New York Times has a nice article about one of the jobs programs under consideration by the administration.
cash for caulkers

########################

John Doerr, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist, and former President Bill Clinton have separately suggested versions of the idea to the White House. Mr. Doerr calls his proposal, which would give households money to pay for weatherization projects, "cash for caulkers." Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's chief of staff, told me, "It's one of the top things he's looking at."

The idea has a lot to recommend it. The housing bust has idled contractors and construction workers, who could be put to work insulating homes and caulking air leaks. Many households, meanwhile, would save substantial money -- not to mention help the climate -- by weatherizing their homes, research by McKinsey & Company has shown. All in all, a cash-for-caulkers program seems like a promising part of the jobs program for 2010 that Mr. Obama has suggested he is planning.

###################

This is good news from the administration.

The 2 main problems facing the world are;

Peak Cheap Oil and Global Warming.

The typical highway/bridge repair jobs programs are counterproductive with very limited economic payback.  This new approach of investing in long term savings for the nation, while reducing CO2 omissions, is the type of change we really need.

If they expand the program to include all government buildings and solar installations, they'll finally have it right.

For anyone who things Senator Snowe's lock is a real trigger, I'm posting something I posted a couple days ago on a different site.

****************************************************************************

I just read that Senator Baucus is going back to the drawing board to increase the subsidies for premiums in his plan.  I then read the Snowe trigger and noticed that the numbers in the Baucus subsidies and the Snowe trigger are the same.  After reading it several times, it appears that the Snowe trigger could NEVER get pulled!

Am I reading this wrong?  What do you think?

1st lets look at the Baucus proposal to provide subsidies for premiums to individuals with lower and middle incomes.  I've bolded some key points.

"Beginning in 2013, tax credits would be available on a sliding scale basis for individuals and families between 134-300 percent of FPL to help offset the cost of private health insurance premiums. Beginning in 2014, the credits are also available to individuals and families between 100-133 percent of FPL. However, individuals subject to a five-year waiting period under Medicaid or CHIP are eligible for the tax credit beginning in 2013. The credits would be based on the percentage of income the cost of premiums represents, <strong>rising from three percent of income for those at 100 percent of poverty to 13 percent of income for those at 300 percent of poverty.</strong> Individuals between 300-400 percent of FPL would be eligible for a premium credit based on capping an individual's share of the premium at a flat 13 percent of income. For purposes of calculating household size, illegal immigrants will not be included in FPL. Liability for premiums would be capped at 13 percent of income for the purchase of a silver plan."

<a href="http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2009/9/17/4324475.html">Baucus subsidy</a>

Now the Snowe Amendment:

"This amendment establishes a non-profit government corporation through which a "safety net" plan would be provided in any state in which affordable coverage was not available in the Exchange to at least 95% of state residents. An individual would be deemed to have affordable access if either of two conditions is met. First, two or more plans are offered with premiums - the cost of which does not exceed a specified percentage of the individual's adjusted gross income (AGI), after deducting any available tax credit or employer subsidy from the cost of such premium. The percentage contribution shall range from 3 percent of AGI at 133 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, to 13 percent at 300 percent and above. ..."

So in order for the Snowe Amendment to trigger the public option, 5% of a states population has to not be able to afford private insurance premiums "after deducting any available tax credit".  But if the Baucus proposal provides a "tax credit" to everyone, at the same level that Snowe defines as affordable, how can anyone fall below the affordable level defined by Senator Snowe?

Maybe I'm reading this wrong.  Can someone explain how anyone could fall below the Snowe affordable criteria when the Baucus tax credit would make sure you're above it?

A simple counter proposal to the trigger mechanism that will kill the public option.

An opt-out "killer trigger".  Let the public option start from day 1.  A set of criteria is set up to allow the insurance companies the chance to prove they can hold down costs and premiums and cover everyone.  If after 5 years the insurance companies prove they are more competitive than the public option, the public option is dropped.

Those who say they want to give the insurance companies the opportunity to prove themselves, will have their desires met by this trigger.  The public option can be designed for 2 phases. The 1st phase might be a full price buy-in, where the costs of implementation are fully funded by premiums payed into the system.  If the trigger is not pulled, the 2nd phase of subsidized premiums kicks in for those who are unable to pay full price premiums.

The only reason to oppose an opt-out trigger would be that you know a public option will provide health care much better and cheaper than private insurance companies and you want to design a trigger that will kill a public option before it gets started. 

Let the trigger discussions begin!