Category Archives: Jack Heidel

How Do We Fight Economic Inequality? By Restoring Growth!

Posted on by
Reply

The liberal economist Paul Krugman returns to one of his favorite topics in yesterday’s New York Times, “Why Inequality Matters”.  “On average, Americans remain a lot poorer today than they were before the economic crisis.  For the bottom 90 percent of families, this impoverishment reflects both a shrinking economic pie and a declining share of that pie.”  The problem with Mr. Krugman’s analysis is that he offers no solution beyond more fiscal stimulus: “the premature return to fiscal austerity has done more than anything to hobble the recovery.”
CaptureBut there is another route to recovery and it is propounded in today’s Wall Street Journal by George Osborne, the United Kingdom’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, “How Britain Returned to Growth”. “We cut spending and top tax rates, and now deficits are down and jobs are being created at a healthy clip … at the rate of 60,000 per month, roughly equivalent to 300,000 in the U.S. … The corporate tax rate is being cut to 20% from 28%. … As a result, more international firms are moving their headquarters to Britain and investment is flowing into our country.”
Yes, as Mr. Krugman says, economic inequality in the U.S. is bad and getting worse.  The question is what to do about it.  Shall we try to improve the situation with artificial stimulation, increasing government debt, already very high, for future generations?  Or shall we address this inequality by encouraging businesses to grow and expand and thereby raise wages and hire more people.
The good news is that America is the success story of the 20th century.  The bad news is that everyone else in the world has figured this out and is now copying our own best methods.  Either we can compete, innovate, stay on top and thrive, or else we can get lazy, stagnate and sink down in the pack.
Will it be more inequality or more growth?  The choice is up to us!

Why Is It So Hard For Congress To Do Its Job?

Posted on by
Reply

 

In response to the recent budget deal which has already passed the House of Representatives, Taxpayers for Common Sense has issued a new report “Real Savings, Real Deficit Reduction: Relieving Budget Caps with Common Sense Savings in Fiscal Year 2014”, showing how $100 billion could be cut from the federal budget for fiscal 2014, completely offsetting the supposedly onerous cuts required by the sequester.  Here is a summary of what TCS has come up with:
Capture
Of course there are many ways to achieve $100 billion in savings in a single year and this is only one particular way to do it.  But it is a balanced plan making roughly comparable cuts from many different agencies and also including a significant amount of tax expenditure savings.  It would, of course, be much better to also include adjustments to entitlement spending such as Social Security and Medicare.  A big reason for keeping the sequester in place, or offsetting it with equivalent cuts, as TCS is suggesting, is to create more interest in making necessary changes in entitlement programs.
Yet another way of accomplishing the same goal would be to keep the sequester spending levels in place but to give each government agency the authority to rearrange the spending cuts within its only agency.  This is what management should be doing anyway on a routine basis.
It is very disappointing that Congress will not do the job, one way or another, that is required to operate the government on a sound financial basis.  Let’s hope that the voters make big changes in the elections coming up in 2014!

How to Get the Economy Back on Track

Posted on by
Reply

 

Harvard Economist, Martin Feldstein, has an Op Ed column in yesterday’s New York Times, “Saving The Fed From Itself”, which gets our current economic situation half right.  First of all, Mr. Feldstein says that the Fed’s quantitative easing policy is inadequate because “the magnitude of the effect has been too small to raise economic growth to a healthy rate.  … The net result is that the economy has been growing at an annual rate of less than 2 percent.  … Weak growth has also meant weak employment gains.  … Total private sector employment is actually less than it was six years ago.  … While doing little to stimulate the economy, the Fed’s policy of low long-term interest rates has caused individuals and institutions to take excessive risks that could destabilize the economy just as it did before the 2007-2009 recession.”  So far he’s right on the button!
But then he goes on to say, “To get the economy back on track,” Congress should enact a five year plan to spend a trillion dollars or more on infrastructure improvement and that this would “move the growth of gross domestic product to above three percent a year.”  An artificial stimulus like this might work temporarily but then it ends and we’re back where we started.  We need a self-generating stimulus that will keep going indefinitely on its own.  How do we accomplish this?
The answer should be obvious.  We do it by stimulating the private sector to take more risk in order to generate more profits. In the process they will hire more employees and boost the economy.
How do we motivate the private sector?  By lowering tax rates and loosening the regulations which stifle growth.  Closing tax loopholes and lowering deductions (which will raise revenue to offset the lower tax rates) has the added benefit of attacking the corporate cronyism which everyone deplores.
We really do need to put first things first.  If we can jump start the economy by motivating the private sector to invest and grow, we will have more tax revenue to spend on new and expanded government programs as well as shrinking the federal deficit.
Why is this so hard for so many people to understand?

Global Warming Is For Real. What Should We Do About It?

Posted on by
Reply

Although the threat of global warming is vastly overhyped, it is happening nonetheless.  Perhaps the best single indication of this is the shrinking of the north-pole ice cap.  The New York Times reported just a few days ago, “Large Companies Prepared to Pay Price on Carbon”, that at least 29 major companies “are incorporating a price on carbon into their long-range financial plans.”  This includes five big oil companies ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP and Shell.  Specifically, these major companies have all come to accept the reality of global warming and are preparing for a carbon tax to be levied before long.
The Congressional Budget Office has recently released a report “Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment”, which concludes that a tax of $20 to emit a ton of CO2 would raise a total of $1.2 trillion over a decade.  Such a tax would, for example, raise the price of gasoline by 10 to 15 cents per gallon.
Once we admit that global warming is for real, and that we need to address it in a serious way, a carbon tax is almost certainly the most efficient, and least economically harmful, way to do it.  A tax on carbon output would do many things.  It would give a big boost to renewable energy (solar and wind) with, or without, special subsidies for renewables.  It would speed up the transformation from the use of coal to natural gas, since natural gas only contains half as much carbon as coal does.  And it would create an economic incentive to speed up the development of carbon capture in order to make the burning of coal more cost competitive.
Of course, a new $120 billion per year carbon tax will affect the economy.  But it will do the least damage if the proceeds are used entirely for deficit reduction.  So we can address a serious environmental problem which effects life on earth and can do so in a way which also addresses a very serious fiscal problem.
I believe that the American people are up to making a sacrifice like this if the consequences of inaction are clearly explained to them.

Controlling the Cost of Healthcare

Posted on by
2

Capture

The New York Times is running a series of articles, “Paying Till It Hurts,” giving many examples of the very high cost of healthcare in the U.S. today.  The latest article “As Hospital Prices Soar, A Single Stitch Tops $500”, focuses on the high cost of emergency room treatment around the country.
We spend 18% of GDP on healthcare, twice as much as any other country in the world.  It is specifically the cost of healthcare entitlements, Medicare and Medicaid, which is driving our huge deficits and rapidly growing national debt.  But to limit the cost of these entitlement programs, we first have to address the more fundamental problem: how to control the overall cost of healthcare in general.
Our current healthcare system, a combination of private insurance and government programs, is very inefficient. The basic problem is that the tax treatment of employer provided health insurance takes away the incentive for individuals to control the cost of their own care.   And Obamacare does not solve this problem, because it just extends the present system to more people, rather than revamping it.
There are essentially two different ways to transform our current healthcare system to make it far more efficient.  One way is to turn it into a single payer system, like what most of the rest of the world has.  This could be accomplished by simply expanding Medicare to everyone.  Costs would then be controlled by government regulation which would, of course, include rationing.  Given the unpopularity of Obamacare, with all of its mandates and uniform coverage requirements, it is unlikely that Americans would be happy with such a highly proscribed single payer system.
The alternative is to change over to a truly consumer based, market oriented system.  This could be accomplished by limiting the present tax exemption for employer provided insurance.  For example, the current system could be replaced by a (refundable) tax credit equal to the cost of catastrophic insurance (i.e. insurance with a very high deductible).  All other healthcare costs, whether paid for directly by consumers or through insurance, would be with after tax dollars.  Subsidies could be provided to lower income people through the Obamacare exchanges.  Once such a system is set up and running smoothly, it could fairly easily be extended to encompass Medicare and Medicaid.
Insurance companies selling catastrophic coverage would negotiate with hospitals and other healthcare providers to get the lowest possible prices for their customers.  In other words, both insurance companies and providers would compete in the open market to deliver healthcare products at the lowest possible cost.
Something along this line will have to be done and the sooner we get started the better!

Should the Minimum Wage Be Raised?

Posted on by
2

In today’s New York Times, the economist Arindrajit Dube has an Op Ed column in the Great Divide series, “The Minimum We Can Do”, pointing out that today’s minimum wage of $7.25 per hour is only 37% of today’s median hourly wage of about $20 per hour.  This compares with the 1968 minimum wage of $10.60 per hour (in today’s dollars, adjusted for inflation) which was 55% of the median wage at that time.  This is in line with the current Democratic proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.
The standard argument against raising the minimum wage is that it will reduce employment because “when labor is made more costly, employers will hire less of it.”  However Mr. Dube offers empirical data which “suggest that a hypothetical 10% increase in the minimum wage affects employment in the restaurant or retail industries by much less than 1 percent” and therefore very little.
Basically Mr. Dube is arguing that raising the minimum wage won’t hurt the economy and it will help many low-paid workers.  The problem with this point of view is that it distracts attention from what we really should be doing: namely, everything we possibly can to speed up economic growth.  By far the best way to raise wages is to increase the value of labor by creating more jobs!
I may sound like a broken record, repeating the same thing over and over again, but we badly need to concentrate on the fundamentals of growing the economy: lowering tax rates, individual and corporate, to stimulate business investment and risk taking by entrepreneurs; removing onerous regulatory burdens, especially on new businesses and existing small businesses; and emphasizing career education and job training to fill the millions of high skill job openings which exist.
There are strong headwinds facing our economy: bad demographics (rapidly retiring baby boomers), pressure from technological progress and globalization which put a high premium on education and advanced skills, and massive national debt which will become a huge burden as interest rates inevitably increase.
These strong headwinds aren’t going away.  To overcome them we need national leaders who are able to rise above ideology and focus on the fundamentals.
Conclusion: we should raise the minimum wage when unemployment drops to 6% or, perhaps, tie a raise in the minimum wage to a tax reform measure which significantly lowers tax rates.

Why Is Obamacare So Unpopular? Because It’s Too Coercive!

Posted on by
1

 

The individual mandate for health insurance, upheld by the Supreme Court a year and a half ago, is now leading to millions of policy cancellations in the individual insurance market.  The mandate overrides any existing policy which does not provide minimum coverage.  The employer mandate, stipulating that any business with 50 or more employees must provide health insurance for all fulltime employees, has caused many businesses to replace fulltime employees with part-timers.
But these are not the only forms of coercion under Obamacare.  As reported in yesterday’s New York Times, “Court Confronts Religious Rights of Corporations”, the Supreme Court is expected to accept a case involving the Hobby Lobby’s refusal, on religious grounds, to pay for insurance coverage for the contraceptive coverage which is required to meet minimum standards.
It would be much better to replace all of these coercive mandates with economic incentives.  This could actually be done in such a way that would also make healthcare less expensive, thereby giving a big boost to our economy.  Here is one way to do this, as I discussed in my November 14, 2013 post:

  • Provide a flat and universal tax credit for health insurance coverage which applies to everyone and not just for employer provided healthcare.  The (refundable) credit would be roughly the amount necessary for catastrophic insurance coverage.
  • Convert Medicare and Medicaid into a means-based addition to this tax credit.
  • Everyone with continuous coverage (paid for by the tax credit) would be protected from price spikes or cancellations if they get sick.  This provides a strong incentive for everyone to buy and retain coverage.

It is entitlement spending which is driving our country’s fiscal crisis.  And healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid make up a big part of entitlements.  In order to get these costs under control, we need to first get the cost of private healthcare under control.  The best way to do this is with economic incentives rather than coercive mandates.
Obamacare doesn’t need to be repealed.  It could just as well be modified and improved as described above.

How to Create a More Just and Equal Society

Posted on by
2

 

In a recent Washington Post column, “Government is Not Beholden to the Rich”, the economics writer Robert Samuelson shows that the federal government is actually “beholden to the poor and middle class.  It redistributes from the young, well-off and wealthy to the old, needy and unlucky.”
For example, in 2006 “53% of non-interest federal spending represented individual benefits and healthcare.  Of these transfers (nearly $1.3 trillion), almost 60% went to the elderly.  Of the non-elderly’s $550 billion of benefits and healthcare, the poorest fifth of households received half.  The non-elderly paid about 85% of the taxes, with the richest fifth covering two-thirds of that.  If government taxes and transfers – what people pay and get – are lumped together, the average elderly household received a net payment of $13,900 in 2006; the poorest fifth of non-elderly households received $12,600.  By contrast, the net tax payment for the richest fifth of non-elderly households averaged $66,000.”
A couple of months ago a Wall Street Journal Op Ed “Obama’s Economy Hits His Voters Hardest” by the economist Stephen Moore, points out that during the time period 1981 – 2008, the Great Moderation, income for black women was up by 81%, followed by white women up 67%, black men up 31% and, finally, white men up only 8%.  Of course, all of these groups have lost income in the last four years, during the very weak recovery from the Great Recession.
The answer is clear.  The best way to help low income people lift themselves up is not to redistribute even more government resources to them but rather to boost the economy to create more and better jobs.  There are tried and true methods to get this done: tax reform (to encourage more risk taking and entrepreneurship), immigration reform (to provide more willing workers) and true healthcare reform (to get healthcare spending under control).
We need national leaders who understand how to make the economy grow faster and are able to stay focused on this urgent task.

The Floundering of America

Posted on by
Reply

 

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, columnist William Galston talks about “The Floundering of America”.  Based on recent reports from the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Galston says that “Today we are hurtling toward a less dynamic economy, a meaner society and a riskier world.”
His argument is based on these observations:

  • For the past 40 years, 1970-2010, the labor force expanded at an average rate of 1.6% per year.  It will soon slow to only .4% annual growth, because of more retirements and a plateauing of women’s labor-force participation. This means that growth in GDP will slow down to about 2% annually from its historical average of over 3%.
  • America is aging very fast.  Today there are 57 million Social Security beneficiaries which will increase to 76 million in 2023.  Obviously this will rapidly increase entitlement spending on retirees.
  • America already spends 18% of GDP on healthcare costs and the CBO projects that this will grow to 22% by 2038.

“In sum, current trends and policies will yield lower rates of economic growth, painfully slow gains in real incomes, huge increases in outlays for expenses related to an aging population, and a health sector that devours more and more of the national product”, he says.
These trends are all contributing to an explosion of the national debt.  The only current strategy to keep this debt even roughly stable during the next decade, let alone reduce it, is to shrink discretionary spending through sequestration.  This will lead to a decline in discretionary spending to 5.3% of GDP by 2023.  This means roughly 2.6% of GDP for national defense with an equal share or all other domestic purposes.
“This is pure folly”, says Mr. Galston. “The country needs a new national strategy for a viable future.”
How do we achieve a new strategy?  Immigration reform will increase the size of the workforce.  Tax reform could boost the economy by encouraging business expansion, risk taking and entrepreneurship.  True (consumer-driven) healthcare reform could dramatically lower the cost of healthcare.  In other words there are potential policies out there that address our national floundering. We simply need leaders who are capable of going beyond partisanship in order to help create a better future!

Nowhere to Cut? II. Are You Really Trying?

Posted on by
Reply

The New York Times has a story today, “A Dirty Secret Lurks in the Struggle Over a Fiscal ‘Grand Bargain’”, suggesting that there are really two reasons why the House-Senate Budget Conference Committee, chaired by Representative Paul Ryan and Senator Patty Murray, is unlikely to accomplish very much.  The simple reason is that the Republicans will not support tax increases, on which the Democrats insist, and the Democrats will not support major changes to entitlement programs, on which the Republicans insist.
But the “dirty secret” (according to the NYT) is that Republicans don’t really want to trim either Social Security or Medicare, which many Tea Partiers receive, and Democrats don’t really want to raise taxes on the upper income individuals who support them.  Furthermore, the deficit for 2013 was “only” $680 billion, and is expected to drop further in the next few years, while interest rates are so low that borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars each year is not expensive.  In other words, just kick the can down the road.  Let somebody else worry about the problem in the future.
My previous post “Nowhere to Cut”, based on the report from the Congressional Budget Office, “Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2014 – 2023”, picks 14 possible budget cuts or revenue enhancements out of a total of 103 such items listed.  Just these 14 items alone amount to a savings of $566 billion over ten years, more than enough to offset half of the entire sequester amount.
For example, raising the eligibility age for Medicare to 67 would save $23 billion (over 10 years), using the ‘chained’ CPI to measure inflation for all mandatory programs would save $162 billion, tightening eligibility for food stamps would save $50 billion, taxing carried interest as ordinary income would save $17 billion, limiting highway funding to expected highway revenues would save $65 billion, reducing the size of the federal workforce through attrition would save $43 billion, limiting medical malpractice torts would save $57 billion, and modifying Tricare fees for working-age military retirees would save $71 billion.  Just these eight savings total $456 billion and would offset almost half of the entire sequester.
What is so difficult about making a tradeoff deal like this?  Isn’t this what we send people to Washington to do?