Chamber of Commerce Q&A on ACA, EPA, and more

Interview

Transportation

One of the most important projects in the country is tackling the aging Brent
Spence Bridge in our backyard. A vital source - but by no means the only source
- of funding this Bridge and projects like it is the Highway Trust Fund. Do you
support a long-term reauthorization of the Federal surface transportation bill
(MAP-21)? How should we fund transportation given declining gas tax revenues?

Yes, I support long-term reauthorization of MAP-21. Not only is a strong
infrastructure important for safety, it makes good business sense. It is estimated
that every $1 billion in infrastructure spending creates approximately 15,000 to
20,000 new jobs. Ronald Reagan said it best, "The state of our
transportation system affects our commerce, our economy, and our
future."

Federal transportation programs have had strong bipartisan support
since Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, creating our
Interstate Highway System.

Critical to the success of a Federal transportation program however, is securing a
long-term funding source. And that's where we have a problem.

The Highway Trust Fund is currently financed primarily through federal gas taxes
-- 18.4 cents per gallon of gas and 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel. These
amounts have remained unchanged since 1993 and have not kept up with
inflation. Because of more fuel-efficient vehicles, we are also using less gas.

The gas tax does not generate enough revenue to keep the Trust Fund solvent.
For fiscal year 2015, revenue of $38 billion is expected to be raised by the tax,
$15 billion short of the $53 billion needed.

Many in Congress simply suggest raising the gas tax. I don't support this. I'd
rather repeal the gas tax altogether since it's not working and instead raise the
needed revenue from a small transaction fee on derivative trading.

Recall that our most recent recession was started by a collapse in the financial
markets caused, in part, by speculative trading. It would only be fitting to use a
speculative trading tax to help restore our economy and infrastructure. The
numbers on why we should do this are pretty compelling.

By eliminating the federal gas tax, fuel prices nationwide will drop. More money
will flow directly into the hands of consumers and businesses who will spend it,
effectively creating a $38 billion economic stimulus.

The gas tax revenue lost can easily be replaced with a derivative trading tax.
Regular stock and bond trades would not be impacted, only derivative trading
and other short-term speculative trades. A study by the University of
Massachusetts Amherst illustrates how. Assuming derivative trading volume
decreases 25 percent as a result of the tax, a small transaction tax (1-2 percent
per trade, depending on type of trade) produces $63 billion in annual revenue,
$10 billion more than currently needed!

This extra $10 billion financed by Wall Street bankers creates approximately
175,000 new jobs and a strong infrastructure. This in turns creates strong
corporate balance sheets that positively impact the financial markets funding the
infrastructure improvements.

A transaction tax on speculative trades has other added benefits. Consider the
impact this type of trading has on pension savings. With the demise of traditional
pension plans, most ordinary folks now save for retirement through 401Ks and
IRAs and are subject to market volatility.

If carefully targeted at certain short-term trades, such as automated, highfrequency trading or derivative trading purely for speculation, more investors will
look to buy and hold strategies, reducing market volatility. Wild market swings
create panic and increase the likelihood that ordinary investors will make bad
decisions. Reducing market volatility is a good thing for the middle class.

Reducing fuel prices, rebuilding our infrastructure, creating jobs, and decreasing
market volatility are ideas that appeal to both political parties. Shippers, truckers,
commuters, labor, and the Chamber of Commerce all support funding of the
Highway Trust Fund, and so do I.

ACA/Healthcare

The Affordable Care Act has many provisions that increase cost to business.
Where do you stand on changing the ACA's 30-hour work week definition under
the employer mandate back to a traditional 40-hour level? How about delaying or
repealing outright the employer mandate?

As an actuary, I have helped employers for years understand and manage the
cost of providing healthcare benefits. I understand the business and math
involved. My entire family has also been covered under the ACA since it was
enacted. I can tell you first hand what works and what doesn't.

Right now, over 150,000 Ohioans have purchased private insurance through the
ACA exchange. Their average monthly premium paid is $121. People that could
not afford healthcare are now covered and that's a good thing.

And just as important, no one can be denied health coverage any longer. You
shouldn't have to worry about losing your home because you have a pre-existing
condition and can't get covered. Imagine what it would be like if you had a child
and then discovered the child had autism at the age of 2 and couldn't get health
coverage. This is what it was like before the ACA and we can't go back to those
days.

Regarding the employer mandates, these mandates were included in the ACA
because there was fear that employers who already provided health coverage
would drop the coverage and force employees into the ACA exchanges. In
general, I support providing incentives instead of penalties to drive the behavior
of consumers and businesses. I think the combination of tax penalties and
incentives for healthy individuals to purchase insurance, which is critical for
affordable insurance to be available for everyone, is sufficient enough to
generate demand for employers to provide the benefit. As the economy improves
and unemployment rates decrease, employers will voluntarily provide this
coverage to attract the best workers.

In April of this year, I went on record that I thought these employer mandates
were not necessary. A month later, the nonpartisan Urban Institute released data
that confirmed what I suspected. The Institute found that eliminating the
employer mandate would have little effect on the number of Americans covered.
In fact, it would likely lessen employer opposition to the ACA.

Besides addressing the employer mandate, there are other changes I would like
to see made to the ACA. In particular, to bring down the cost of health care, we
need greater transparency of the costs involved when we see our doctors and
other healthcare providers. With transparency, we can make more informed
decisions of who we see and what services we purchase.

In every other industry, whether you're buying a house, servicing a car, or
ordering a meal, you know ahead of time what you will pay, either through a
menu of options or a fee quote. Only with healthcare do you buy a service and
then find out months later after your doctor's visit what you owe when the bill
comes in the mail. More often than not, you owe more than you thought you did.
It's not a free market when you can't comparison shop. Changes need to be
made so that consumers know up front what their doctor's visits cost and what
insurance will cover. This will create competition that drives down costs and
improves service.

Strengthening the economy, making the employer mandate obsolete, and
providing free market transparency around healthcare costs are all things I
support. For more information on my plan to create jobs in our district, giving
employers more incentive to provide good health coverage, please see my jobs
plan at www.electintegrity.com/jobs.

Energy

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed and is in the process
of finalizing several rules detrimental to businesses, their employees and
consumers. The proposed greenhouse gas reduction targets on the utility
industry hit the region and it's coal-reliant power generation particularly hard.
Combine that with future Waters and US regulations and Ozone requirements,
and employers would face drastically increased energy prices. Do you support
EPA regulations?

Climate change is the fourth major environmental issue we've faced in recent
times. Not so long ago, our oceans were polluted with lead released into the
atmosphere from leaded gasoline. Acid rain polluted environment and our ozone
layer, which protects us from UV radiation, was rapidly depleting.
Now lead is gone from our environment, acid rain has stopped, and just last
month, a new assessment by 282 scientists in 38 countries concluded our ozone
layer is on the road to recovery.

In every case, there was concern that tackling these issues would hurt the
economy, cost jobs, and be ineffective. We tackled them anyway and now we're
glad we did. It's time to address climate change as well, while we still can.

Unfortunately, many in Congress deny the science of climate change. The
science is real and easy to explain. Humans are releasing carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. This
means that sunlight, which has a short wavelength, can easily pass between the
molecule's carbon and oxygen atoms. The sunlight warms the Earth and is
radiated back to space as infrared radiation. Infrared radiation has a longer wavelength and can't pass between the carbon and oxygen atoms and is trapped,
warming our atmosphere. One gallon of gas burned releases 14 pounds of
carbon dioxide. The science on all this is indisputable.

Just this month, the Pentagon released a report indicating that human caused
climate change poses an immediate threat to national security. According to the
report, climate change contributes to increased global poverty, food shortages,
and infectious disease. Terrorism thrives in this type of environment and the
Pentagon expects it to increase if climate change is not addressed. The
Pentagon is also preparing for increased military disaster responses to global
humanitarian crises created by more extreme weather.

Because of this, I do support the EPA in their efforts to protect our environment. I
advocate a reasonable and balanced approach. I think there is room to stagger
implementation of the greenhouse targets over a period of years, giving time for
new technologies to develop and time for businesses to adapt.

I also know there are other paths to significant reductions in greenhouse gases,
such as scaling back production of corn for ethanol and beef. Studies have
shown that dramatic amounts of greenhouses gases can be absorbed in the root
systems of certain grasses that can be also utilized for ethanol and beef,
providing additional options for addressing this very real problem.

Curbing greenhouse emissions, managing our energy costs, and funding the
Highway Trust Fund, are all interrelated. I consider our environment part of our
national infrastructure. In my Highway Trust Fund solution, I call for repealing the
Federal gas tax, creating lower energy costs nationwide. This gives us room to
absorb energy costs increases that may occur while we tackle climate change.
My Highway Trust Fund solution also generates an extra $10 billion in funds from
the derivative trading tax. One possible use of these extra funds is to assist
businesses in meeting EPA regulations and keeping our nation's fuel cost stable
as we address climate change.

We can have a balanced approach that produces results and protects our
environment for our children and grandchildren and we can do it in a way that
doesn't hurt the economy or businesses

Source