before 2008, or the middle digits were 78 or 79. If your ITIN expired, processing of your tax return will be delayed and if the delay is beyond April 18, you could lose the Child Tax Credits and the American Opportunity Credits. You must have an SSN for yourself, your spouse and your dependents as of April 18, 2017 to claim EITC on your 2016 tax return.

If you are looking for help, the IRS urges you to start with IRS.gov for all their resources. If you want in-person help, all IRS Taxpayer Assistance Centers are now by appointment only. With the changes in the tax law, the new security safeguards, and the delayed processing of returns, this might be the year to hire a Tax Pro. And if one of your goals for 2017 is to keep more of your money in your pocket, investing in a Tax Pro might just be one of the most economical - time and money wise - decisions you make that will help you reach your goals.

Like it or not, it is tax time! Give a bit more thought to what can be your single biggest financial transaction this year; it is your money, keep more of it.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.

Questions surrounding the future GOP plan have unnerved key parts of the health care industry, including hospitals and insurers that have warned Congress against uncertainty. The 2010 health law, which passed without Republican votes, became a lightning rod in U.S. politics. [...] they're at odds over how to do it, particularly over how to pay for popular provisions, including coverage for pre-existing conditions and the ability for parents to keep children on their plans until age 26. When asked about Paul's tweet, Trump aide Kellyanne Conway said: "I can confirm that he is committed to replacing Obamacare with something that actually is affordable and accessible and allows you to buy health insurance over state lines and allows people to have health savings accounts," she said. Reported by SeattlePI.com 6 hours ago.

If you’ve had the same health cover for years, you’re losing money. Time to switch policy Reported by Irish Times 30 minutes ago.

Dear Mr. President,

Sweeping rhetoric aside, it wasn’t love at first sight. As a social studies teacher, I was delighted by the possibilities of hope and change, but I found something a little opportunistic about a relatively young politician cutting the political line and surrounding himself with Kennedys. I was skeptical to say the least.

But you were persistent. Your intellect, humor and charm warmed me, and you clearly had an LGBT game plan, one that I recognized long before your “evolution” happened publicly. In June 2009, you issued a directive on same-sex domestic partner benefits and opened the door for the State Department to extend a full range of benefits to same-sex domestic partners of members of the Foreign Service. In October of that same year, you signed the long-stalled Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law. In December, 2010, backed by studies conducted by the Pentagon, you showed a willingness to spend significant political capital by repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in December 2010. I admired your long game ― methodically chipping away at the wall of homophobic policies ― and found you to be the savviest of quarterbacks. I was smitten.

Your administration sought input from national LGBT non-profits like Treatment Action Group and Family Equality Council, organizations on whose Boards of Directors I serve, to ensure as part of the Affordable Care Act that insurers could no longer turn someone away just because he or she is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Obamacare also made it easier for people living with HIV and AIDS to obtain private health insurance and Medicaid. Most notably, you developed and released the first comprehensive National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States. Your administration changed passport and student loan application forms to become more gender inclusive. Next time I fill out my children’s governmental forms, I will not be forced to complete a box labeled “mother” like I did last time. Now, families like my own are allowed to re-enter the country as the unit that we are. These gestures may have gone unnoticed by the general public, but not by those of us who for decades have felt the simple desire to be treated like everybody else.

For Easter in 2011, my partner and I took our twins to the White House Easter Egg Roll. As a formerly closeted man who fearfully came of age during the Reagan years, I had a near out-of-body experience watching my two-year old children frolic carefree on the lawn of the White House and in the shadows of history. I felt a sense of belonging I had never before imagine, and I left the South Lawn with renewed optimism in the direction of our country. At that moment I felt the need to become active in your campaign for reelection, something I hadn’t considered since college. So I made nightly phone calls to swing states, talking to prospective voters about how the Obama administration had quite simply changed my life. I will never forget the voter from Scranton, Pennsylvania who told me she “couldn’t stand having that nigger in the White House.” I remember marveling at how the election of a black man to the highest office in the land had not moved us into a post-racial world. Neither of our fights is yet won.

I brought my twins to D.C. to witness your second inauguration in 2013; they turned four that very day. While they innocently thought that everyone had gathered at the Capitol for their birthday, our family did receive a present on that bitter cold morning just the same. I was floored by your mention of Stonewall in the same breath as Seneca Falls and Selma – incredulously asking everyone around me “Did he really just say that?” Yes, the President of the United States just gave legitimacy to my struggle as a gay man, and you’re damn right I shed a tear or two in appreciation. Our family returned to D.C. later that winter to be part of a rally at the Supreme Court when the Windsor case was being heard. This was more of a pilgrimage than a road trip. When I was a young man, I couldn’t fathom being comfortable enough with my sexuality to bring a boyfriend home, let alone think about marriage, the most ‘normal’ of American institutions. Now I was a grown partnered man, bringing his kids to the site where history was being made. Your administration’s decision to no longer defend the indefensible DOMA, paved the way for the court’s eventual decision. I just had to be in the room where it happened.

In December 2014, I was honored and surprised to receive an invitation to a White House Christmas reception. Even my mother, who is not a supporter, couldn’t contain her pride. Walking the halls of the White House with a glass of champagne that sparkled in equal measure with my awe, this teacher truly felt that he was in The People’s House. Unable to resist the urge to finally meet you in person, I strategically positioned myself along the receiving line. I cannot imagine that you remember having met me, but frequently find myself secretly hoping that you do. I gave it my best unscripted shot: “I know a lot of people blow smoke up your ass because you’re the President, but I want to keep it real. I’m a gay dad, and my husband is probably behind me snapping photos right now. Our twins were born the day after your inauguration. Our lives have benefitted immeasurably because of your leadership. Anytime the recalcitrant Congress tries to thwart you, I want you to think of me and my family. You are making a difference.” You put your hand on my shoulder and said, “Thank you. That means the world to me.” But really, you had me at hello.

The last two years of your administration have, for the LGBT community, demonstrated a stronger sprint to the finish line than American Pharaoh at Belmont. On the day the Supreme Court issued its decision in Obergerfell v. Hodges (2015), you directed that the White House be illuminated in the colors of the gay flag, a gesture so breathtakingly unbelievable that it left me scouring the Internet to determine its veracity. The photo went viral, sending a message of surreal optimism to gays in all corners of the world. But you didn’t stop with this rainbow exclamation point. This past year, you opened up the military to transgender soldiers and took aim at those who would deny transgendered students access to the bathroom they deem appropriate in public schools. One day transgender intransigence will be in the trash heap of history - next to segregated lunch counters - and we will look back to your actions as the tipping point. As a final salvo, this past June you directed the National Park Service to dedicate Stonewall, the site of riots and arrests of innocent gay people which is widely seen as the dawn of the modern gay rights movement, as the first National Monument focused on LGBT history. We’ve taken our children several times since, each time with a cone from Big Gay Ice Cream Shop, to reflect on just how sweet progress tastes.

Under your stewardship, the United States – long a nation where people viewed the Bible as more of an operations manual than the Constitution – has become an LGBT city upon a hill. If we indeed have to be taught to hate, you have demonstrated - through your family and actions - that by modeling acceptance and tolerance, love can be learned. Incrementalism may not be as flashy as a tweet, but it has proven to be an incredibly effective strategy for change. For your vision, for your resolve in the face of unfathomable obstacles and detractors, and for inspiring everyone to aspire to greatness, I and my family thank you.

See you Tuesday night at your Farewell Address in Chicago.

Much love,

Frank Bua

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 12 hours ago.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Congress will quickly devise a new health-insurance system after moving to repeal the Affordable Care Act in coming days. Reported by Wall Street Journal 20 hours ago.

By Allen Moore*

Just six days before the stunning election of Donald Trump as 45^th President of the United States, an odd discovery was made near a remote Alaskan village: two full grown male moose were found frozen in several feet of water with their horns locked together. These thousand pound giants no doubt became entangled while fighting over a female, and died together. It seems an apt metaphor for what could happen in the next Congress if Republicans and Democrats are unable to find a way to work together.

Many Americans are under the mistaken impression that since Republicans now control the White House and both branches of Congress, they can do whatever they want legislatively. They can’t. They face two challenges: first, the Republicans must figure out how to agree among themselves; and second, at least in the Senate, they must figure out how to bring some Democrats along.

*Healing the Republican Divide*

The Great Recession of 2007-09 blew apart an already fragile Republican coalition. Previously, fiscal and social conservatives found benefit in working together even though their priorities were quite different. The recession gave new impetus to a fledgling “Tea Party” movement of small groups furious about unrestrained federal spending, deficits, and taxes. They were particularly incensed by the massive 2009 “stimulus” spending bill and a law granting financial relief to homeowners whose mortgages were in default, believing it rewarded irresponsible behavior at the expense of those living within their means.

Before long, the movement was attracting a wider circle of disenchanted Republicans, Democrats and Independents incensed over the loss of jobs, homes, home equity, savings, health insurance, and the hopes of a better life for their kids. They also believed that Wall Street bankers who contributed to the economic collapse got a free pass. In the Congressional elections of 2010, about forty Tea Party Republicans were elected, handing Republicans a majority. That was the good news for Republicans. The bad news was that the Tea Party folks said “no” to just about everything.

It was the job of the Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), to keep this disparate band together. When he couldn’t get enough votes from his own party to pass critical legislation like spending bills, Boehner sometimes felt compelled to reach across the partisan aisle for his majority, further infuriating his right flank. His final such act was a year-end spending bill in 2015 after which he stepped down and handed new Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) the job of keeping Republicans together.

Just a few weeks ago, Republicans feared the loss of both the White House and the Senate majority, an electoral blow out of epic proportions. Alas, Donald Trump, with all his flaws and controversies, orchestrated his own blow out. The election results and Mr. Trump’s more measured tone since have drawn back to the Republican fold many of those who opposed his candidacy. They want to be part of this unexpected opportunity. That doesn’t mean it will be easy. “Working with” is not the same as “agreeing with.” And then there’s the matter of the U.S. Senate.

*Finding Democratic Partners in the Senate*

The challenge in the Senate will be to assemble the 60 votes needed to beat filibusters, the lengthy debates for which the Senate is famous…or infamous. You wouldn’t know it from reading the news, but the Senate still gets most of its work done by unanimous consent. The leaders of both parties work out procedural agreements behind the scenes, protecting the rights of individual Senators along the way. Unfortunately, these agreements have become harder to come by in recent years. That usually leaves a choice for the Senate majority– postpone (or give up on) the issue or subject it to unlimited debate. Once a filibuster begins, 60 Senators must agree to end it. The process can take days or weeks.

The last time either party had 60 votes was in 2009, when two Independents joined 58 Democrats to create a “filibuster-proof” majority. The Democrats needed every vote to pass the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). For me, the 60 votes was the “curse of 60” because it allowed Democrats to proceed without any Republican support. If they had taken a different course in the development of healthcare reform and worked with a group of Republicans willing and anxious to participate, the result would likely have been a less ambitious law that enjoyed bipartisan support. Such support would have greatly enhanced the chances of making changes to the underlying law as problems emerged.

The “new” Senate sworn in this January will have 52 Republicans, eight shy of a “filibuster-proof” majority. Therefore, major legislation will need eight Democrats, or even more if any Republicans balk. For example, if President Trump wants a major infrastructure spending bill that is not “paid for” with new revenue or reduced spending elsewhere, he may lose some Republicans. But, he may more than make up for the losses with support from Democrats (the same thing could occur in the House).

Chances for bipartisanship should improve with the elevation of Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as Democratic Leader. Known as a deal-maker, Schumer has also known the President-elect for many years. Schumer also benefits from not being Harry Reid (D-NV), the retiring Democratic leader who did more in the last three years to unite fractured Senate Republicans than anyone could have imagined.

In order to end perceived (and real) Republican obstructionism, Reid led an effort to change long-standing Senate rules and practices by a simple majority. His legacy makes it impossible for Democrats to filibuster controversial Cabinet appointees and federal judgeships below the Supreme Court. Furthermore, by refusing to allow amendments to legislation, Reid got very little done in 2014. His controversial actions so outraged all Republicans that he single-handedly helped get Ted Cruz (R-TX), Susan Collins (R-ME), and John McCain (R-AZ) on the same page. I’m convinced Reid’s actions helped Republicans re-take the Senate majority that fall.

Democrats regularly charge Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) with saying on the day of President Obama’s inauguration in 2009 that Republicans would obstruct everything he tried to do so that he would be a one-term president. He never said it. He did say, two years later, that his top priority was to make the president a one-term president. In the same interview, he expressed a willingness to work with the president on matters for the good of the country if the president would show more flexibility. Sometimes that happened.

It’s hard to think of any Congressional or national Democrat who doesn’t prioritize making Donald Trump a one-term president. That does not mean that they won’t work with him on matters where they can agree. And work together they must if they are to succeed in their sworn duty to advance the economic interests, security imperatives, and legal rights of all Americans. The alternative? Imagine 535 Members of Congress and one president locked in deadly embrace at the bottom of the frozen Potomac come spring.

*About the author:
*Allen Moore* is Senior Advisor at the Stimson Center. He was Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Administration for President Ronald Reagan, senior policy advisor to President Gerald Ford, and policy director for U.S. Senators John Danforth (R-MO) and Bill Frist, M.D. (R-TN).

*Source:*
This article was published by the Stimson Center. Reported by Eurasia Review 22 hours ago.

WASHINGTON Although his signature law is in jeopardy, President Barack Obama's work reshaping health care in America is certain to endure in the broad public support for many of its underlying principles. Notwithstanding growing pains in connection securing some of the promises of the Affordable Care Act, the belief that people with medical problems should be able to get health insurance is no longer challenged. The idea that government should help those who can't afford their premiums has gained acceptance. And the question is how much, and for what kind of coverage. "The American people have now set new standards for access to health care based on the Affordable Care Act," former Surgeon... Reported by WorldNews 16 hours ago.

ATLANTA (AP) — Congressional Republicans' drive to repeal the 2010 health care law has financial and political repercussions for GOP leaders in the states and gives Democrats potential openings as they struggle to reclaim power lost during President Barack Obama's tenure. [...] the law expanded eligibility for Medicaid, the government insurance program for the poorest and many disabled Americans. Changes to the law could quickly impact states' Medicaid budgets, the financial standing of public and private hospitals, and the estimated 20 million Americans who have gained health insurance under the law. State elected officials in both major parties focus on practical effects, but acknowledge that voters' reaction will help shape the midterm elections that will serve as the first electoral barometers of the Trump era. The cycle also will give Democrats a shot at winning back some of the 900-plus state legislative seats they lost since Obama was elected, perhaps rolling back supermajorities the GOP now enjoys in many state capitals. At the federal level, Democrats face a tough path back to a Senate majority, because their caucus must defend 25 seats, including 10 in states Trump won; in the House, Democrats still face district boundaries that favor Republicans nationally. Reported by SeattlePI.com 17 hours ago.

Ron Sachs/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Chris Van Hollen, and US House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi after their gathering with President Barack Obama to strategize on how to counter Republican plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act. 

As we begin 2017, despondency covers America's progressives like a dark and enervating fog. With good reason—these are going to be a hard four years, with a great deal of suffering to come. But perhaps the biggest legislative battle of the Trump administration is beginnning, and it's one Democrats can win, if they're smart about it.

As Republicans themselves are now realizing, it's easy to criticize a complex health-care law when the other party is getting blamed for everything anyone doesn't like about the system, but it's a lot harder to come up with an alternative that won't do real harm to at least some Americans. That's their dilemma, and it provides the opening Democrats need to kill the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

There are only a tiny number of conservatives who actually care about health care at all as a policy issue; it was essentially foisted on them when Barack Obama and congressional Democrats finally succeeded in passing comprehensive reform in 2010 after decades of failure. Since Democrats did care about it, they had spent all that time thinking about the system and how they might like to change it, which included debating amongst themselves and arriving at something like an internal consensus about what compromises had to be made in order to arrive at a practical and politically achievable solution.

The average Republican congressman could tell you a dozen different changes he'd like to make to the tax code, but he and his colleagues haven't had that same internal discussion on health care. Which hasn't been a problem up until now, because he can just say to his constituents, "Obamacare is a disaster! We'll repeal it and replace it! With, you know, something terrific!" If asked to be specific, he'd say, "Um, patient centered, not Washington dictates ... uh ... freedom to buy across state lines ... uh ... did I mention freedom?" They haven't thought much about this issue, and they're now going to be made to defend both repeal and whatever their leaders come up with for a replacement. That's what makes them vulnerable.

It's one thing to keep people from getting something they don't already have, but taking away something people are benefiting from is much harder. Which is why, for instance, Republican governors in most of the South could refuse to accept the ACA's expansion of Medicaid without paying much of a political price; in Texas alone, over a million people could have gotten insurance courtesy of the federal government, but it was more important for Rick Perry and his successor Greg Abbott to give Barack Obama the finger. But now imagine you're a governor in a state that did accept the expansion, like Ohio. If the ACA is repealed, that would mean 714,000 Ohioans on Medicaid because of the expansion would lose their insurance. The news media will be filled with stories of the catastrophic effect it will have on their lives—particularly when people start literally dying, which they will. What was an abstraction will become very real.

That prospect ought to make Republican politicians very afraid.

So Democrats need to remember that the specific things the ACA does are extraordinarily popular—most of them garner about 80 percent support in polls. As Kevin Drum recently wrote, "Even Republicans like practically everything about Obamacare, including the taxes to pay for it. People like the subsidies; they like the exchanges; they like the out-of-pocket caps; they like the Medicaid expansion; they like the pre-existing conditions ban; and they like taxing the rich to fund it all. The only unpopular part of the whole law is the individual mandate." Up until now that got lost amid a haze of Republican scare-mongering (remember "death panels"?) and broad attacks on this vague thing called "Obamacare" that few people understand. But now, every one of those provisions is a weapon that can be wielded against any Republican thinking about supporting repeal.

Which points to a critical thing Democrats need to do now: confront Republican senators and congresspeople, at the local level, with calls and emails, and in person. Every time a member of Congress does a town meeting, he should be asked questions like: Why do you want to re-open the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole"? Why do you want to kick so many people in our state off their health coverage? Why do you want to take away the subsidies that make insurance affordable for so many people? Why do you want to bring back lifetime limits on coverage? Can you promise that under your plan, nobody who has coverage now will lose it? I'm not happy about my out-of-pocket costs, but all the Republican plans look like they'll increase my out of pocket costs—that's what you and your buddies call "skin in the game." Can you promise me that won't happen? I have a pre-existing condition, like most people I know. Right now I don't have to worry—insurance companies can't even ask about it, and they can't charge me more or cancel my coverage because of it. Your plan sounds like it's going to make my life a lot more complicated. Can you promise I won't get screwed over?

The fear of questions like those is what's now leading Republicans to make promises they can't keep. Kellyanne Conway says that "We don't want anyone who currently has insurance to not have insurance." Paul Ryan says, "We will give everyone access to affordable health-care coverage" so that "no one is left out in the cold" and "no one is worse off." But the actual Republican plans will throw millions off their coverage and make most Americans worse off.

If you want to confront your representatives, you need to be armed with the numbers. If you're looking for the number of people in your state who will lose coverage under repeal, here's a source. And here's a study from the Commonwealth Fund showing how many job losses repeal would mean in each state. For example, let's take Nevada, where Senator Dean Heller is up for re-election in 2018. If the ACA is repealed, 264,000 Nevadans will lose their health insurance, including 187,000 who benefited from the Medicaid expansion and 67,000 who receive substantial subsidies. The Commonwealth Fund estimates that repeal would cost Nevada 22,000 jobs. Senator Heller should be forced to justify those losses every time he talks to voters. He should be deluged with calls and letters from his constituents explaining to him how they feel about it. That will most certainly influence his thinking about this issue.

And keep in mind that Republicans' margin in the Senate is only 52-48, which means Democrats only need to frighten three Republican senators out of supporting repeal, and they'll win the battle. Cracks are already showing in Republicans ludicrous "repeal and delay" strategy; as Politico reported on Saturday, "At least a half-dozen GOP senators have now expressed public or private concerns about the party's current trajectory. Their worry: Republicans will be blamed for wreaking havoc on the health care system and causing people to lose their coverage without any assurance they have a superior—or any—plan of their own." But when they do come up with a replacement plan, it will without question provide Democrats all the ammunition they need to make clear how awful the effects will be on Americans' lives.

This is a battle that Democrats can absolutely win. Tens of millions of Americans are depending on them. Reported by The American Prospect 16 hours ago.

This article appears in the Winter 2017 issue of The American Prospect magazine. Subscribe here. 

Donald Trump’s administration will implement large tax cuts and substantial financial deregulation. President Trump may also change U.S. policies on trade, although precisely what he will do is less clear—and the shift may be more rhetorical than real. Trump is also likely to substantially cut or privatize federal spending. To the extent that his policies add up to a coherent economic strategy, they are reminiscent of Ronald Reagan’s, but with an extra dose of cronyism and the wild card of economic nationalism.

Trump himself and several of his key appointees are also poster children for oligarchy and even kleptocracy—government operated to serve the business interests of elites, including top officials. The intermingling of business, family, and government as the Trump administration takes shape unfortunately parallels what I have observed in corrupt developing countries over the past 30 years, including during my time as chief economist for the International Monetary Fund.

Despite emerging contradictions between his presidency and who he purported to be during the campaign, President Trump is likely to please his supporters in the short run. His tax cuts, promoted by supporters for their supposed supply-side benefits, could provide a temporary Keynesian jolt to demand. His gestures on trade, like pressuring Carrier to keep jobs in Indiana, will strike a tough posture and save a very small number of jobs. But over time, Trump supporters—and the rest of the country—will become profoundly disappointed as economic security, opportunity, and prosperity are undermined for most Americans.

 

*Taxing, Spending, and Obfuscating*

Amid this muddle, one thing is clear. There will be a big tax cut for upper-income Americans—this is the implication of Trump’s pledges during the presidential campaign, and this is also what Senate and House Republicans want. Steven Mnuchin, the nominee for Treasury secretary, says there will be no reduction in the amount of tax actually paid by rich Americans—arguing there will also be a limit on the deductions they can take. But the math of Trump’s proposals is quite straightforward, and the result of the planned reductions in personal, corporate, capital gains, and inheritance taxes is that the rich will undoubtedly pay less.

In other words, we will re-run a version of the economic experiment previously conducted in the 1980s under Reagan and again under George W. Bush. James Kwak and I wrote a book, White House Burning, on this issue, and there is really very little disagreement among careful analysts on what happened over the past 30 years. Lower taxes on rich people led to higher post-tax income for them and not much by way of higher incomes for others; inequality went up. Despite supply-side claims, reduced revenues increased budget deficits, giving Republicans a pretext for deeper spending cuts. During the same time period, manufacturing jobs declined, the median wage stagnated, and the job market became increasingly polarized.

Albin Lohr-Jones/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Steven Mnuchin arrives at Trump Tower, in New York.

As for economic insecurity—an issue emphasized by Mr. Trump—this is about to get much worse. Health insurance will be stripped away and partly privatized at the behest of House Republicans, who also hope to turn Medicare into some form of voucher program—effectively reducing benefits for older and lower-income Americans. They may face some resistance from their colleagues in a closely divided Senate, but Medicare already has a (voluntary) voucher component, the so-called Medicare Advantage program, which enrolls about a third of Medicare recipients. To provide greater space for tax cuts, Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (previously known as food stamps) will likely become some form of block grant (a preset transfer amount to state and local government)—which is really just a way to cut these forms of assistance to people in need (many of whom have jobs, but are paid very low wages).

It is literally impossible to have a rational conversation—either about the data or about what happened in our recent economic history—with some leading House Republicans. Now this House Republican belief system appears likely to motivate and guide economic policy—Trump needs their support to pass legislation, and he is working closely with them, including Mike Pence, formerly a leading House Republican, as vice president, and Representative Tom Price, the nominee to be Secretary of Health and Human Services.

As for measuring potential loss of revenue from tax cuts, not to worry—the House Republicans have already changed the rules to reflect so-called “dynamic scoring.”  The Tax Policy Center estimates that under Trump’s tax plan, “federal revenues would fall by $6.2 trillion over the first decade before accounting for added interest costs. Including interest costs, the federal debt would rise by $7.2 trillion over the first decade and by $20.9 trillion by 2036.” But the official scoring by the Congressional Budget Office will likely show no such loss of revenue—because the Republican Congress has already mandated that tax cuts will stimulate economic growth by an enormous (and implausible) amount. The alternative (i.e., distorted) reality of Trump’s campaign rhetoric is about to show up also in the driest possible budget documents.

Watch carefully what happens on “infrastructure.” During the campaign, Trump seemed to support upgrading our national road, rail, and air transportation systems—and the need for renewal across the country goes much deeper. But as more detailed plans become evident, it seems likely that the actual Trump infrastructure program will just be a cover story for tax credits and privatizations—not genuine public infrastructure.

Expect a very large increase in our budget deficit and national debt, exactly as was forecast by reputable analysts during the election campaign. This might provide some short-term stimulus to the economy, as my colleague Olivier Blanchard suggests. In that scenario, there are longer-term problems in the form of higher deficits and more debt. As Blanchard points out, inequality is very likely to increase.

And in light of what has happened since the election, it’s not entirely clear that economic growth will pick up—keep in mind we are already in a recovery and the job creation numbers have been good for a long while (nearly 200,000 net new jobs per month since early 2010). And in recent weeks, stock prices have increased, but the yield on bonds has also jumped higher (up to 2.2 percent on the ten-year Treasury bond on November 15 and now around 2.4 percent; compared with 1.8 percent immediately before the election). This is a big and unexpected move, signaling that investors are worried about the potential impact on inflation.

It has been a long time since we had significant inflation in the United States, and many people seem to have forgotten how unpopular it is. Ronald Reagan told Americans they should care about the “misery index”—the sum of inflation and unemployment. And inflation is almost always bad for people on lower incomes, including pensions (which will not be fully indexed to rising costs). Trump’s supporters will not be so delighted once the full implications of his tax cuts and other macroeconomic policies begin to sink in.

Any Trump boom could also be short-circuited by the deepening crisis in Europe, even without the added assault of Trump-style protectionism. With the fall of the Italian government and Italy on the verge of a banking crisis—on top of the UK’s Brexit (planning to leave the European Union), and the rise of far-right Marine Le Pen in France—the European Union and its elements are coming under increasing pressure.

Ironically, the instigators of Europe’s latest economic crisis are Trump-style populists—and they draw explicit inspiration from Trump’s political brand. But their success will weaken the European economy, and hurt the U.S. economy and Trump’s brand at home.

 

*Financial Deregulation*

House Republicans are dead set on repealing financial regulation—rolling back the rules to what they were before 2008. Excessive financial deregulation leads to a predictable cycle of boom-bust-bailout, in which rich people do very well, and millions of people lose their jobs, their homes, and their futures.

During the last crisis, presumptive Treasury Secretary Mnuchin bought IndyMac, a distressed bank, receiving a great deal of help from the government—and then sold it at a large profit. At the same time, millions of Americans lost everything in the housing crash and their appeals for assistance of any kind fell on deaf ears. In fact, appeals for the reasonable restructuring of loans made by IndyMac were apparently also turned down; this lender has a reputation as ruthless (and careless) in its foreclosure practices.

If the Treasury Department ends up being headed by someone who gains from economic volatility, how careful would officials really want to be? Trump himself spoke of the housing crisis as a great opportunity—for him, that is. Rich and powerful people often do well from extreme booms and busts; most Americans do not.

Deregulating finance is always sold with the claim that it will boost growth, and in the short run perhaps the headline numbers will improve—but only because we do not measure the economy with any regard for macroeconomic risk. If we had risk-adjusted employment and output (and corporate profits) during the George W. Bush years, we would have realized that economic expansion was based on unsustainable risk-taking in the financial sector—manifest in the crisis of September 2008 and the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

respres/Creative Commons

Trump himself spoke of the housing crisis as a great opportunity—for him, that is. If the Treasury Department ends up being headed by someone who gains from economic volatility, how careful would officials really want to be? 

In the House Republican mantra, honed over six years of refusing to cooperate with President Barack Obama, financial deregulation did not contribute to the meltdown of 2008. These congressional representatives fervently believe that growth has been slow because of a supposedly high burden of regulation on business—despite the fact that the United States is one of the easiest places in the world to do business.

In reality, growth has been slow in recent years precisely because the financial crisis was so severe—and deregulation will set us up for another crisis. The question is just how long this will take to become evident to voters.

On finance, as well as on taxes, Trump and the House Republicans are likely to work hard and effectively together—creating what will become a more extreme version of the unequal and unstable George W. Bush–era economy. Expect consequences that are similar to what happened during and after the Bush regime.

 

*Trade*

There were some defects in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), as both presidential candidates discussed during the election campaign. But refusing to implement the TPP agreement or altering the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is not likely to bring back manufacturing jobs—just as gutting the Environmental Protection Agency would not bring back coal.

There is a defensible version of economic nationalism, which includes investing in people (education and opportunities), building public infrastructure, and working to ensure that new technology creates jobs. Transitioning to a lower-carbon and greener economy can create both jobs and exports.

But Trump’s strategy is very far from this. In the short run, Trump may score some points with his supporters by talking tough on trade, although his corporate allies are likely to reduce that to mostly rhetoric. The president is likely to have a number of high-profile photo ops, when he strong-arms (or pays) a few corporations to keep a small number of jobs in the United States. 

The key part of reality missing from Trump’s vision is that manufacturing jobs have disappeared in recent decades primarily because of automation—not because of trade agreements or the supposedly high burden of taxation and regulation on business; again, the United States is one of the best and easiest places in the world to start and run a company.

The surge in imports from China in the early 2000s did have a negative impact on manufacturing, but this effect is hard to undo—and threatening a trade war (or talking on the phone with the president of Taiwan) will either have no significant effect or prove disruptive. Imposing tariffs on Chinese imports will result in retaliation; trade wars do not typically lead to higher growth or better jobs.

And one impact of Trump—a sharp appreciation of the dollar since his election—runs directly against what he wants to achieve. A stronger dollar means it is harder for firms to export from the United States, while imports become cheaper. The U.S. trade deficit (exports minus imports) will increase if the dollar remains at its current level.

If Trump’s fiscal policies push interest rates higher, as currently seems likely—either because of the market reaction or how the Federal Reserve feels compelled to respond—that will further strengthen the dollar and undermine manufacturing jobs in the United States. Again, the question is how long it will take his supporters to notice that Trump oversold them on what he would do. At some point, perhaps, this tips over into the perception that they—and everyone else—have actually been deceived.

 

*Special Interests and Crony Capitalism*

For now, Trump will retain some popularity, courtesy of a fiscal stimulus and economic nationalism. But over a longer period of time, reality will catch up with him. And at the heart of what will go wrong with the Trump administration—in perception and reality—is the role of special interests.

Candidate Trump made a big deal of wanting to “drain the swamp,” by which he meant reducing the power of special interests, including corporate lobbyists. Perhaps his highest-profile pledge in this regard was to introduce term limits for members of Congress—in fact, this was the first in a long list of commitments made in his Gettysburg speech on October 22, 2016. But one day after the election, Mitch McConnell, Republican leader in the Senate, said that there will be no such term limits. This takes the issue completely off the table.

On swamp-related issues more broadly, lobbyists were running Trump’s transition team, and the appointment process looks like a feeding frenzy for special interests, as they compete to get industry-friendly people into key positions and to advance their legislative agenda.

The bad news for the broader economy is that the Trump circle could allocate to themselves tens of billions of dollars, through government contracts, insider trading, and other mechanisms. The U.S. Constitution cleverly creates an intricate set of checks and balances precisely to put constraints on executive authority. But with Republicans in control of the executive branch, the legislature, and much of the judiciary (including the Supreme Court), there will not be much by way of disclosure, let alone effective oversight.

Representative Jason Chaffetz, chair of the powerful House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, says he will further investigate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. How exactly that will help ensure good governance over the next four years is unclear. The potential self-dealing of President Trump, his family, and his colleagues will cry out for serious investigations, but there will be no congressional venue for that unless Democrats take back the House or the Senate in 2018.

The United States is a rich nation, with the most advanced economy, military, and technology the world has ever seen. We also have its most advanced oligarchy. In the Trump iteration, special interests seem likely to focus a great deal of attention on enriching themselves and their friends—“the rules are for other people” seems likely to become the motto of this presidency.

Trump has already indicated that he may pursue foreign policy in ways that advance his (or his family’s) private business interests. And of course, Trump is famously proud of how he legally manipulates the bankruptcy system—a skill he shares with Wilbur Ross (incoming commerce secretary) and Steven Mnuchin (Treasury secretary).

None of these people inspire confidence in the outcomes for the broader economy. Most likely their policies will further enrich powerful insiders, cut effective worker earnings, and add little if anything to the productive economy.

All oligarchs always say the same thing—their projects are good for the country. And in the end, the outcomes are always identical: They have the yachts and the offshore accounts; everyone else gets nothing.

In Why Nations Fail, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson documented the myriad ways in which powerful people around the world help themselves to economic riches and, along the way, undermine political institutions. There is often some short-term growth, seen in the headline numbers, but oligarch-centric economies are never inclusive—and lasting benefits always prove elusive. In fact, as those authors emphasize, oligarchic control is often a prelude to nations running into serious crisis and state failure.

If, by the time of his inauguration, Trump refuses to divest himself from his business interests—and if he continues to refuse to publish his tax returns (which would presumably show the full extent of his foreign relationships)—then we are just another profoundly oligarchic country, albeit with nuclear weapons.

What would be the U.S. role in the world if this happens? Probably we will have little sway. How can you lead other democracies when you are a laughingstock? Some other corrupt countries might want to cooperate, but this is worth very little. We are in the world of G-Zero. No one is in charge and there is chaos in many places. Only people who thrive on chaos will do well. Reported by The American Prospect 16 hours ago.

(Photo: AP/Brad Doherty/Brownsville Herald)

Demonstrators stand in front of the Federal Courthouse in Brownsville, Texas, on March 19, 2015.

Operating room nurse Jose Aguiluz knew that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was only a Band-Aid for his immigration problem. It wasn’t a pathway to citizenship. The benefits it offered were limited, temporary.

But critically to Aguiluz, it was a way out of the shadows. For the first time since he fled Honduras to the United States in 2005, he found himself not having to tell white lies to his friends and peers. With a Maryland driver’s license, Aguiluz didn’t have to pretend that he had environmental reasons for not driving a car. With a work permit and a Social Security number, he worried less about having a run-in with the police. He didn’t have to think about how any and every action he took might lead to his deportation. Aguiluz was even able to visit Honduras without fearing that he would be denied re-entry into the United States.

But the DACA benefits that made Aguiluz feel more secure under President Obama could make him suddenly vulnerable when Donald Trump becomes president. Aguiluz and thousands of DACA recipients trusted the Obama administration with their personal identifying information in a trade-off that gained them short-term security. But in the turnover to Trump’s administration, that same identifying information could now be used against them. It’s one of the many unknowns now burdening DACA recipients, who have no idea how long their work permits might be valid, and who fear transgressions as petty as jaywalking might get them deported. Efforts to protect such immigrants, moreover, face practical and legal barriers.

Trump has pledged to end DACA and to deport between two million and three million “criminal” aliens. Many DACA recipients now wonder whether they even have a future in the United States—in most cases, the only home they have ever known. With no clear sense of how the Trump administration will define criminality, DACA recipients can only speculate over who might be targeted for deportation. To date, the incoming administration has provided no information or clear direction as to what might happen to DACA recipients’ work permits, which have given them access to higher-paying jobs, health insurance, and steadier work.

Trump has vowed big changes in immigration reform. Some high-profile Republicans, such as conservative pundit Ann Coulter, have signaled that they will hold his feet to the fire on DACA and deportations; others, including many in Congress, are casting the GOP immigration agenda in much more moderate terms.

But the absence of specific details or even GOP consensus have triggered near-panic in a group of immigrants who had just started becoming accustomed to disclosing their status as undocumented, and growing less fearful of deportation. Less than a week after Election Day, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and House Democrat Luis Gutierrez flagged a 200 percent increase in calls to mental health hotlines in Illinois. Patrick Magoon, CEO of the Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, warned of a “public health crisis” and released a notice spelling out strategies to support targeted youth, specifically identifying DACA recipients.

Jenniffel Ramirez, a mental health counselor at Alivio Medical Center in Chicago, says DACA recipients’ mental well-being is “even more complex” on the eve of a Trump presidency because they feel they have been misled. DACA recipients “finally had this documentation,” she says. “They finally feel like they belong; they finally start getting jobs; they’re starting in their careers; they have this new car; they finally see this hope.” For these immigrants, she adds, losing all that is “not just taking away a paper, it’s taking away an identity.” Many DACA recipients not only feel misled, according to Ramirez; they feel guilty for trusting the government with their personal information. That’s because many divulged information that now puts other undocumented family members at risk as well.

 

*EVEN THOSE WHO *have not directly benefited from DACA could be exposed under Trump. The state of alarm Ramirez describes has prompted local, state and national leaders to respond. Mayors, college administrators, mental health providers, faith leaders, and lawmakers on Capitol Hill all are scrambling to find ways to protect DACA recipients from deportation. But they face many legal and practical obstacles, and numerous unanswered questions. These include: What will now make these undocumented immigrants deportable?

In order to even qualify for DACA, applicants must prove that they have never been convicted of a felony, a single significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors of any kind. But neither Trump nor any of his announced cabinet nominees has defined clearly who will qualify as a “criminal” alien subject to deportation.

“Criminality is very loosely defined and it changes from state to state,” explains Catalina Velasquez, a DACA recipient who runs Consult Catalina, a business that offers advising services across nonprofit, government, and private sectors. In Maricopa County, Arizona, before the ouster of anti-immigrant Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Velasquez notes, “people were getting three misdemeanors for jaywalking, which equated to a felony. That’s criminality, right?”

Irakere Picon, who is both a DACA recipient and a practicing attorney in Illinois, says it’s not even clear that there are actually two million to three million undocumented immigrants in the United States who have criminal records. “By some accounts, there are as many as 600,000 to 700,000 undocumented immigrants who have either a serious misdemeanor or felony,” says Picon. “So, we have to pay very close attention to that specific proposal—not only because there is some dispute on how we get to the two to three million—but also because of the narrative that it perpetuates of criminal undocumented immigrants.”

Obama has deported more undocumented immigrants—those with criminal records and without—and at a faster rate than any other U.S. president in history. Picon fears that with Obama’s deportation infrastructure already in place, Trump could target immigrants with simple traffic violations, or who committed small misdemeanors as youths but are now building families and setting down roots.

Also, no one knows what might happen to DACA recipients’ work permits. As a general rule, the permits last two years, but some will expire sooner. “What is unclear is whether or not U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)—under the direction of [a new] executive order or the secretary of Homeland Security—would attempt to collect any work permits that are currently valid before they’re set to expire,” explains Picon.

There is precedent for revoking permits before they expire, says Picon. When Obama attempted to expand DACA and protect its recipients’ parents with a program called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) in November 2014, USCIS started issuing three-year protected work permits to immigrants under the DACA program. But a federal judge in Texas blocked both DAPA and the DACA expansion in February 2015. Nevertheless, USCIS continued to issue three-year permits to DACA recipients even after the injunction. When the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked in reviewing the case in June 2016, the 4–4 split effectively ended Obama’s plan to expand DACA and implement DAPA via executive order. The upshot is that that any three-year work permits issued after the February 2015 injunction were deemed to have been issued in error, and USCIS has declared that they should either be returned by mail or physically handed in to a Department of Homeland Security office.

As for the estimated 740,000 individuals who have DACA status and two-year work permits under the original executive order, says Picon, it’s not clear whether they will now be required to submit those permits physically, or whether USCIS under the Trump administration will simply unilaterally revoke them.

If DACA work-permit holders are required to immediately return their permits, both the permit-holders and their employers will be forced to decide what will happen to their jobs. But, if Trump ends DACA but lets the work permits expire on their own, then DACA work permit-holders will have time—up to two years, in some cases—to find new work or to make plans for future employment. If the administration simply lets work permits expire, that gives DACA recipients up to two years to decide what to do—whether to keep a job that is no longer legal, find a job that they can’t be hired for legally, petition the government for changes in the law, be unemployed, or voluntarily leave the country.

“Some people were able to buy new cars, get their first mortgage on their homes, and so if they’re now left without the security of a job or at least the opportunity to secure employment, then there are other collateral consequences to having the work permit terminated,” says Picon.

Those preparing for worst-case scenarios under Trump’s administration are proposing a variety of untested options to protect undocumented immigrants. Leading the way are cities. Before the election, 17 cities, including Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York, already had sanctuary-like policies in place that bar police from questioning an individual’s immigration status. Since Election Day, many other cities and counties have declared themselves sanctuaries, pledging to defy Trump’s deportation intentions through protective policies for their residents.

Mayor Emanuel delivered a letter to Trump on December 7 that was signed by 14 other mayors, requesting that he continue DACA protections under his administration. Emanuel also advised the president-elect and his advisers of the benefits of DACA, the moral obligation against a “bait and switch” directed at young immigrants, and the importance of sanctuary cities. The previous week, Emanuel had created a legal fund of $1 million to provide more legal resources for immigrant families threatened with deportation.

Trump, for his part, has pledged to end sanctuary cities by cutting off federal funding. Now that significant portions of their budgets are at risk, it’s unclear what actions sanctuary cities might be willing to take.

Places of worship and college campuses have stepped in, too. Petitions are spreading across campuses calling on administrators to protect undocumented immigrants and other minority groups by refusing to release confidential information or to cooperate with law enforcement in identifying undocumented immigrants.

It’s a matter of speculation whether colleges could be legally forced to release private information of students’ immigration status. Hundreds of houses of worship are also promising safe harbor for undocumented immigrants facing deportation. Churches already have a long tradition of housing undocumented immigrants and refusing to cooperate with law enforcement agencies unless an arrest warrant is presented.

With only a few weeks until Trump takes office, House Democrats are petitioning Obama to use his power of presidential pardon to protect DACA recipients. The White House’s stance is that the president cannot grant undocumented immigrants any legal status via clemency, and that only Congress has that power.

It’s not even clear whether presidential pardons could cover civil offenses related to immigration, such as overstaying a visa or other forms of illegal entry. The Justice Department maintains that only federal criminal offenses may be pardoned by Obama.

Those who are pushing for presidential pardons acknowledge that it would not give DACA recipients legal immigration status. If the Trump administration rescinds DACA, those previously protected under the program would once again have no form of documentation or work authorization. A presidential pardon might, however, allow those previously protected under DACA—whose information is now known by the government—to live in the United States without the fear of impending removal.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, is drafting legislation—along with fellow GOP Senator Jeff Flake, of Arizona, and many Democrats—to extend legal protections for DACA recipients. Though not finalized, Graham’s bill would not offer DACA recipients citizenship. Depending on its final form, the proposed bill may remove the threat of deportation and continue legal status and work protections for those currently protected by DACA.

“I know, firsthand, that immigration transcends political parties,” says Catalina Velasquez. “I know that President-elect Trump ran a campaign on a stance on immigrants and building a wall and getting rid of folks. But, I also know that President Bush proposed comprehensive immigration reform. I also know that it was a Republican who passed the last amnesty in the eighties. We know as a community, so enough with the political games. Help us preserve our dignity.” Reported by The American Prospect 16 hours ago.

WASHINGTON ― There’s little doubt that Republicans are going to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but Democrats want to make it as politically damaging for them as possible.

On Monday night, Senate Democrats plan to stay up late, delivering floor speeches and Facebook Live broadcasts attacking the Republicans’ drive to dismantle President Barack Obama’s signature health care law. They will also pressure Republicans over their push to defund Planned Parenthood and to make significant cuts to entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) organized the effort, which will include multiple conference calls with a range of groups from Families USA, to Planned Parenthood, to the Service Employees International Union. Several dozen Democratic senators are expected to participate.

Republicans have said they want to have Obamacare repeal legislation ready to send to the White House soon after President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Jan. 20. But last week, a growing number of Republican senators expressed concern over congressional leaders’ willingness to repeal the law without having a replacement, or at least a framework, ready to go.

“We are taking to the floor and social media to denounce this plan and warn the American people that the Democrats will be fighting tooth and nail against this potentially catastrophic move,” Schumer said in a statement provided to The Huffington Post.

Monday’s show of force is an effort by Democrats to capitalize, in particular, on that rift among Republicans.

“We cannot allow Republicans to make America sick again by repealing the ACA without a replacement plan that will ensure millions of Americans are not kicked off of their insurance, seniors do not face cuts to their Medicare, women are not denied access to care because of their gender, and many other groups, including Medicaid recipients, rural hospitals and more, do not suffer,” Schumer said. “Right now, the GOP’s plan would put the insurance companies back in the driver’s seat and create chaos in the system instead of affordable care.”

On Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that “no action is not an option” on Obamacare. Speaking on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” McConnell wouldn’t predict when his party would come up with a replacement, only that it would be done “rapidly.”

But the “first step” to repealing the Affordable Care Act “will be taken in the Senate by the end of this week,” he said.

Congressional Democrats have few tools at their disposal and cannot actually stop the repeal. Still, they hope to capture the public’s attention by pointing to the 30 million Americans who stand to lose health insurance if the law is gutted.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 13 hours ago.

TruHearing partners with 25 health plans to provide low-cost hearing aid benefits

Draper, Utah (PRWEB) January 09, 2017

As of Jan. 1, 2017 more than 1.25 million Americans have access to a hearing aid benefit through 25 Medicare Advantage health plans across the United States. The benefit is provided through TruHearing, which has partnered with both national and regional health insurance companies to save their Medicare Advantage members thousands of dollars off the cost of hearing aids.

The new plan benefit, known as TruHearing Select, offers high-quality, smartphone-compatible hearing aids for copayments of $699 or $999 or less* per hearing aid, depending on the hearing aid selected. This represents a significant cost savings in out-of-pocket expenses for health plan members. A National Academies of Sciences report on hearing aid affordability found that the average retail price of hearing aids is approximately $2,300 each.

“The high cost of hearing aids is often a barrier that prevents people from addressing their hearing loss,” said Tommy Macdonald, TruHearing CEO. “We have worked very hard with our health plan partners to develop an affordable benefit that will allow more people to afford high-quality hearing aids and enjoy a renewed quality of life.”

The new benefit takes effect at a time when there is pressure in the hearing industry to make hearing aids more affordable. An estimated 48 million Americans experience some form of hearing loss, and only about 30% of them address the problem. Although the high cost of hearing aids has historically prevented many health insurance companies from offering hearing aid coverage, TruHearing’s approach allows health plans to offer a hearing aid benefit for as low as $0.10 per member per month while still delivering high-end hearing aids and local professional care to their members.

“It’s a win-win,” Macdonald said. “Our partners are able to offer a valuable benefit at a low cost, and their members have a more affordable way to treat their hearing loss.”

The benefit may be used for up to two hearing aids per calendar year, and it includes a routine hearing exam and three follow-up visits for fitting and adjustments. The TruHearing program also includes a 45-day trial period, a three-year extended warranty, and 48 batteries per aid.

In addition to the Select program, TruHearing offers a variety of low and no-cost solutions that can be optimized to meet any health plan need. These include hearing aid allowances, limited formulary solutions, as well as the Value Added Items & Service (VAIS) TruHearing Choice program. The Choice program, which is offered by more than 60 regional and national health plans, saves members up to 60% off the retail price of name-brand hearing aids at no cost to the health plan.

For more information about TruHearing’s benefit and VAIS programs, visit https://www.truhearing.com.

*Copayment amounts vary by plan

About TruHearing
TruHearing works with more than 60 managed care organizations across the country. Its mission is to help make hearing aids more affordable by partnering with health plans to provide hearing aid coverage to Americans with hearing loss. TruHearing has a contracted network of more than 4,800 provider locations, delivering the latest technology in hearing aids with local, personalized service. For more information, visit https://www.truhearing.com. Reported by PRWeb 13 hours ago.

Multi-Year Program to Provide Resources and Growth Opportunities to Develop a Generation of Health Transformers

San Francisco, CA (PRWEB) January 09, 2017

StartUp Health, which is organizing and supporting a global army of Health Transformers to achieve 10 Health Moonshots, today announced a long-term partnership with Allianz, one of the world’s largest insurance companies with operations in over 70 countries, to develop and commercialize digital companies around the world focused on improving global health. The partnership with Allianz supports StartUp Health’s 25-year goal of improving the health and wellbeing of everyone in the world.

Allianz and StartUp Health will co-develop a Custom Innovation Portfolio of at least two dozen companies over the next three years and select leading entrepreneurs from StartUp Health’s Moonshot Academy, StartUp Health’s Network of nearly 10,000 startups and through strategic Calls for Innovations. The companies will focus on solutions to critical health issues on individual, community and global levels. Specific themes for the Portfolio will be announced after a Call for Innovations in early 2017, inviting entrepreneurs from around the world to apply at http://www.startuphealth.com.

"We are very excited to partner with StartUp Health. By combining their mindset and energy with Allianz's global strength and expertise, we look forward to fostering digital innovation in health service on a global scale and advancing moonshot thinking,” said Solmaz Altin, Chief Digital Officer of Allianz Group.

Steven Krein, co-founder and CEO of StartUp Health said, “We have a perfectly aligned vision with Allianz -- to build things that matter and that will make a significant global impact. This is the same spirit shared by so many entrepreneurs who are passionately working on solutions that will transform health.”

Unity Stoakes, co-founder and president of StartUp Health said, “We’re thrilled to partner with Allianz to help emerging health companies innovate and grow. Virtually every aspect of health is being re-imagined and there’s no better way to speed up the cycles of innovation than to connect entrepreneurs with ongoing support, expertise and resources to grow their business.”

StartUp Health’s has built the world’s largest digital health portfolio with more than 180 companies spanning five continents, 17 countries and 60+ cities. To date, 11 of its companies have been acquired by companies including Intel, WebMD, Under Armour and Zimmer Biomet and its companies have raised over $640M of funding since 2012. StartUp Health’s diverse portfolio is currently comprised of 40% “doctorpreneurs,” 30% female founders and one-third serial entrepreneurs.

About Allianz
Allianz Group is a global financial services provider with 85 million retail and corporate clients in more than 70 countries. Allianz is among the Top 5 Life & Health insurance companies worldwide. In fiscal year 2015 around 142,000 employees worldwide achieved total revenues of 125.2 billion Euro and an operating profit of 10.7 billion Euro.

About StartUp Health
In 2011, StartUp Health introduced a new model for transforming health by organizing and supporting a global army of entrepreneurs called Health Transformers. StartUp Health is investing in 10 Health Moonshots with the long-term goal of improving the health and wellbeing of everyone in the world. With the world's largest digital health portfolio (more than 180 companies spanning 5 continents, 17 countries and 60+ cities), StartUp Health's long-term platform for entrepreneurs includes StartUp Health’s Moonshot Academy, StartUp Health’s Moonshot Partner Network, and StartUp Health’s Moonshot Media Network. StartUp Health was founded by Steven Krein and Unity Stoakes and is chaired by former Time Warner CEO, Jerry Levin. StartUp Health's notable strategic partners and investors include AARP, Accenture, Allianz, Aurora Health Care, California Health Care Foundation, Children's Hospital Colorado, University of Colorado, UCHealth, Steve Case, Mark Cuban, Esther Dyson, Brad Feld, Genentech, GE Ventures, Janssen Research & Development, LLC., Kaiser Permanente Ventures, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and SeventySix Capital. Learn more at http://www.startuphealth.com. Reported by PRWeb 10 hours ago.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Yes, Donald Trump is taking charge and Republicans control both the House and Senate, having won an election promising to repeal President Barack Obama's health care law. [...] in Congress, getting from Point A to point B rarely consists of a straight line, and Democrats in the Senate can easily gum up the works with procedural blockades. Since Republicans hold the Senate with just 52 votes, they are forced to employ an arcane, fast-track budget process to avoid a Democratic filibuster. The budget plan is mainly illustrative, but its passage permits binding follow-up legislation to actually repeal the 2010 health care law. The ensuing repeal legislation — a budget "reconciliation" bill in Washington-speak — would be written by a handful of House and Senate committees with jurisdiction over health issues. [...] that could mean too many people who are sick or have pre-existing maladies sign up, while healthier people stay away from the health insurance plans that are available on the law's state exchanges. The Trump team promises to use them to undo whatever Obama policies they can but also to try to smooth the transition for insurance markets that may struggle in the aftermath of Obamacare's repeal. Reported by SeattlePI.com 8 hours ago.

For tens of millions of Americans, the start of a new year means the counter has gone back to zero on their health insurance deductible. If they need health care, they’ll pay for some of it out of their own pockets before their insurance takes over. As insurance plans with deductibles grow in popularity, a new study takes a national look at what those plans mean for people with common chronic health conditions. Reported by Science Daily 4 hours ago.

*Rebecca White really didn't enjoy being yelled at all day. *

In her job as a telephone support representative for a bank, White — a Louisville, Kentucky, educator — had to contend with abusive colleagues, monotony, and patchy training that left her baffled by customer questions she was often unable to answer.

It was a job she felt she had to take. Struggling through a series of part-time teaching gigs left her with inadequate care for her diabetes and kidney problems. Relying on Planned Parenthood and other free or low-cost clinics for basic treatment was not working anymore. The job offered her health insurance — even as it left her glued to her chair for hours at a time, exacerbating her medical issues.

Photo via iStock.

"It was really rough on me to be as immobile as you have to be. There's no moving around," White says.

A month after the most recent legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was struck down by the Supreme Court in June 2015, White quit her job.

She now receives insurance through Kentucky's Kynect exchange while working part-time as a substitute teacher and launching her own tutoring business. Emotionally — and physically — she's in a better, more secure place.

*Before the Affordable Care Act, if you got seriously sick, and didn't want to go bankrupt, having a have a full-time job with a good health plan attached was essential.*

In 2008, a Harvard Business School study estimated that 11 million Americans were stuck in jobs they would prefer to change or leave because those jobs offered health care coverage.

In the years since ACA's passage, millions of those Americans have been able to leave those jobs and try something new.

Photo via iStock.

An analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research found a 10% increase in voluntary part-time workers since the first quarter of 2013. It's a figure that includes people, like White, who suddenly found themselves free to leave toxic or harmful work environments to pursue alternate or self-employment as well as others who discovered that working a series of projects, rather than a single full-time job, was a boon to their career growth and personal lives.

*James Sasek, an IT worker in Des Moines, Iowa, discovered that the flexibility to jump from project to project afforded by his ACA insurance allows him to better balance work and family.*

Sasek found access to the ACA's health insurance market invaluable after his wife was laid off from her banking job shortly after giving birth to their second child. The law allowed him to leave his own frustrating job and go freelance, something both he and his wife had long desired.

"Our plan is to take advantage of our gaps in employment to enjoy our kids' childhood with them," he said. "If one of us has a few months off between gigs, it's a really great and unique opportunity."

In addition to the flexibility to spend time with his family, Sasek explained that he earns more money in his freelance gigs than he did in his old jobs and that the ability to take on a diverse array of projects allows him to consistently add new skills to his resume.

*For David Rigano, a theater director and playwright in New York City, the ACA was both a hurdle and a blessing. *

After graduating from college, Rigano took a part-time job at Trader Joe's to secure a steady income and health insurance. When the ACA was passed, he was informed that he would need to scale up his hours to stay on his employer's health plan. Instead, he transferred to a plan on the exchange, which allowed him to continue to work a part-time schedule that helped him pursue directing and writing jobs.  

David Rigano (right) and brother Paul (left), performing in New York City. Photo by Tiffany Doris Kaldenbach/Facebook.  

"I learned a lot that year about applying for insurance as a freelancer whose work from year to year changes," he said.

With the freedom to work any job — not just one that offered him insurance — he landed a gig as a guest services representative at New York's Lincoln Center, which doesn't offer a health plan, and left Trader Joe's in December. His new job offers him a steady paycheck in his chosen field and lets him do personal projects on the side.

*Some of the same folks are nervous that the law's repeal will jeopardize the gains they've made in their lives and careers.*

Nearly 16.4 million people have gained insurance coverage since the ACA was passed in 2010. The law has enabled many of them, like White, Sasek, and Rigano, to make big changes in their personal and professional lives.

Unsurprisingly, the prospect of seeing the law scaled back — or done away with altogether — is setting their nerves on edge.

"If we go back to pre-ACA, my family will have to work more, have less choice in jobs, and spend less time with our children," Sasek said. It's a message he frequently relays to his local and national legislators.

Without coverage on the ACA's health care exchange, Sasek explained, either he or his wife would have to find work that offers it, giving them less flexibility to chart their careers or spend time with their kids.

White, meanwhile, worries about returning to a job that mistreats her. "Even if I can find one — and I looked a good long time before I got the bank job — if this is accompanied by the economy tanking again, and I'm pretty sure it will, things will just be a disaster," she said.

*As the 115th Congress debates what to do with the ACA, the people who depend on it are waiting and watching.*

With a Republican administration incoming, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has vowed to repeal and replace Obamacare this year. While the repeal part is self-explanatory, it is unclear what a potential replacement would look like.

Photo via iStock.

For now, Rigano's theater career is on the upswing. In recent years, he's seen more paying directing jobs and is mounting a production of a new science-fiction musical in New York.

That trajectory, he worries, is what's at stake for him in the coming months.

"I think that a complete repeal without something comparable replacing it will result in a lot of people who need to find jobs and can't build careers," he said. A vastly scaled-back Obamacare would leave him with a tough choice: to compromise his goals for the sake of his health.

Like many of the law's beneficiaries, he hopes he doesn't have to choose any time soon.


Reported by Upworthy 7 hours ago.

As Washington grapples with the fate of the Affordable Care Act, a pair of health care researchers has proposed a new way to design health insurance plans that could win bipartisan support -- and has already started to do so. Reported by Science Daily 35 minutes ago.

With the Trump inauguration just over 10 days away, attention has now shifted to what Trump will do the moment he steps foot in the White House, and as The Hill reported this morning, judging by his campaign promises, Donald Trump will be a busy man starting on his first day in the Oval Office: "Trump has pledged to take sweeping, unilateral actions on Jan. 20 to roll back President Obama’s policies and set the course for his administration. Many of Obama’s policies he can reverse with the simple stroke of a pen."

The Hill then lays out some of the key agenda items in terms of Immigration, Environment, Lobbying, Trade and Healthcare.

The reality, however, is a bit more nuanced than captured in the report, and has to take into consideration not only what Trump's intentions are, but how they would integrate with Congress, where simply  structural limitations could put hurdles ahead of the Trump agenda.

So, for a more comprehensive preview of what Trump can - *and can not do *- both on day one, and for the rest of 2017, we present a recent analysis by Alec Phillips of Goldman Sachs (which, now that Trump has surrounded himself with Goldman alumni will be as critical when it comes to fiscal policy as Goldman was when it came to advising the Federal Reserve on monetary policy), which notes that the political agenda for 2017 is starting to take shape, *with tax reform and Obamacare repeal seemingly at the top of the agenda. *

Trump will be delighted to know that both items can be passed without Democratic support via the budget reconciliation process.

Obamacare repeal is first on the list. The Senate has already taken the first steps in the process, and the repeal legislation is expected to become law by February. However, *Obamacare replacement legislation is apt to take much longer, particularly because it will require bipartisan support*.

*Tax reform process is expected to begin in earnest in late March or April in the House*. The hotly debated “border adjustment” and limitations on interest deductibility in its proposal to be retained in the next version of the proposal. That said, while some limit on interest deductibility is likely to be enacted, there is only a 30% chance that the border adjustment proposal will be enacted this year according to Goldman.

*The outlook for other issues is murkier*. While infrastructure was discussed often during the campaign, there has been little congressional focus on it thus far, and it is possible that the program will be limited to package of tax incentives for public-private partnerships.  Trade policy is also harder to predict. President-elect Trump will have authority to impose tariffs and has raised the possibility since the election. In the near-term, we expect the Trump Administration to focus on more targeted actions—antidumping duties and the like—but the threat of tariffs is not expected to recede, either.

It is also worth noting, *that the policy focus so far has been on the areas of greatest agreement between congressional Republicans and the incoming administration, namely tax reform, regulatory relief, and Obamacare repeal. *It is not yet clear what the political dynamic will look like when the agenda moves to areas where the Trump Administration’s views diverge from congressional Republicans. If President-elect Trump’s popularity continues to improve, he could bring many Republicans around to his position on key issues (Exhibit 1). If not, the President-elect could find it hard to pass some of his priorities in Congress.

Exhibit 1: President-elect Trump’s popularity lags other winners, but is increasingLikewise, it is not yet clear how much congressional Democrats will work with the incoming administration and the Republican majority, nor is it clear whether Republicans will seek bipartisan support in areas where they might be able to pass legislation without it. There is reason to believe that bipartisan support will be possible on some issues, as several Democratic members of the Senate who face reelection in 2018 represent states that heavily supported Mr. Trump in the presidential election. That said, there are also a few Republicans who represent states he did not win (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2: Red-state Democrats, Blue-State RepublicansHere a caveat: exogenous events often shape the agenda in unpredictable ways. Domestic or foreign economic developments could influence policy decisions, and geopolitical events could alter the current agenda. So while the preliminary assessment of what Trump's political agenda for the coming year may look like, events are likely to change the outlook.

Overall, how Goldman - both as a research provider and administration advisor - thinks about the policy agenda, is in three general categories.

· First, there are a number of issues that the incoming administration can address, at least partially, without congressional approval.
· Second, there are a number of major pieces of legislation that look likely to be enacted with only simple majorities in Congress, i.e., with only Republican support.
· The third group consists of issues that will require 60 votes in the Senate, and therefore bipartisan support.

So, without further ado, let's find out what Trump can and can not do in the coming weeks and months.

** * * *

*The President can do some big things without Congress *

The most important and most obvious area where the president has a fairly free hand is in foreign policy, which is beyond the scope of this article but is an area where the president has broad discretion. Beyond this, three other areas are likely to be a focus over the coming year:

*Regulatory matters*: The Trump Administration will have significant discretion in revising regulations promulgated during the Obama Administration, subject to a few general constraints: they must follow federal rulemaking procedures, which can often take over a year to finalize a regulation; they must remain within the bounds of the laws Congress has enacted—regulatory actions are generally about filling in the missing details in the laws that Congress has passed; and Obama Administration appointees might continue to serve at independent agencies or commissions after inauguration, as their terms do not follow the four-year presidential cycle. That said, we expect to see the Trump Administration attempt to modify some of the Obama Administration’s regulatory initiatives.

*Trade*: While Congress has the constitutional role to determine tariffs, over time it has delegated much of this authority to the president. As a result, the president has fairly broad authority to impose tariffs under US law, though not under international trade rules.[2] First, under the Trade Act of 1974, the president may impose up to 15% tariffs for up to 150 days to address a balance of payments deficit, without any claim of unfair trade practices. Second, if a trading partner is seen to be engaging in unfair practices, the same law allows the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), acting on behalf of the president, to modify tariff rates when it finds the trading partners are violating trade agreements or foreign trade policy “restricts United States commerce”. More generally, the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 was used by President Nixon to impose a temporary 10% tariff; along with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, this would appear to give the Trump Administration the authority it would need to raise tariffs.

Additional trade restrictions are likely, in our view. CNN reported in December that the Trump transition team has considered a 5% or 10% tariff. However, in the near term, we expect that the Trump Administration will pursue more traditional trade remedies, such as additional antidumping and countervailing duties on particular categories of imports, new WTO complaints against trade practices, a determination that China has manipulated its currency, and an attempt at renegotiating the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It also seems likely that the attention that President-elect Trump has put on individual companies decisions to locate production in the US might relieve the political pressure to follow through on his campaign rhetoric. That said, the effectiveness of this tactic may fade, and tariffs could once again come onto the table.

*Immigration*: The president enjoys substantial but not unlimited discretion on immigration policy, as President Obama demonstrated through his executive orders to establish a program of “deferred action” that would allow roughly 5.7 million unauthorized immigrants to receive a temporary exemption from deportation and permit work. While the initial phase of this program has been implemented, subsequent phases representing about 70% of total eligibility have been blocked in federal court. President-elect Trump emphasized the deportation of unauthorized immigrants during the campaign, but in his plan for his first 100 days, he has pledged to begin removing unauthorized immigrants with criminal records but has not specified plans for others. By contrast, the President-elect cannot build his proposed wall on the US-Mexico border without new funding. Congressional Republicans may include new appropriations for such a project in the next federal spending bill that needs to be enacted by April 28.

Beyond the specific authorities the president has, President-elect Trump seems likely to use the “bully pulpit” to bring about change through informal means, as other presidents have done before him. So far, public pressure has been put on companies to locate production in the US and to seek better pricing on government contracts, but we would expect other areas of focus as well.

Exhibit 3 lists the President’s “Contract with Voters”, which includes several items that can be accomplished through executive action but involves significant legislative activity as well.

Exhibit 3: President-elect Trump’s “Contract with Voters” 
*Major pieces of the agenda can be accomplished with only Republican support *

In the Senate, legislation often needs 60 votes to overcome procedural obstacles the minority party can create. However, there are three notable exceptions, all of which look likely to come into play over the next few months

*Presidential nominations: *With the exception of Supreme Court justices, it takes 51 votes to confirm presidential nominees in the Senate. This has not always been the case; it has traditionally taken a supermajority of 60 votes to confirm all presidential nominations, but Senate Democrats changed the rules in 2013 to require only 51 votes for all nominations except Supreme Court justices. This is likely to help expedite the confirmation process, but the timing of confirmations will depend mainly on how controversial certain nominees are. For reference, since the Carter Administration, the majority of cabinet nominations were approved within a few days of inauguration. This is possible because most nominations are announced informally before the president-elect takes office, allowing the relevant committees time to review the potential nominees and to hold confirmation hearings (the Senate will hold hearings on several nominees the week of January 9; see Exhibit 4). However, from time to time nominations encounter problems, and can take significantly longer. At the start of the Obama Administration, four cabinet-level appointments took longer than one month to confirm, in some cases because the original nominees withdrew from the process after problems. In light of the need to confirm not just cabinet appointments but hundreds of nominees at lower levels, the Senate is likely to spend a good deal of its time over the next few months on confirmations.

Exhibit 4: Most nomination hearings will occur over the next two weeks*Reversal of certain regulatory actions: *The Congressional Review Act (CRA) allows Congress to overturn recently issued regulations by passing a resolution in the House and Senate with protections similar to the reconciliation process, i.e., limited debate and a simple majority vote in the Senate. This process has rarely been used, because it still requires presidential approval, and presidents are unlikely to sign a resolution overturning one of their own regulatory initiatives. The exception to this is at the start of the new administration, where a new president has the opportunity to enact legislation overturning some of the prior administration’s most recent regulations. Timing is important: the CRA applies only to regulations finalized within 60 legislative days of the end of the last session of Congress, which the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates covers regulations issued after June 13, 2016. For such regulations, Congress will have a limited period in 2017 to overturn Obama Administration regulations using this expedited procedure; the exact date depends on a number of procedural issues, but Congress would probably have until sometime in June 2017 to take advantage of this process. We would expect to see regulations identified fairly quickly in the House, with passage of legislation to overturn several regulations in late January and February. In the Senate, where each resolution of disapproval would still be subject to up to 10 hours of debate, the process would proceed more slowly and would compete for time with more pressing matters, such as presidential nominations, budget legislation, Obamacare repeal, and tax reform. The particular regulations that might come under review are not entirely clear, but we expect an initial focus over the next few weeks on energy and environmental-related regulations, particularly those issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

*Fiscal legislation: *The “budget reconciliation” process allows the majority party to instruct various committees to pass legislation to achieve certain fiscal targets, for example to reduce the deficit by a certain amount over the next ten years. These instructions, along with spending and revenue targets, are included in the annual budget resolution that Congress is supposed to pass by April of each year. Legislation passed pursuant to these instructions enjoys procedural protections in the House and Senate; most importantly, it is immune to filibuster in the Senate and thus needs only 51 votes to pass. The budget resolution can provide instructions to pass as many as three reconciliation bills, one dealing with tax or revenue changes, one dealing with spending changes, and one dealing with the debt limit. This year, tax reform is likely to be addressed through reconciliation, as are changes to the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). It is possible that congressional leaders might also consider using this process to address infrastructure funding, certain entitlement program reforms, or the debt limit increase that appear to be necessary by Q3.

Exhibit 5: A Multi-Step Budget Process*Repeal of the Affordable Care Act: *Congressional Republicans plan to approach the replacement of Obamacare in two steps, with repeal coming first and legislation to replace the program considered much later—possibly this year, but possibly not until 2018. Regarding the first step, congressional Republicans will use the 2017 budget process to instruct the committees that oversee the program to pass "reconciliation" legislation that repeals most of the major fiscal aspects of the law, i.e., the subsidies for plans sold on exchanges, the expansion of the Medicaid program, and the new taxes used to pay for these subsidies, including the mandate to enroll in health insurance and the penalties for those who do not. Two sets of policies look likely to remain intact: first, the prohibition on limitations on coverage of pre-existing health conditions and the related limitation on premium variation based on health and demographic factors and, second, the reductions in annual increases in Medicare payments to health care providers, which produced substantial budgetary savings used to offset part of the cost of new subsidies (Exhibit 6).

Exhibit 6: Most of the Affordable Care Act would be repealed under GOP plans*Tax reform: *Legislation to reform the individual and corporate income tax systems looks likely to be the most important item on the agenda in 2017, and we expect it to become law by Q3 or, if delayed, Q4. However, it is not yet entirely clear how tax reform will be considered. There are two general options. First, Republican leaders could attempt to consider one aspect of tax reform, such as corporate tax reform, outside of the reconciliation process. Corporate reform is more likely to win bipartisan support than individual reform, where distributional issues often lead to partisan differences. This would also make it easier to enact permanent corporate tax reform, which could be difficult under reconciliation since budget rules require that any provisions in reconciliation legislation must be budget-neutral after the first ten years. That said, passing corporate and individual reform together via the reconciliation process would also have advantages, as there is significant interaction between the two systems, and because it is unclear whether Democratic support for corporate tax reform would ultimately materialize. Ultimately, we expect congressional Republican leaders to initially seek Democratic support, but expect that tax reform will ultimately move through the reconciliation process with mostly Republican votes.

In our view, there are four major questions regarding the outcome of tax reform:

· *Destination-based border-adjusted tax: *We believe there is roughly a 30% probability that the House proposal regarding “border adjustment” will be enacted. [3]This policy would deny the deduction for costs related to imported goods or services for US companies, and would exclude foreign revenue from US tax. That said, our expectation is that this policy will be included in the next iteration of the proposal, which we expect the House Ways and Means Committee to release some time before it votes on the legislation, which we expect around April. This is likely to lead market participants to ascribe a higher probability to passage this spring than is perceived today. Later in the year—probably by June—we expect the Senate to begin acting on tax reform, and believe there will be enough Republican uncertainty regarding the border-adjustment proposal that it will be dropped form the final version. That said, a 30% chance is not a zero probability; in light of strong support from House Republican leaders, it is conceivable that if President-elect Trump pushes strongly for the provision and various exemptions and transition rules are provided to affected industries, a watered-down version of the provision could become law.
· *Interest deductibility and depreciation policy: *In contrast to the destination-based tax, changes to interest deductibility and the depreciation of capital investment appears fairly likely, as lawmakers have debated such changes for years and incremental options are available. In our view, there are three basic options lawmakers will have to choose from. First, existing debt could be grandfathered and existing capex could continue to be depreciated on the existing schedules, with the denial of interest deductions and the full expensing of capital investment only applying to activity going forward. Second, since a grandfathering could be administratively complex, lawmakers might decide to phase out the old system and transition to the new system over several years (e.g. 10 years). Third, if such a change is seen as too radical, lawmakers might provide taxpayers a one-time choice of remaining under the current system (full interest deduction, partial depreciation deductions) or to move to the new system, similar to what President-elect Trump proposed during the campaign.
· *Repatriation: *We believe a tax on “deemed repatriation” is quite likely as part of any tax reform package that becomes law this year, with a rate of between 8% and 10% on repatriated cash and a lower rate on earnings that have been reinvested abroad.
· *Tax rate: *Our view continues to be that a statutory tax rate of around 25% appears most likely, as it is around the OECD average and would substantially reduce the tax disincentive to locate production in the US, but would still be attainable without the border-adjustment provision, which we expect to face political resistance.

Exhibit 7: Important differences between the House tax plan and Mr. Trump’s

*Infrastructure: *A new infrastructure program might also be dealt with through the reconciliation process, but this could depend on its details. Traditionally, reconciliation has been used to make changes to direct spending like Medicare, various income support programs, or credit programs, but has not been used to address areas such as highway spending. That said, the Trump Administration appears to be focused on a plan involving public-private partnerships and tax incentives, which suggests that some aspects of an infrastructure plan might be able to pass with only Republican support, potentially as part of tax reform.

*Entitlement reform: *Some Republicans, notably House Speaker Paul Ryan, have continued to express interest in reforming entitlement programs like Medicare. Our expectation is that this effort is unlikely to get very far, given an apparent lack of interest from President-elect Trump, who committed to preserve the current system during the election campaign, and the slim margin in the Senate, where some Republicans are likely to have reservations.

*Bipartisan support will still be necessary in several areas *

Most legislation will still require 60 votes in the Senate, and therefore bipartisan support. In some cases, this might be attainable as some Senate Democrats might be interested in incremental changes in some areas. That said, legislation requiring bipartisan support is more uncertain and is apt to take longer to enact. In many cases, this is likely to mean that political debate on these issues will occur in 2017, but that final resolution might take until 2018 or beyond.

*Obamacare replacement*: Although repeal of many aspects of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) can be accomplished with only 51 votes in the Senate via the reconciliation process, the process for “replacing” the law is more complicated and the outlook for it is less clear. The primary complication is that it is likely to require regulatory changes in addition to fiscal items, and thus require 60 votes in the Senate—and therefore Democratic support. For this reason, the “repeal” and “replace” steps have been separated, with Republican leaders aiming for—but also needing—bipartisan support for the new program.

From a macro perspective, we would make three general observations: first, it appears unlikely that overall subsidy spending will decline significantly. President-elect Trump and congressional Republican leaders have indicated that they expect to maintain coverage for those who currently have it; even if they had not, it would be politically difficult to enact a replacement that was not estimated to do so. Second, the Medicare cuts are likely to be maintained, so ACA-related health disinflation (as measured by the health PCE price index) is likely to continue, though we expect health inflation more generally to gradually increase. Third, none of the changes look immediate. Our expectation is that the ACA taxes will be repealed effective January 1, 2017, including the mandate on employers to offer health insurance to their employees, but that repeal of the other aspects of the law would not take effect until January 1, 2019. One unresolved question is whether "repeal" legislation will repeal the individual mandate effective for 2017, which would be politically popular but could destabilize the existing program, or whether the mandate would remain in place until a new program is implemented.

Regardless, there is no ideal time from a Republican political perspective to implement a replacement program, in light of the fact that the transition would need to occur over two years, with enrollment in the new plans occurring in the year before the new coverage becomes active. With a midterm election in November 2018 and a presidential election in 2020, either the enrollment process or the first year of new coverage would occur during an election year.

*Immigration reform*: Immigration—particularly unauthorized immigration—was a key theme in the presidential campaign, but has not figured prominently in the preliminary public discussions of the congressional agenda. That said, it appears possible that Congress will appropriate additional funds for border security—i.e., additional physical barriers along the southern border—in the spending legislation we expect Congress to pass in April to keep the government operating past April 28, when the most recent extension expires. Beyond this, it is much less clear to us whether broader agreement on immigration reform is possible in light competing issues and the general political environment. While eventual legislative compromise might be possible at some point in the future, we do not expect the issue to move very far in 2017.

*Regulatory reform: *Apart from the near-term reversal of some Obama Administration regulations, we expect the regulatory agenda in Congress to take longer to evolve. President-elect Trump’s transition team has named the “dismantling” of Dodd-Frank as a priority, and the House and Senate committees that oversee financial regulation are likely to pursue legislation this year to seek modifications to the law. In the House, the Financial Services Committee looks likely to consider financial reform legislation fairly early this year, with a vote in the committee potentially as soon as late Q1, and a vote on the House floor over the summer. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Hensarling looks likely to introduce a heavily modified version of his CHOICE Act, which would provide regulatory relief in return for a more restrictive leverage ratio.[4] In the Senate, the process seems likely to take longer—committee action might not occur until the second half of the year—since it is likely to take longer to develop a package that could gain the bipartisan support that would be necessary to reach the 60 votes needed for passage, and because the early part of the year could be consumed by the consideration of presidential nominations. The Senate legislation looks likely to focus on more incremental regulatory relief focused particularly on smaller institutions, similar to the legislation sponsored by the then-Chairman of the Banking Committee, Richard Shelby. Ultimately, we believe it is more likely than not that some type of financial regulatory legislation will be enacted into law, but it is likely to take until late 2017 or 2018 to pass. Reported by Zero Hedge 5 hours ago.