For these reasons, a politically diverse panel of Medicare experts the National Academy of Social Insurance convened last year concluded unanimously that the provision of new revenues for Medicare must be part of the debate on long-term Medicare solutions. The amendment would make it still more difficult to overcome gridlock in this area. The amendment would likely tilt fiscal policy in ways that benefit powerful interests and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans. Such tax breaks disproportionately benefit the affluent and large corporations. By contrast, basic programs could continue to be cut by a simple majority vote.
Federal programs tend primarily to benefit the middle class and the poor.
The amendment consequently would be likely to lead over time to a further widening of income disparities between the wealthy and other Americans. They are wider here than in any other western, industrialized nation. The amendment would make it virtually impossible to pass proposals that would raise excise taxes on tobacco products to discourage smoking and use a portion of the proceeds for smoking cessation programs, health research into tobacco-related illnesses, payments to tobacco farmers who otherwise would be injured by the legislation, and initiatives in the child care, education, or health care coverage areas. Legislation of this nature also would require a two-thirds vote. The founding fathers rejected requiring a supermajority to raise revenues when they wrote the Constitution, in part because their experience during the 1780s in attempting to raise revenue under the supermajority system the Articles of Confederation established proved unworkable.