Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act Of 2009

Floor Speech

SERVICE MEMBERS HOME OWNERSHIP TAX ACT OF 2009 -- (Senate - December 04, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I will speak for just a moment because I know the Senator from Pennsylvania wishes to speak. When he comes to the floor, I will quickly yield to him. While there is a moment in between, I want to speak to some of the arguments we have heard.

There is always the question of the substance of an argument. There is also the question of the credibility of an argument. I think as people watch this debate and discuss the credibility of the concern expressed by our friends on the other side of the aisle about the deficit impact of the CLASS Act, it is worth considering a few facts just to evaluate that.

First is that the CLASS Act is required to be actuarially self-sustaining. People pay into it and, from those funds, under the insurance principle, funds come back out. It is required to be self-sustaining that way.

Second, it is voluntary. Nobody has to contribute. If you want to contribute, then you can become eligible for the benefit once you have vested. But nobody is forced into this; it is entirely voluntary. The CBO, on which we rely in a nonpartisan fashion, has said this is solvent for 75 years.

Finally, because we think--at least on this side--this matters. It will help the disabled and elderly at that critical point of decision, when their ability to stay home, their ability to stay independent, or their ability to stay at work depends on just a little bit of help to accommodate their age or disability, it is then that this will make a difference. What a difference it will make in human lives.

I know the Senator from Connecticut wishes to use an example. I will yield to him on his signal. We have seen this before. We saw this not long ago on the public option, which would compete with insurers head to head on a fair and level playing field. It was completely voluntary, and it had to be actuarially self-sustaining. It had to meet the solvency laws of the State in which it operated. In both cases, our colleagues on the other side have rushed to the floor to talk about deficits and how these will contribute to the deficit.

These are both actuarially self-sustaining programs required to stay solvent. Yet here they come to raise the specter of deficits. But this is the same party that pays for 14-percent subsidies to private insurers to compete with Medicare. As my son would say, duh, if you are getting 14 percent extra, it is pretty easy to compete.

When they asked for that deal, they promised they would drive costs down. In fact, they have driven costs up, and they put it in their pockets. It is not fair to the insurers that are not in the program. It is greedy on their part. All we want to do is hold them to their promises.

Do we hear any concerns about the deficit problem on the 14-percent subsidy for the Medicare Advantage Program? No, dead silence--guess what--because it helps the insurance industry.

When the Part D program came in, our friends on the other side forced through a provision--a unique provision--that gave the pharmaceutical industry a special privilege that the U.S. Government could not negotiate with it over price--could not negotiate with it. Lord knows how much that has added to our deficit. But have they ever come to complain? No, because the beneficiary is the pharmaceutical industry. But when things help regular people, when things help competition in the insurance market, even where they are required to be actuarially self-sustaining and solvent, then suddenly they turn up. They can detect the threat of deficit in parts per billion when it helps somebody. But a patent, actual living, breathing, deficit-enhancing subsidy that is on the books right now, they don't care about if it helps the pharmaceutical industry or the insurance industry.

As we have this discussion, that is a point worth bearing in mind because it is not just the substance of the amendment, it is the credibility of the argument that counts.

I said I would yield to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania when he arrived, and he has arrived. Without further ado, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, those of us who have been privileged to hear our friends on the other side debate the public option have seen a relentless insistence on the public option operating on a level playing field with the private insurance industry. I can't tell the number of times we have heard that. Indeed, even when we designed the public option so that it did operate on a level playing field with the private insurance industry, they still complained. But now we have a situation in which we have private industry operating at a 14-percent advantage and subsidy against Medicare. Suddenly, the other side's interest in a level playing field has evaporated. Suddenly their interest is in doing what is, once again--in the astonishing coincidence that characterizes debate--in the interest of the insurance industry.

I have yet to see an argument made from the other side of the aisle that doesn't happen to coincide with the interests of the insurance industry. It could not be more stark on this point. If it is a public option, they want it to compete on a level playing field. And even then they are against it. If it is privately subsidized coverage, getting an advantage against the public system, then they are for it.

I urge consistency and support of the effort to bring some discipline to Medicare Advantage, as the private insurance industry promised. We are doing no more than holding them to their word.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source