Editorials from around New York

Recent editorials of statewide and national interest from New York’s newspapers:

The Tax Increases to Come

Wall Street Journal

Nov. 12

The Democratic candidates for President are promising a smorgasbord of new taxes, but why wait until 2021? Last week Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen and Virginia Congressman Don Beyer unveiled the Millionaires Surtax Act, a plan to soak the top 0.2%.

The bill would put an extra 10% tax on individual income above $1 million, or $2 million for married couples. This surtax would apply regardless of the income’s source-whether from long-term capital gains, currently taxed at a top rate of 20%, or wages, taxed at rates up to 37%. The legislation’s backers say it would raise $635 billion over a decade, citing an estimate by the left-leaning Tax Policy Center.

Messrs. Van Hollen and Beyer would effectively lift the top tax rate on income to 47%, plus there’s the 3.8% ObamaCare surtax on investment income. Tax rates haven’t been that high in decades. Before Ronald Reagan’s big tax reform in 1986, the top rate was 50%. Since then it hasn’t broken 40%.

The loopholes were also bigger and more numerous then. Reagan’s 1986 law, for example, phased out the deduction for interest on credit cards and car loans. President Trump’s 2017 tax reform narrowed the interest deduction for homeowners, so only the first $750,000 of a mortgage is now eligible.

That 2017 law limited the amount of state and local taxes that can be deducted on a federal return. It used to be unlimited, but now the cap is $10,000. There are plenty of other examples, but the basic point is that the tax base has broadened. This is desirable economically as long as the trade-off is lower rates. If Democrats now try to raise income-tax rates back to their pre-Reagan heights, special interests will soon be busy carving out new loopholes, especially for the affluent.

In the 1950s, the top income-tax rate hit 92%, which applied to earnings above roughly $2 million, adjusted for inflation. Still, the wealthiest 1% of filers paid an effective income-tax rate of only 16.9%, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation. By 2016 the top rate was 39.6%, but the richest percentile had an effective rate of 26.9%. Meanwhile, the overall share of income taxes paid by the top 1% has increased, from 26% in 1986 to 37% in 2016.

Mr. Beyer says the Millionaires Surtax Act would “restore fairness to the tax code.” Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, another sponsor, adds that the new surtax would ensure “the wealthy are paying their fair share.” Rest assured, Mr. Van Hollen says, this bill isn’t “in conflict” with other desired tax increases.

Democrats these days are also proposing to raise the regular income-tax rate, the corporate-tax rate, the capital-gains-tax rate, the dividend-tax rate, the death-tax and payroll-tax rates, while creating a new wealth tax, a new financial-transactions tax, a new carbon tax and a new pharmaceutical tax, even as they would repeal 100% business expensing and the 20% income exclusion for so-called pass-through firms. We’ve probably missed a few others.

As usual, the question Democrats won’t answer: Should the top 1% pay half of all income taxes? Two-thirds? Three-fourths? Where does their “fair share” end? If Democrats sweep the 2020 election, we are sure to find out.

Online: https://on.wsj.com/2XbzC9t

___

Banning E-Cigarettes Could Do More Harm Than Good

The New York Times

Nov. 12

The nation is facing two distinct vaping-related health crises: surging e-cigarette use among teenagers and a lung-injury outbreak that has sickened more than 2,000 people and killed at least 40. Both have exposed yawning gaps in the nation’s public health apparatus. But instead of closing those gaps, policymakers have turned to a much more straightforward fix: banning products.

A federal ban on flavored e-cigarettes is reportedly in the offing. Several states have already enacted their own flavor bans. And Massachusetts and several California cities have taken steps to outlaw e-cigarettes altogether.

The impulse to remove e-cigarettes from the market is understandable. The Food and Drug Administration’s hands-off approach to vaping and e-cigarette regulation has backfired badly. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - and state and local health departments around the country - are struggling to pick up the slack. And after more than a decade, neither federal agency has a clear sense of the overall risks and benefits of these products.

But prohibition is not a good long-term solution, for a number of reasons. Such measures are not guaranteed to prevent teenagers from getting e-cigarettes. And they would almost certainly force people who already use these products, including roughly 11 million adults, to choose between traditional cigarettes (which remain widely available, despite being deadlier than e-cigarettes) and black-market vaping products.

Because these black market products are a leading suspect in the lung-injury outbreak, product bans are more likely to exacerbate this crisis than to mitigate it.

The better, if more complicated, option would be to build a public health system that’s strong enough to combat all nicotine addiction in the long term. That, in turn, could help drive a cultural shift for e-cigarettes akin to the shift that took place for traditional cigarettes. Policy changes and growing public awareness - not product bans - helped turn what was considered a chic, stress-relieving diet tool into what is now more commonly viewed as a smelly, overpriced cancer stick.

With sustained and careful investment, e-cigarettes might become nothing more than a harm-reduction option for adult smokers - no more appealing to teenagers than a nicotine patch or a piece of nicotine gum. Here are some ideas for making that vision a reality.

Treat e-cigarettes like cigarettes. Traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products are already bound by a number of rules - including special taxes, advertising restrictions and age-verification requirements - that helped sharply lower both youth and adult smoking rates in recent decades. E-cigarette makers have evaded similar regulations, through a combination of lawsuits and intensive lobbying. (Among other things, the vaping industry has argued that e-cigarettes are not tobacco products because they contain only nicotine - but nicotine comes exclusively from the tobacco plant.) Congress could stop such antics with new legislation. A recently passed House bill that would mandate age verification for all online e-cigarette purchases is a welcome step in the right direction. Additional laws are needed to ensure that any rules applying to tobacco products also apply to e-cigarettes.

Learn from Britain. So far, the country has managed to make e-cigarettes available for adults who want to quit using regular cigarettes without triggering an epidemic of nicotine dependence among its youth. Public health experts say at least part of that success is due to the way these products are regulated in Britain. Packaging and advertising are tightly restricted - no bright, colorful labels or kid-friendly media campaigns allowed. And the nicotine content is capped. In America, where there are no such limits, e-cigarettes often contain more than twice as much nicotine as they do in Britain and are still being sold in ways designed to appeal to young children.

Invest in public health. The C.D.C. and state and local health departments across the country are struggling to hold the line on public health gains made over the past century. For tobacco control, that means educating the public about the risks of nicotine addiction and countering the tobacco industry’s efforts to lure young users. It also means detecting outbreaks of vaping-related illness or injury, pinpointing the causes of those outbreaks and advising governments on how to respond. This crucial work is in desperate need of a funding boost. The House has approved $40 million to increase the C.D.C.’s tobacco control efforts and $100 million to upgrade the agency’s data system, which is currently so antiquated it relies on fax machines and CD-ROMs. The Senate should follow suit.

Invest in research. There remains much we don’t know about e-cigarettes. Are these products truly effective at helping people quit smoking, and is there a way to maximize that effectiveness? For example, do flavors that attract children also help adults quit? Would adults be more likely to quit if e-cigarettes were paired with other supports, like counseling? How safe is long-term e-cigarette use, and are some products safer than others? What are the risks to people who end up using both electronic and traditional cigarettes? What about those who switch completely to e-cigarettes but end up smoking much more because vaping is easier to get away with indoors? Health officials need answers to these questions to set effective policies.

Maintain pressure. Scientists and universities have refused to take “research” money from companies that make e-cigarettes; advertising agencies and health and wellness companies are pledging to do the same. These movements reflect a growing public wariness that is itself a powerful check on the industry. For example, it was after a tsunami of bad press - investigations, congressional hearings, lawsuits - that Juul, the nation’s leading e-cigarette maker, closed some of its social media accounts, put in place an age-verification system and stopped selling many of its flavored pods.

Critics are right to be skeptical of such voluntary measures - the tobacco industry has a terrible track record of self-policing. But the fact that the company took these steps at all, after fighting them so aggressively for so long, is proof that even while regulatory efforts falter, public sentiment can still hold sway.

Online: https://nyti.ms/2CDXLMA

___

The Maternal, Infant And Child Program Is A Good Use Of Resources

The Post Journal

Nov. 8

The havoc drugs and poverty can wreak on a child’s life are well documented.

It’s refreshing to see, then, the effectiveness of the Nurse Family Partnership, a Chautauqua County Department of Health and Human Services program that works with expectant mothers.

The Nurse Family Partnership program began in 2015 and consists of five nurses who work specifically with first-time mothers from pregnancy until the child is 2 years old. The Maternal, Infant and Child Health Program began in 2012 and is a peer education program where community health workers are trained by the state Health Department. Then, they go into homes and work with high-risk pregnant women to provide education, make referrals and give support. Mothers can be referred to the program by schools, CPS, WIC, obstetricians and other means. Both programs require either Medicaid or WIC eligibility to participate.

There are some who don’t like that the program actively pushes expectant mothers into social services programs or that people who likely shouldn’t be having children are being pushed toward public programs. That’s the wrong way to view the Health and Human Services Department programs.

Consider that many of these children are being born into families stuck in a cycle of poverty. Doing nothing means the cycle continues, and children born today will comprise the county’s social services caseload for the next several decades. Taking action now gives both today’s parents and the children they bear a chance at a better life.

Cathy Burgess, county Department of Health and Human Services director of maternal and infant health, told Board of Health members recently that one mother who became pregnant at 17 while hooked on methamphetamine was now, two years later, attending college, working full time and raising a healthy, happy child. Without assistance, the lives of the mother and child wouldn’t be as good as they are now.

“This is true public health at its best and we can’t allow these true evidence-based programs to go away,” Christine Schuyler, county health and human services director, told Board of Health members.

She’s right. The money the county spends on the program is well spent both in terms of saving money in the long run and helping mothers and children live better, healthier lives. There are many ways for the county to spend your money - the Maternal, Infant and Child Health Program is a good use of money.

Online: https://bit.ly/2KyDFb9

___

Obama makes a wise point

Adirondack Daily Enterprise

Nov. 13

It has been said that the art of politics is compromise. Mention that these days and it is entirely likely you will be accused of being a traitor by those on one of the polls to which political discourse seems to have been relegated. Perhaps both sides will flail away at you.

Former President Barack Obama had something to say about that the other day. Wisely, he directed his comments at those more likely to support liberal candidates and causes than conservative ones - but what he said has value no matter where you stand, left or right.

“This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re politically ‘woke’ and all that stuff - you should get over that quickly,” Obama said during his Obama Foundation Summit, held in Chicago.

“The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws,” Obama continued.

Then, warming to his topic, Obama launched into social media. “I do get a sense sometimes (that) now, among certain young people, and this is accelerated by social media, that the way of making me change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people - and that’s enough,” he commented. “Like, if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn’t do something right, or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself because, ‘Man, did you see how woke I was? I called you out.’ That’s not activism. That is not bringing about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones, you are probably not going to get that far.”

Amen, Mr. President.

We in the United States have been fortunate that, more often than not, our former presidents have served as “elder statesmen.” They have done the most difficult job on the planet. They have made decisions of war and peace. They have changed our country, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.

But they understand politics and, more important, governance.

Good for Obama for injecting an important note of realism into public discourse. Those farthest out on both sides, conservative as well as liberal, would do well to heed his advice.

There is a “silent majority” in the United States. At some point, its members are going to reflect that the extremists in both political parties are doing an enormous disservice to all Americans.

Online: https://bit.ly/2OcMrMD

___

Cuomo’s latest bid to dodge blame for Long Island’s natural-gas crisis

New York Post

Nov. 12

Gov. Andrew Cuomo upped his histrionics on the Long Island natural gas crisis Tuesday, formally threatening to revoke the license of National Grid, the utility that has stopped taking new gas customers.

The company says it can’t take on new commitments because Cuomo (followed by New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy) blocked construction of a new pipeline.

That new-hookups moratorium, the gov insists, “is either a falsified device or a lack of competence.” That is, National Grid either doesn’t need the pipeline - or is still at fault because it didn’t find some other way to assure supply.

Yet it never should have needed a Plan B: The proposed pipeline is obviously safe; it’s to run right next to an existing pipeline that’s done zero harm. The supposed environmental fears blocking it are nothing but a pretext, allowing Cuomo to pander to green extremists who oppose all carbon-based fuels.

To be clear: The pipeline is the safest, cheapest and even greenest way to get new energy supplies to the area (which includes parts of the city). But the greens don’t care - they’d rather consumers just do without.

Cuomo says gas can be “trucked, shipped, or barged” instead. But that, says Manhattan Institute energy specialist Jonathan Lesser, would require fleets of trucks supplying a huge processing facility that doesn’t exist. And the trucks (or ships) would themselves burn more carbon fuel.

The gov won’t get out of this by following through on his threat - because whoever took over for National Grid would face the exact same problems.

Maybe the company should just call his bluff.

Online: https://bit.ly/33L7Q6p