By Tom Pallow of Third Way Progressives
Congress deserves real praise for, after far too long, beginning to take on it’s responsibility of setting and appropriating federal budgets. It feels great to work together and achieve an outcome that is better than what would have occurred had Congress not worked together. This “outcome that is better” will come via Congress not causing another type of government shut down, thus avoiding a reduction in economic confidence throughout the world, and Congress proving that it can actually work together, thus giving hope that the US just might be able to solve it’s long building economic, budget, and healthcare problems.
Yes, praise is deserved for this budget deal, but only for a brief moment. The truth is that our nation is in virtually every way the terrible shape that most people would generally imagine an 8% approval rating for Congress would reflect. This “economic recovery” is the worst economic recovery in history(1,14)! Our recent budget deal can be compared to an 0 and 6 sports team scoring a 0 – 0 tie against one of the worst teams in the league. Importantly, the primary purpose of this paper is to, following the sports analogy, show you convincingly that the teams we are about to face on our schedule are, by far and away, much tougher than any team we have faced in some years. Further, that once again all of us working together across party line will be many more times beneficial for everyone than not, and the sooner the better!
11 major economic downturns have occurred like clockwork on average every 10 years dating back to 1908. They have occurred in 1908-13, 1920-21, 1929-34, 1937-38, 1949 and 50, 1958 and 60-61, 1970 and 71, 1979-82, 1990-91, 2001, and 2007- in many ways still now (2). Prior to 1908, but changed due to the creation of the Federal Reserve and the progressive income tax in 2013, major economic downturns occurred on average every 5 years. This 5 year financial and economic growth cycle still exists, but it has lost some of it’s power due to these 1913 policy changes among others.
In every decade since 1913 the 5 year economic cycle has reemerges about the 5th year of each decade as an economic and GDP growth rate slowdown, and at times even a full two or more quarter recession in mid decade, the last two of these being in the 1970’s and 1950’s.
In a bit I will present the data that lays out why we are on track to have a 5 year economic cycle recession this mid decade. I will also lay out why one of the most overriding factors that will bring us into this recession will be the consumer demand that will be pulled out of our economy via the IRS finds and new and higher healthcare payments that the young and the poor will have to make due to Obamacare. The bottom line will be the fact that the poor and the young, who generally spend nearly every dollar they earn, will be reducing their consumer purchasing due to IRS finds and new and higher healthcare policy costs that will be monies that will now likely virtually only go into the shoring up of the balance sheets of some of our economies largest and strongest institutions, those being the federal government and our largest healthcare insurance companies. Of course, this will slow our economic growth! In this paper I will try to estimate how much, but more importantly, I will propose a way to reverse it.
Furthermore, generally, the weaker the economic growth of each 10 year cycle decade, the worse will be the larger 10 year cycle economic downturn. Two 5 year economic cycles are obviously working in coordination with the larger 10 year cycle. The next 10 year economic downturn is scheduled for around 2020. Examples of such decades with relatively weak mid decade economic growth rates that lead to very sharp 10 year cycle recessions are the 1970’s and 2000’s. Another devastating recession of such magnitude, given our current monetary, along with our federal and state budget positions, would not only inflict great pain on the American people, but as I will latter show, could bring on new geopolitical problems.
I know there are economists out there who entirely discount the predictability of economic growth cycles. But anyone would be a fool if they ignored something so devastating that has occurred with certainty 11 times in a row, this being the 10 year major economic downturn cycle, and if one really examines the data, many times more than 11 times with the 5 year economic cycle prior to that. It has been my experience with economists who discount a degree of predictability with economic cycles, that it is generally the economists who are most in the dark as to why economic cycles exist who are most certain that they are not predictable.
Discounting something so harmful that has occurred 11 times in a row would be foolish, and not fixing Obamacare as soon as possible so that we have a more efficient, extensive, and higher quality healthcare system would be foolish as well. Some will ask why we should take on such big challenges right away. As I lay out data, it will argue why it is most important that we begin now to set the field so that we can overcome the coming economic slowdown and create a much better outcome. I will also lay out what I believe our best game plan will be.
The 5 year, mid decade economic cycle is extremely reliable and pronounced. Let us examine the past six full 10 year cycles dating back to 1948 and that decade’s mid decade economic slowdown. Once again, the 10 year cycle of largest economic downturns, dating back to 1908 occurred in 1908-13, 1920-21, 1929-34, 1937-38, 1949 and 50, 1958 and 60-61, 1970 and 71, 1979-82, 1990-91, 2001, and 2007- to in many ways still now (2).
Lets start with the economic recovery that began in the first quarter of 1950 and that ended with a, 5 year cycle recession in the 4th quarter of 1953. This economic recovery had an average GDP growth rate of 7.6%. It then bottomed in the 1st quarter of 1954 with a minus 6.2% GDP growth rate. Then that recession ended in the 3rd Q of 1954. This economic expansion experienced a 136% decline in GDP growth rate from it’s peak of 17.2% in the 2nd Q of 1950, to minus 6.2% in Q1 1954. The same economic expansion experienced a 125% decline in GDP growth rate when compared to the average of the Q4 1953 to Q2 1954 recession. It had a 146% decline from the expansions GDP growth rate average of 7.6% to the recession average of minus 3.5%.(2)
The 1960’s economic expansion that began in Q2 1961 and came to much slower growth in Q3 1966 with a 1.3% GDP growth rate, experienced a 99% decline in GDP growth rate from it’s highest rate to it’s lowest of .1% in 3Q 67. The decline was 55% from this expansion’s average of 5.55% to the slowdown, Q3 66 to Q1 68, average of 2.47%.(2)
The economic expansion that began in Q2 1971 had a GDP growth rate decline of 142% from it’s quarterly peak of 11.5% to the economic trough of minus 4.8% in Q2 1975. The expansion that went from Q2 71 to Q4 73 averaged a 6.12% GDP growth rate, while the downturn from Q4 73 to Q2 75 averaged minus 1.57%, for a decline of 126%.(2)
The economic expansion that began in Q1 1983 and moved into a slower rate with a 1.6% GDP growth rate in Q3 86, had an average growth rate of 6.9% before it experienced an average GDP growth rate of only 2.4% between Q3 86 and Q4 87, a decline of 65%. Meanwhile, this early and mid 1980’s expansion experienced a top GDP growth rate of 9.3% in Q3 83, but a lowest rate of only 1.6% in Q3 86, a decline of 83%.(2)
The GDP growth rate averaged 3.25% between Q3 1991 and Q1 95. It then grew by only 1% and .9.95% in the first two quarters of 1995 respectively, a decline of 71%. From highest GDP growth rate in this early 90’s expansion to the lowest GDP growth rate in the first two quarters of 1995, there was a decline of 84%.(2)
The economy averaged a GDP growth rate of 2.92% between Q1 2002 and Q2 06, before averaging just 1.17% for a year beginning in Q3 06, a decline of 60%. GDP growth then increased, averaging 2.43% for three quarters, before entering the Great Recession. GDP growth rates, from their highest to lowest quarters, in the early to mid 2000s went from 6.7% in Q4 03 to .1% in Q4 06, a decline of 98%. (2)
All and all, with the six full, 10 year economic cycles since 1948, the 5 year economic cycle has created an average decline in GDP growth rates in mid decades of 107% when measuring from best quarter to worst quarter. When comparing the average GDP growth rates of early to mid decade economic expansions to the average growth rates during the 5 year cycle slow down period, the average decline for the six full 10 year economic cycles is 87%!
Given our current economic recovery’s record low average GDP growth rate of 2.35% for Q4 2009 to Q4 2013, if history repeats at an historically average level, we can expect a GDP growth rate of only about .3% or worse in the next year or so! Moreover, unlike the last decade when the mid decade economic growth was fueled by a housing and a sub-prime housing refinance boom that allowed millions of people to almost continuously spend the growing equity in their homes, the paltry economic recovery that we are now experiencing will have to deal with the headwinds of IRS finds and new and higher Obamacare costs that will be pulling consumer demand out of our economy in one of the most direct ways. I will now show why these headwinds will be stronger than a .3% GDP growth rate!
First off, in order to predict the negative effect on GDP growth due to the new and larger insurance policy costs for consumers due to Obamacare, one has to rely on some estimated numbers that have been counted only a few times and for a short period of time. This means that with some of these numbers there exists large variation and overall disagreement. That said, I will walk you through how, only with the most optimistic number combinations, do we perhaps almost have a chance to ovoid a 5 year cycle recession in the next few years!
Given that Obamacare dictates a higher than average level of coverage, with the inclusion of “10 essential elements” to have a qualified plan, Obamacare insurance will generally cost consumers more than their pre-Obamacare policies. Two questions to be answered are how expensive on average, and how much more expensive on average? Another important question will be, how many people will have to pay the higher Obamacare policy costs? The last major question will regard how much federal and state governments will be paying for these Obamacare policies? The last question itself will likely sets off several important questions that will need to be answered by our government relatively soon.
As to the question of how much more costly on average Obamacare policies will be, in September 2013 the Department of Health and Human Services released a volume of data concerning Obamacare. The Manhattan Institute, and then later some researchers from the Manhattan Institute and the Heritage Foundation, made estimates of Obamacare insurance increases or decreases for 47 states(3). Their average increase for 27 year olds was estimated to be 63.9% above what last years pre-Obamacare healthcare policies cost. For those age 50, the increase was estimated to be 38.9%, and for families of four the increase was estimated to be 8.8%. Only five states are expected to to have decreases in policy costs with Obamacare for the above three groups.(3)
For those who might question the degree of pessimism in these Manhattan Institute and Heritage Foundation numbers that were published in October, most evidence to date shows that their data is most often too optimistic! Most reports in the media are showing this to be so. For example, from the New York Post, and keep in mind that with the M.I. and H.F. data the State of New York is supposed to experience decreases of 28.8%, 28.8%, and 6.7% with the above three groups respectively in the cost of Obamacare policies versus last years policies; yet, “The National Federation of Independent Businesses, an organization that represents nearly 11,000 entrepreneurs across the state, says it has yet to find a single member whose health-care costs are going down under the ObamaCare program.”(4) That warned, for my calculation of how this will all slow GDP growth, I will stay with what appears to be optimistic numbers and assume these M.I. and H.F. numbers.
As to the actual costs of these new Obamacare plans, of course that data is not yet available, at least for me. But we can take the cost of average healthcare policy from 2013 and extrapolate from other data. A Kaiser Foundation survey of employer sponsored policies, employer sponsored policies being the vast majority of what we need to analyses, said that the average Family Policy cost $16,351 in 2013 and the average individual worker policy cost $4,565 in 2013.(5)
From here we must attempt to predict an accurate mix of family and individual policies that will see an increase due to Obamacare. Past experience and census data predict that family policies would consist of about 17% of the total (6). As to any other further mathematical divisions regarding who is and will be experiencing an increase in healthcare costs due to Obamacare, it would be very difficult and likely inaccurate given the data that I have access to, or probably even with all the data that now exists outside of Health and Human Services. Therefore, I will simply take an average of the increases in healthcare costs for 27 year olds and 50 year olds using the M.I. and H.F. data, and calculate this against the 2013 cost of individual worker plans. I will then do the same for Family policies and weigh them as 17% of the total increase in costs of policies.
When the above math is done, I get an average policy cost increase from 2013 to 2014 due to Obamacare of $2,192, not calculating any government subsidy, and weight averaging family and individual plans. To continue, I have read that the Department of Health and Human Services expects that the federal government will be covering about 50% of any such policy increases through government subsidies(7). But before we subtract this 50% from the amount that will be pulled from consumer demand throughout the economy, let as try to calculate the number of people who will be getting more expensive policies via Obamacare versus their old policies. Because this is the most contentious and deviant number, and a number that will also have a large effect on our GDP growth rate. For this number some estimates are as high as 90 million, while the CBO claims that it will be as low as 7 million. But these CBO estimate do not include the changes to employer sponsored policies that will begin in Obamacare next year(8). Moreover, it is predicted by just about everyone that about 16 million people will go from having no health insurance in 2013 to paying for insurance through Obamacare as the IRS finds for not buying a policy increase over the next few years(9).
Back to the employer sponsored plans that will be lost and then increased over the next year. It seems that under current law, and reasonable estimates, a good estimate would be that about 25 million people who now have employer sponsored policies will have more expensive policies in Obamacare once they are dropped off of their current or 2013 policies over the next year(8&10). Plus there are another 5 million who have lost insurance in the individual market who will also have nearly identical policy cost increases. Further, I will be very generous and forgiving by assuming that the government will be paying for 75% of the costs of the Obamacare policies that will be paid by the 16 million who will be acquiring insurance after not having insurance in 2013.
Well finally, the important bottom line, and when using almost all of the most forgiving numbers! Under these calculations we can expect a total of $50.416 billion per year by next year to be pulled virtually entirely out of consumer spending only to be used to shore up the balance sheets of the federal government and America’s health insurance companies. This $50.416 billion is more than .3% of the government GDP estimate for the first quarter of 2015 which is $16.129 trillion. A decrease in consumer spending of $50.416 billion over this period could predict a GDP growth rate in that quarter of just below 0, and this is when using the most forgiving numbers! And again, this drop to .3% GDP is arrived at when calculating average economic expansion GDP growth rates, to the average GDP growth rates during the slowdown periods of two quarters or more, which would therefore also predict a full recession in 2015! Generally, once a recession is recognized, a physiological effect tends to work it’s way through the domestic economy and into the global economy, thereby slowing the economy even further, which will mean a recession with GDP growth rates well below just below 0!
Of course, the best thing we could do is start this year to enact policies that reverse this coming decrease in consumer spending and also enact policies that lower the cost of health insurance in Obamacare and otherwise. But before I lay out these policy fixes, let us first look at what might happen if we do not enact any policy fixes.
Not only would we likely have a mid decade recession in 2015, but looking further into the GDP growth rate data we can easily predict a very sever recession around 2020, an economic downturn comparable to the Great Recession, the 78-82 downturn, or perhaps even the Great Depression! What is very clear especially after 1948 with the GDP growth rate data is that, two out of the two,10 year economic cycles that had extraordinarily low average GDP growth rates for their decade, while not counting the quarters that had negative GDP growth rates, those decades being the 1970s and 2000s, experienced the two most sever recession since 1948(2).
For the 10 year cycle economic expansion of the 1950’s, that running from Q1 1950 through Q4 1958,and excluding the quarters with negative GDP growth rates, that 10 year cycle expansion experienced an average GDP growth rate of 4.8%. The 1960’s same average for Q2 1961 through Q4 1969 was 4.795%. Then the 1970’s same average for Q3 1970 through Q2 1980 dropped all the way to 3.375%. Then with the same average for the 1980’s, for the only time since 1948, the average went up from the last decade’s average growth rate, up to 5.45%. Then with the 1990’s economic expansion, Q1 1991 through Q1 2001, the rate averaged 3.72%. This average rate was above the 1970s but well below the 1980s. Then, while even dating back to the 1920s, GDP growth rates have been gradually declining, the rates have really begun to drop over the last 15 years! The expansion between Q1 2002 through Q1 2008 averaged only 2.92%, and the expansion beginning in Q4 2009 through now has averaged only 2.353%.(2)
I do not need to go through any mathematical exorcises to show you how much the average GDP growth rates of the 1970s, 2000s, and 2010s stick out in being unusually weak! Nor should I need to go through all the many ways that the recessions of 1978 – 80 and the Great Recession were far more severe than all other post 1948 recessions! Further, it would be foolish to assume that we could make up for our decade’s current low 2.353% average with high GDP growth rates after our likely 2015 recession. Except for the 1990s, with every 10 year expansion cycle since 1948, the first, five year cycle expansion had higher average GDP growth rates than the second, five year cycle expansion that came after each mid decade economic slowdown. The average for the six decade averages of each first, five year cycle expansion is 5.122%, while the average for the same six decade’s second, five year cycle expansion is only 4.044%.(2)
Even without the coming decline in consumer spending, the above data predicts that we are very likely to experience an extremely severe recession around 2020, something akin to the Great Recession or even worse! With the weak economic growth for the rest of this decade and a recession the size of the Great Recession around 2020, our federal debt will be brought into levels that could be dangerous to our long term economic and geopolitical viability!
I know that Paul Krugman has been promoting a chart showing over 300 years of English and British national government debt and the same 300 years of long term government bond yields rates (11). For Krugman, the purpose of this chart is to support his argument that there does not exist a relationship between high government debts and higher government borrowing costs. This is one of Krugman’s methods for arguing that our federal debt should not be worried about. Unfortunately for all of us, less than 10% of Krugman’s chart covers the post Bretton Woods era, with floating exchange rates and currencies not tied to gold in anyway. Furthermore with Krugman’s chart, the post Bretton Woods data completely contradicts this point for Krugman.
With weak economic growth this decade, and a recession like the Great Recession around 2020, and Fed Funds rates already so low that further lowering will do little to stimulate the economy, and with quantitative easing having very limited effect, our federal debt will necessarily boom, and with this scenario, nations that do not have our best interest in mind could work to movie our currency and borrowing positions into very painful positions!
So, for many many reasons, we must begin now to use constructive fiscal policies to reverse this coming economic downturn. We need to use fiscal policies because Federal Funds rates are now already to low to make much of a difference by being lowered and excess quantitative easing will eventually create inflation. Further, good fiscal policies would be much more effective than further QEs!
The most effective fiscal policies, for a too weak economy in a global economy, are those policies that raise government revenues from those areas of the economy where the lowest velocity of money exists, but policies that also appropriate government expenditures in ways that most increase private sector, generally followed by public sector, economic productivity and growth, while immediately increasing consumer demand. The economic term, Velocity of Money, is most often defined by how quickly quantities of money are traded for goods or services, the greater the total dollars traded, the higher the velocity of money.
We all know that high income earners and the wealthy generally have the highest saving rates. Therefore, the place in the economy where the lowest velocity of money exists is within the wealthy and high income earners who do not actively own businesses that employ in the US(12). This fact is why the Collins/McCaskill Employer Tax Carve Out, like the one in S. 1960, is so important to enact! In fact, one of the areas in the US economy that has the fastest velocity of money is with high active income earning US employers. They are nearly always the fastest growing job creators in the entire US economy, and by large amounts(12)! For much more on Employer Tax Carve Outs, read my last two papers that can be found at ThirdWayProgressives.org in the Weekly Blog section.
So by enacting a Collins/McCaskill style Employer Tax Carve Out, we could set the stage to raise federal revenues in the most efficient way. If we could pass an ETCO sometime this spring, at the latest by just after most primaries, to be credited against the personal income tax increase of last year, then we as Democrats this fall could run on increased personal income tax rates on non-US employing high active income earners, to pay for Obamacare costs for the poor and middle class among other things. Again, we would be moving money from the area of the economy where the lowest amount of spending on goods and services exists, to the area of the economy where sending on goods and services is being most reduced, thus increasing economic growth! And best of all, the American people would easily understand the logic of this argument, and they would strongly support it! For example, some of the increased federal revenues could be used to decrease the number of Americans who will be incentivized to stop working due to an Obamacare tax credit that phases out to quickly.
The above strategy would be far more effective politically, but much more importantly, it would be much healthier for our country than would our current and weak Democratic political strategy for 2014 of trying to pass immigration reform, knowing that the likely outcome will only become Democrats claiming that Republicans are racist because they do not vote for immigration reform! But also, if immigration reform can be enacted this year, then great, but make sure that the ETCO is incorporated because it will raise more federal revenues while making the enforcement and transparency of our immigration system much more accurate and easier because ETCOs create a greater economic incentive for “employers” to pay within the FICA tax system and to pay their side of FICA taxes.
And of course, an Employer Tax Carve Out makes the politics and economic logic of an increase in the minimum wage much much easier!!
Now that Republicans are aware that, while being a much more efficient method for raising government revenues within the personal income tax system which at this time collects over 45% of our federal revenues, ETCOs, at this point in our history, will politically benefit Democrats more than Republicans because ETCOs allow governments to raise personal income tax rates to rates much higher than would otherwise exist in our now highly competitive and global economy without adversely effecting domestic job and economic growth, due to Republicans now being aware of this, it is important to accept that the Republicans will deserve something in return for enacting ETCOs. For more on the explosion of global trade and economic competition throughout the world that has occurred over the past 45 years and particularly after the fall of the Soviet Union, read my preceding two papers in the Weekly Blog section of ThirdWayProgressives.org.
There are several things Democrats could offer in return. The OK for the Keystone pipeline would be a great one! If this pipeline is not built in the US, we will have no controls over how this oil is eventually delivered entirely through Canada while potentially threatening the Great Lakes watershed and much more. This pipeline would create jobs in the US as well as efficiencies in the energy market. It would generate enough new federal revenues to be able to pay for an Employer Tax Carve Out!!! Further, President Obama promised an answer on the question of the Keystone pipeline sometime in 2013, and with the changes to the pipeline they made in the Nebraska watershed, environmentalist are running out of reasons to oppose it. Democrats like Mary Landreu could also run on the fact that they helped enacting an ETCO and the Keystone pipeline.
Regarding any bipartisan compromise and the current Debt Ceiling debate: It looks to me like a really great compromise could now be made through clearing the way for the Keystone pipeline in exchange for ETCO tax reform and a Debt Ceiling increase! President Obama with the pipline remains rightfully committed to a public review process that is supposed to go into this summer. So if the President remains committed to that full process, then for now the Debt Ceiling should be increased for only the estimated time for completion of that public review process. This period of time will give Congress the time to really nail down tax reform! And it would occur after most primaries. But then, the sooner this compromise could be made the better. To me, this seems like a great deal for the country and everyone!!
There are also healthcare reforms that should be enacted that Republicans support, and some healthcare reforms that need to be enacted simply to, frankly save Obamacare, and to lower the cost of Obamacare policies. In this latter category, allowing for the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines within Obamcare would be great! Given that Obamacare demands a high quality insurance policy, states would not have to worry about their citizens buying sub-par health insurance from other states. Moreover, states that are running their own state Obamacare exchanges the most efficiently and effectively would attract private health insurance jobs to their state, and this competition would improve the entire Obamacare system. Furthermore, through these bureaucratic consolidations for private health insurers in Obamacare, the cost of policies in Obamacare would go down, once again, thus increasing consumer demand and economic growth. Also within this category of healthcare reforms is the tax reform of collecting Obamacare costs for employers and employees through the FICA tax system. This reform would stop the perverse and very laborious to police incentives not to have over 50 employees and not to employ over 30 hours a week. Plus this reform would create a sharper Employer Tax Carve Out, and it could easily be phased in with the ETCO(13)!
Regarding the above first category, even as a Democrat and a third way progressive, I will continue to argue that a healthcare system with Obamacare and private options in Medicare and Medicaid, much the way Paul Ryan has proposed, would help create a more efficient and capable healthcare system. It would help improve the entire healthcare market in the short and long term if people were able to, throughout their entire life, be able to purchase the extraordinary when it comes to healthcare. This reform would improve the healthcare markets ability to incentivize the creation of and disseminate new healthcare technologies that save lives and improve the entire system. Also, there is the Medical Devise Tax, one of the most ill-conceived taxes is decades, that needs to be repealed. Within this first category could also be a well written Medical Savings Account system.
I don’t know how you all will be able to make this compromise, but it must be done, and within the compromise must be the ETCO! The ETCO must be there because it will allow us to raise the revenues we need in the most efficient way that can then be used to increase consumer demand where it is most being reduced. Enacting a Collins/McCaskill style ETCO this spring could also be made easier by “paying for it” by reducing the tax deductions for the wealthy for the value of non-cash charitable donations and medical expenses to some degree. As could be reduced the degree to which mortgage payments for second homes could be written off, as well as could be cut the home business deduction for the wealthy regarding actual living spaces. Or better yet, the ETCO could simply be scored accurately, and it would cost nothing over time! Or, the ETCO could be “paid for,” simply by an extremely small part of the federal revenues that would be raised via the OK of the Keystone pipeline, or the ability to purchase insurance across state lines within Obamacare, or a private option in Medicare and Medicaid, and there would be plenty left over with any of these last three cases to extend unemployment insurance and rid ourselves of one of our most ill-conceived taxes in decades, the medical device tax!
It is time that we work together across party line and solve these long building problems that actually have the ability to do great, and potentially lasting, harm to our nation and to the world as a whole by 2020! Remember, this is why you came to Washington DC, and now is the time to do it! At this time in world history, democracy and the world need the US to be the strongest team! This year we can once again prove that we are, and we and the world will be made much better off!!!
(1) “The Worst Economic Recovery in History,” Edward Lazear, The Wall Street Journal, April 2012
(2) US Bureau of Economic Analysis. The US B of EA did have an interactive database for this data, but another great interactive database can be found at TradingEconomics.com.
(3) “How Will You Fare in the Obamacare Exchange?” By Drew Gonshorowski, The Heritage Foundation
(4) “Here are the Big Losers in Obamacare” By Carl Campanile, Bruce Golding,and Beth Defalco. New York Post, Jan 2, 2014
(5) “Employer Health Benefits Survey” The Kaiser Family Foundation, August 20 2013.
(6) “Family Structure and Children’s Living Arrangements” Forum of Child and Family Statistics
(8) “The GOP claims that more Americans have lost insurance than gained it under Obamacare” By Glenn Kessler, The Washington Posts
(9) “Double Down: Obamacare Will Increase Avg. Individual Market Insurance Premiums by 99% for Men and 62% for Woman.” By Avik Roy, Forbes, 9/25/13.
(10) “Another 25 Million Obamacare Victims” by Betsy McCaughey. The New York Post, Jan. 14, 2014.
(11) “Paul Krugman Trolls Deficit Hawks with One Amazing Chart” Huffington Business, Jan. 14, 2014.
(13) ThirdWayProgressives.org, “Our Tax Reform Submission Paper to the Senate Committee on Finance”
(14) For the worst economic recovery at least since 1948: This paper, that can be found at ThirdWayProgressives.org in the Weekly Blog section.