According to the federal government, thousands of American
families are both poor and high-income-simultaneously. These
families are considered poor enough to be eligible for the State
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) program, but under the
tax code, they are considered wealthy and so forced to pay the
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Their ranks may grow if Congress
moves forward with plans to expand SCHIP eligibility to wealthier
families. The unlikely convergence of these two programs shows how
the best intentions of Congress can go astray and result in
conflicting priorities. Instead of making this problem worse by
expanding SCHIP, Congress should keep SCHIP focused on low-income
families and extend the "hold harmless" provision of the AMT while
planning for permanent AMT reform.
Programs for the Poor and the Rich
SCHIP was created in 1997 to provide health insurance for children
in low-income families whose income exceeded eligibility for
Medicaid. Originally, children in families with income below 200
percent of the federal poverty line (FPL) were eligible for SCHIP.
Since that time, many states have expanded the program to include
children in families with much higher incomes.
At the opposite end of the spectrum lies the alternative minimum
tax. The AMT was created to force extremely wealthy taxpayers to
pay income tax by limiting their credits and deductions. The AMT
forces these families to exclude several credits and deductions,
particularly those for state and local taxes, when calculating
their tax liability. As a consequence, the families most at risk of
being forced to pay the AMT live in wealthier, high-tax states,
such as the New England states, New York, New Jersey, and
California.
Welfare for the Wealthy?
Now Congress is debating legislation to expand SCHIP to families
at up to 400 percent of the FPL. This means a family of four
earning $80,000-hardly low income-would be eligible for SCHIP. In
fact, this family would be in the upper half of the income
distribution and closer to the top quintile than the middle
quintile. An expansion of SCHIP this large would mean the program
would no longer be targeted at low-income families but actually
include high-income families as well.
If Congress were to extend SCHIP to families at 400 percent of
the FPL, approximately 70,000 families would receive a subsidy from
SCHIP and pay the AMT.[1] Thousands more will fall into this group if
Congress fails to extend the "hold harmless" provision of the
AMT.
Families in states with high local or state taxes are more
likely to fall under the proposed SCHIP expansion and the AMT. For
example, more families would be affected in New York (12,600) than
other states, because more New York families are likely to be
subject to the AMT.

Bad for SCHIP
With its proposed SCHIP expansion, Congress would end any
pretension that SCHIP is a program for low-income families. Many of
the potential new beneficiaries have incomes well above the median
income of families in the United States. The state of Maryland, for
example, proposed expanding SCHIP to families making just over
$80,000, which is almost 150 percent of U.S. median family
household income.
Expanding SCHIP to wealthier families adds to the cost of the
program. SCHIP already runs deficits in many states, and these
shortfalls will grow in the near future.[2] If states cannot pay for
SCHIP now, it makes little sense to expand the program to cover
high-income families. States have already appealed to the federal
government for bailouts (and won several such bailouts) because
they have spent too much on expanding SCHIP to cover wealthier
families.[3]
While the Department of Health and Human Services treats these
families as low-income families needing government assistance, the
tax code sees them as wealthy taxpayers who are not paying their
fair share of taxes.[4] When the AMT was created, its purpose was
to force 155 wealthy taxpayers to pay more in taxes by limiting
their credits and deductions. Since the AMT is not indexed for
inflation and the tax code has added more deductions, millions of
additional taxpayers are now subject to the AMT, including families
who may soon qualify for SCHIP.
While this confusion may be comic, it has some troubling
consequences. SCHIP crowds out the insurance that some of these
families currently possess.[5] SCHIP spending has surpassed expectations
and budgets, leading to shortfalls of $720 million in 2007 alone.[6] And
families have less money to spend when they have to pay the
AMT.
Conclusion
If SCHIP is expanded, thousands of families will find themselves
eligible for taxpayer-funded government benefits even while they
are forced to pay higher taxes through the AMT. It is not
surprising that Congress would handle these families
inconsistently. Given policymakers' misguided urge to increase
federal spending and intervention, lawmakers will continue to look
for more ways to raise taxes. Thus Congress treats the same
families in two contradictory ways, granting benefits with one hand
and taking away taxes with the other. When this happens, taxpayers
and families lose. They no longer have a choice in how to spend
their money and instead must rely upon the government to make
decisions for them.
Congress should not expand SCHIP to families that have income at
400 percent of the FPL. This would be the first step toward turning
a program for children from low-income families into an expensive
entitlement for families with above-average incomes. Instead,
Congress should keep SCHIP focused on low-income families and
reduce the onerous burden of the AMT. If Congress wants to help
these families, it should lower their taxes so that families can
keep more of their money.
Rea S. Hederman,
Jr., is Senior Policy Analyst, in the Center for Data
Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. Shanea Watkins, Ph.D.,
Policy Analyst in Empirical Studies in, the Center for Data
Analysis at The Heritage Foundation, helped gather data for this
paper.
[1] The
number of families eligible for both SCHIP and the AMT was
calculated by using SCHIP eligibility criteria for families earning
less than 400 percent of the FPL and the percentage of families
within that income range subject to the AMT. Calculations are based
on Census Bureau, 2006 March Current Population Survey, and
Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Division, Individual
Master File System, January 2006, at
www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/04in54cm.xls.
[6] Nina Owcharenko, "The
Truth About SCHIP Shortfalls."