Pelosi’s Deceptive Plan: Blocking any Tax Rise Could Rule Out Medicare-for-All and Bolstering Social Security


The usual DNC warhorses —Schumer, Pelosi, Warren, etc., trying to sell their latest scam.

In the surreal alternative reality world of the US Congress, there are many bills passed each year that on the surface may sound like good ideas — they even give them high-sounding names like the US PATRIOT ACT or Better Care and Reconciliation Act, that in fact are the opposite of what they claim to be (the former actually being an unpatriotic undermining of the Bill of Rights and the latter actually being an unsuccessful attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act (itself a deceptively named bill that forced middle-income families to buy hugely expensive insurance plans or pay a tax penalty).

But few of these deceptions are as egregious as one being pushed by embattled incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who is advocating a bill that would require any legislation that would raise taxes on incomes in the bottom 80% to be passed with a 60% majority of the House.

That bill, while promoted by Pelosi as protecting the middle class from future tax rises, actually would make impossible passage of any bill expanding Medicare to cover all Americans, creating a kind of Canadian-model national health system, and might even prevent efforts to strengthen and improve Social Security benefits as called for by progressive Democrats.

The thing is, a broad majority of Americans, including many Republicans, and an overwhelming majority of Democrats, favor Medicare-for-All, a program that would extend and expand Medicare coverage making it a government insurance plan for covering all medical care for all Americans of any age — exactly what Canadians have had since 1971, and which they have overwhelmingly supported through both Liberal and Conservative governments since then.

And to fund such a program, Medicare taxes (currently 1.45% for worker and employer) would of course have to be significantly raised. But what conservative and even so-called “moderate” Democrats who oppose Medicare-for-All deliberately don’t say in criticizing the idea as a tax-increasing horror is that it would eliminate the need to pay insurance premiums for all people and also for employers, that it would eliminate the need to spend $140 billion a year or more on a Veterans Administration bureaucracy to care for military veterans, that it would eliminate Medicaid, the program that provides care for the poor and which currently costs over $600 billion a year in federal and state tax dollars, that it would end “charity care” which is the “free care” hospitals have to provide to ER patients who have to be treated if they have no other funding and don’t qualify for Medicaid — care which ends up raising private insurance premiums for those who do have insurance, and that would even lower car insurance premiums, since these would no longer have to pay for hospital care caused by accidents.

The lie here is that raising taxes on everyone to fund Medicare-for-All could in the end massively reduce health care costs for everyone in society, while also ensuring that nobody was without full access to fully funded health care. It’s what Americans want, poll after poll shows, even given all the propagada and lies about it, but Congress, including Democrats, are so anxious to keep receiving huge amounts of money from the Medical Industrial Complex, that they are loath to support a program that would cut out the private insurance industry, force the drug and hospital industry and physicians to receive negotiated payments reached with the government instead of charging whatever they want in a “market” that doesn’t really permit genuine consumer choice and competition.

As for Social Security, which badly needs an influx of new funds before 2034 when the current level of employee and employer payroll taxation (6.2% for employee and employer) will only cover some 78% of promised benefit payments. Any fix would inevitably involve some increased rate of payroll taxation on at least some people in higher income brackets, probably within that bottom 80% category in the proposed legislation supported Speaker Pelosi and many of her Democratic caucus.

Congress must at least present this issue honestly. Legislation in Congress should be considered on its merits, not constrained by artificial measures. In the kind of closely divided government we now have, requiring 60% support for passage of tax-impacting bills would block much critically important progressive legislation, for example on dealing with climate change. Meanwhile, it should also be clearly understood that Medicare-for-All type health care reform or for bolstering and improving Social Security, would not involve income taxes, but rather two dedicated payroll taxes on employees and employers — the FICA tax and the Medicare tax, which are currently 6.2% and 1.45% for individual taxpayers.  Any reforming of those two programs would require changes in the amount of payroll taxation paid by employees and employers, but Pelosi has not exampted those taxes from her proposed bill.

The other real problem with establishing a super-majority rule for passing measures that would raise taxes on lower-income Americans is that majorities of both parties are so consistently ready to support increased funding for the US military and to underwrite insanely expensive and destructive militaristic policies abroad including the endless wars launched since 2001 that have run up a bill so far of $5.9 trillion and counting, that Pentagon spending bills would have no trouble meeting the 60% vote threshold to pass military spending bills. Meanwhile more important legislation, such as passing Medicare-for-All, or climate change-combating legislation, or increased education support measures, etc., would not get 60% support and thus would just never pass.

Now that Democrats have won control of one house of Congress, we are already starting to see how flawed and disingenuous a bunch of people they really are. It’s not a pretty sight.

Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License


[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Words from an Irish patriot—


Make sure many more people see this. It's literally a matter of life an death. Imperial lies kill! Share widely.
  • 48

4 thoughts on “Pelosi’s Deceptive Plan: Blocking any Tax Rise Could Rule Out Medicare-for-All and Bolstering Social Security

  1. Dave Lindorff makes some very astute insights into Pelosi’s tax bill. It is another brick in the wall that there is not a nickle’s worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans are honest fascists while the Democrats are dishonest fascists.

    Pelosi’s tax plan blocking tax increases for the middle class is a Trojan Horse that sets up the Republican Agenda of “reforming” Social Security and Medicare plus defunding other social programs for climate change, infrastructure, safety nets and aid for the unfortunate in the “poor class”, a humane system for incarceration, mental health treatment, subsidized higher education at state universities, etc.

    Pelosi’s plan is just a “me too” Democrats are for tax cuts too just like Republicans, blah, blah, blah. The R’s and D’s populist illogic is the road to eventually cut taxes to zero for everybody?

    While Medicare for all covering 100% of medical expenses would be a really big improvement it is not the Canadian plan which is actually a national heath care program. Medicare for all in a national health insurance plan. There is a big difference in that it still leaves health care privatized.

    The best healthcare program we have in the US is the Veterans Heath Administration (VA) which is a true national healthcare program, although it is restricted to disabled veterans. Every study of the VA has show that it delivers better outcomes at a lower cost. THIS IS THE MODEL THAT WOULD BE THE PANACEA AND CREME DE LA CREME OF NATIONAL HEALTHCARE FOR ALL.

    Instead we now have a political movement to privatize the VA. As with public education the privateers are out to destroy the VA with propaganda, Veterans Choice (the equivalent of charter schools for public education) and inadequate funding (as with the Post Office) that would destroy the best healthcare model in the US.

    As a sidebar, the current VA should be funded by the military budget and not the general budget and Medicare….the VA charges Medicare for those vets that qualify for Medicare, which is a ripoff of Medicare that rightly belongs with the costs of wars and should be paid by the military. Also retired military personnel should come under the Military Heath System…..that is what career military was promised, and the promise broken.

    What is needed is a progressive income tax, drastic cuts in military spending and and a return of the estate tax to reduce family dynasties and inequality. Cheering Trump supporters when he brags about eliminating the “death tax” only benefited estates over $5 million ($10 million for a married couple with basic estate planning).

    I appreciate Dave’s opening for me to give my opinion. I could write a lot about domestic issues, but do not out of choice because my priority is to end the wars, end the empire, end imperialism exploitation. Until we fix our foreign and military insanity, I see little hope in fixing domestic problems, as MLK said about the Vietnam War just before they killed him.


    1. I disagree with Mr. Pear about not first tackling domestic issues. After all US foreign policies are heavily dependent on in-house problems and politics. What happens there influences outward actions. The first thing the US needs is inland reform which apparently most of its population desires. Why they keep pushing in the same old politicians who are the enemy of the people is a riddle. We need a Hercules or an Artemis to clean out the Augean stables in Washington. D.C.

      1. I tend to agree with you but it’s obvious to me that taxes would not necessarily need to be raised if we had a sane foreign policy and less corruption in DC/Pentagram.

  2. Astonishing! The wars are the funding that cannot even enter the discussion. However, as long as the EmpireUSA spends trillions on war, all these other discussions remain futile.

Leave a Reply