By Noah Rothman
Thursday, October 13, 2022
“This isn’t complicated,” I wrote
one month ago. It still isn’t.
On August 7, Democrats pulled off a bait-and-switch. They
cobbled together a fraction of the spending proposals they pursued
unsuccessfully in the form of the “Build Back Better” bill. But they called it
the “Inflation Reduction Act” because they had no other choice. Voters were not
clamoring for $485 billion in spending on climate change, Medicare expansion,
and taxes on energy providers that will reduce the deficit ten years down the
road. They wanted to reduce inflation.
It was a risky bet. The law’s name acknowledged the
foremost concern among most voters heading into November, and it promised that
help was on the way. But it isn’t.
In August, overall inflation increased when economists expected that it would decline. In
September, the Consumer Price Index beat expectations once again. All in all,
the price of all goods is up by 8.2 percent from last year, with all items minus
food and energy (so-called “core” inflation) growing by .6 percent in just one
month.
The rationalizations demanded of anyone who sets out to
convince themselves this isn’t a positively disastrous series of events for
Democrats are nothing short of Olympian. The Republican Party’s job is, by
contrast, pretty easy. The party in power knows inflation is a problem—they
told you as much. And when they said they were coming to your rescue, they
lied.
But for the sake of argument, let’s explore some of those
rationalizations.
We are sure to be admonished for thinking that the
“Inflation Reduction Act” would, you know, reduce inflation on something a
little speedier than a geologic timeframe. That, we’re going to be scolded, is
too much to ask. As “experts say,” the law retailed as a means of fighting
inflation “won’t help curb inflation dramatically nor right away,” NPR reported in August.
Maybe Nancy Pelosi’s statement upon the law’s passage
that the “Inflation Reduction Act” would “also fight
inflation” was a tipoff that America was being played. But the White House
did insist that the law primarily “will lower costs for families.” Those expectations were set
by Democrats, and Democrats failed to meet them. Republican have done
little more than watch this charade.
Voters who reset the glacial pace of the “Inflation
Reduction Act”’s foremost selling point are unlikely to be mollified by another
Democratic claim: the law’s effect on medical costs. The “Inflation Reduction
Act” lets Medicare fix prescription drug prices, makes health insurance more
affordable, and generally “lowers health care costs for millions of Americans,”
according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Maybe just
not right away.
In September alone, medical costs rose by a full percentage
point. Prescription-drug prices declined by a whopping 0.1 percent, but the
cost of “physicians’ services increased 0.5 percent over the month, while the
index for hospital services increased 0.1 percent,” the Bureau of Labor
Services report reads. Year over year, the costs associated with medical care
are 6.5 percent higher than they were last year.
Because the “Inflation Reduction Act” was also, somehow,
the “biggest
piece of climate legislation that’s ever been considered in U.S. policy,”
at least Americans with homes and cars could expect some relief.
Next year, eligible families will be able to purchase new
electric vehicles and install rooftop solar panels with backup batteries at a
reduced cost. That’s cold comfort if you’re struggling to afford little things
like fuel oil (up 58 percent from last year) or food (up 8 percent overall, and
11 percent if you’re comparing today’s grocery bill with 2021’s). But since the
cost of new cars is up 9 percent from last year, and motor vehicle insurance
increased by 1.6 percent last month alone, those electric-vehicle subsidies
will only go so far.
And you’re going to need a home to put those solar panels
on, which is an increasingly expensive proposition. Mortgage rates have reached
a 16-year high, and existing home sales are on the decline as the Federal Reserve does its best to
correct the mistakes of the political class. New housing construction is
anemic, with new multi-family units propping up the sector almost entirely.
“The latest Census report shows that in August, privately owned housing
completions were 5.4% below the revised July estimate of 1.419 million,” HousingWire reports.
At least America’s inflationary woes will prove a boon to
America’s seniors. Social Security recipients will see a staggering 8.7 percent
increase in their cost-of-living adjusted disbursements next year. That
gigantic boost follows what was already a gigantic COLA boost of 5.9 percent
this year. How that affects the program’s forecast trajectory toward insolvency in 2035, only its trustees can say. But
it will mean higher taxes for middle-class Americans.
The maximum amount of earnings now subject to the Social
Security tax will increase in 2023 to just over $160,000 annually, up from
$147,000. That’s a 9 percent hike, which will impose a higher tax burden on
about 6 percent of American workers. “So,” Forbes reported, “the maximum Social Security tax per
worker will be rising $1,637 from $18,228 to $19,865—with $9932.50 of that
taken directly out of an employee’s paycheck, up from $9,114 this year.”
If Republicans cannot keep their eye on this ball, drive
it down court, and dunk all over their Democratic opponents, they don’t deserve
to play this game.
No comments:
Post a Comment