Category Archives: New York Times

Who is Responsible for the Sour Economy?

Posted on by
Reply

In yesterday’s New York Times the columnist Ross Douthat with “The Great Disconnect” makes a good case that the Washington to Boston corridor, i.e. the national elite, is disconnected from America’s most pressing problems.  Instead of concerning themselves with jobs and the economy, healthcare costs and entitlement reform, fighting poverty and reforming the tax code, which are the real priorities of the American people, the issues getting the most attention by our national leaders are rather gun control, immigration reform and climate change mitigation which represent much lower public priorities.
Of course there is a political logjam between the two parties.  The Republicans want to use free market incentives to improve the economy such as tax reform and the elimination of onerous regulations.  The Democrats want more government stimulus which is controversial because it will increase the deficit.  As far as Mr. Douthat is concerned both parties are pretty much equally to blame for the stalemate because of their unwillingness to compromise in order to make progress on our biggest problems.
In a situation like this there is really only one person who has the clout to make a difference.  It is the President.  Presumably he is motivated to improve the economy more quickly because lack of progress will be a blot on his record and a drag on the chances of his party in the next presidential election.
The problem is that his liberal ideology, which got him elected and then re-elected, is at odds with the one single measure which would most improve the economy.  I am referring to pro-growth, broad-based tax reform where rate reduction and simplification would be offset revenue-wise by eliminating deductions and closing loopholes.  If such tax reform includes the elimination of the tax deduction for employer provided health insurance (again, offset with lower tax rates!), the cost of healthcare would drop dramatically as consumers started paying attention to their own costs.  Then Medicare and Medicaid could be brought into the same framework and presto, we have entitlement reform as well.
Republicans are strong advocates of tax reform.  It’s too bad that Democratic leaders can’t see how everyone, including themselves, would benefit from doing this!

Will Higher Inflation Help the Economy?

Posted on by
4

The New York Times’ Eduardo Porter has a column in yesterday’s paper “Making the Case for a Rise in Inflation”, arguing that a 4% inflation rate, for example, would be a better target rate for the Federal Reserve than its present 2% target rate.   The idea is that higher inflation would lessen the value of a dollar, thereby eating away at our $12 trillion in public debt (on which we pay interest).  A lower value of the dollar would also boost the economy by making exports less expensive.  Higher inflation would likewise encourage consumers to spend more because the value of the dollar is decreasing more rapidly.
Mr. Porter does point out that there would be opposition to any policy of purposely letting inflation go up.  The best known Fed Chair in recent years, Paul Volcker, says that “All experience amply demonstrates that inflation, when fairly and deliberately started, is hard to control and reverse”.
The biggest problem, though, is the risky procedure of trying to boost the economy with monetary policy (quantitative easing, QE1, QE2 and QE3) rather than using fiscal policy (tax reform and deregulation).  The creation of an enormous amount of new money in a slow recovery creates huge upward pressure on inflation.  The economy is slowly improving on its own accord.  Very soon (in the next few years) the Fed will have to perform the difficult function of withdrawing money from the system fast enough to avoid inflation and, at the same time, slow enough, to keep interest rates from skyrocketing.  So the question is, will the Fed be able to simultaneously keep both inflation and interest rates under some kind of control?
For sure we don’t want to make its job more difficult by pushing inflation any higher than necessary at the present time!

The Folly of Paul Krugman

Posted on by
Reply

 

In yesterday’s New York Times Paul Krugman has a column “Fight the Future” in which he says that “fiscal contraction” is “undermining what might otherwise have been a fairly vigorous recovery” and that  focusing on long run fiscal sustainability “isn’t a way of being responsible”.  He compares our fiscal problems with global warming and says that the “uncertainty about the impact of greenhouse gases on global temperatures actually strengthens the case for action, to head off the risk of catastrophe”.  But “delaying action on entitlement reform has no comparable cost”.  He even says that seeking a “grand bargain” that links reduced austerity now to longer-run fiscal changes is harmful because it would involve negotiating with untrustworthy Republicans!
First of all, there has been no real fiscal austerity in the past five years.  Federal expenditures took a huge jump from 2008 to 2009 and have increased each year since, in spite of huge deficits.  The sequester will not cut spending in 2013 compared with 2012 but only slow down the rate of increase.  There is little, if any, uncertainty about how fast the costs of healthcare in general, and Medicare in particular, will increase in the years ahead.  The current slowdown in healthcare costs in the last few years still leaves it growing at twice the rate of increase of GDP.  Demographics alone clearly show that the cost of Medicare will start increasing even more rapidly in just a few years from now.
Mr. Krugman concludes by saying that “influential people should stop using the future as an excuse for inaction.  The clear and present danger is mass unemployment, and we should deal with it, now.”  I basically agree with him!  The question is how!  Should we deal with it by artificial stimulation (bigger deficits and more debt) or rather by boosting the private sector with tax reform and strategic deregulation?  It takes two to tango and Mr. Krugman doesn’t help by constantly ridiculing the Republicans!

Should Nebraska Adopt the Common Core Standards?

Posted on by
Reply

 

Yesterday’s New York Times has an article by Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus “Who’s Minding the Schools?”, which makes a strong case against the so called Common Core education standards already adopted by 45 states.  Their argument is that the standards are a “one-size-fits-all pathway governed by abstract academic content” which will primarily benefit the affluent middle class students who have strong parental support and who will go on to attend selective colleges.
About a year ago Mr. Hacker wrote another NYT article “Is Algebra Necessary?”, pointing out all the grief resulting from requiring high school students to learn algebra.  The Common Core standards have a strong algebra component and so they will tend to solidify the expectation that all high school students study algebra and learn it well.  This is an especially big challenge for low income and minority students who have the least academic success in high school and are the most likely to drop out before graduation.
Both the U.S. Senate and the House are currently considering legislation to renew No Child Left Behind by giving states more flexibility in figuring out how to increase educational success for their own students.  This makes a lot of sense and should make it possible to cut back substantially on the approximately $100 billion per year spent by the federal Department of Education on grants to the various states.  In other words, for various reasons there is currently taking place a shift in educational policy to give more control and responsibility back to the states.  The Common Core standards are attempting to move things towards more federal control and therefore are likely to face very strong headwinds.

After the Crisis: The Power Inversion and What It Means

Posted on by
Reply

 

In today’s New York Times David Brooks has a column “The Power Inversion”  describing a shift of economic and political power from the federal government to municipal governments.  Of course, the rural to urban population migration has been taking place for many years.  But now the financial crisis and resulting political stalemate in Washington is causing civic leaders to take more initiative in addressing economic problems.  The Brooking Institution’s Bruce Katz gives many specific examples of such initiatives in a recent speech “After the Crisis: The Metropolitan Revolution”.
This shift of power away from Washington and back to local government could have big ramifications for the federal budget which, as almost everyone knows, is currently running huge deficits.  Here is a good example to start with.  The U.S. Senate is about to take up revision of the No Child Left Behind law which expired several years ago.  A bill, Strengthening America’s Schools, has been introduced by the Democratic majority for this purpose.  It allows states to create their own education reform plans and sets testing and performance standards for all states to follow.  It is much more flexible than NCLB.
Congress should take this opportunity to reorganize the federal Department of Education by greatly consolidating its huge number of individual programs (over 100 separate programs in K-12 education alone).  Support for state education programs could be given in much larger chunks thereby giving states and school districts more leeway in figuring out the best way to divide up and allocate their education dollars.  The total federal budget for education could be significantly reduced in this way and the states will, at the same time, be able to do a better job with fewer dollars because there will be fewer strings attached.
This is a smart way to shrink the federal deficit and we should take advantage of it!

Colonoscopies Show Why American Health Care is So Expensive

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday’s New York Times has an excellent article, “The $2.7 Trillion Medical Bill”, which uses a detailed analysis of the cost of colonoscopies to show why American healthcare is so expensive.  In the U.S. an insurance company pays about $3500 – $4000 for a colonoscopy compared with the cost for the procedure in Europe of between $400 – $800.  Also the price can vary enormously, from as little as $665 (in Utah) to as much as $8577 (in New York City).  There are all sorts of reasons for this huge variation in cost, for example, whether or not an anesthesiologist is used as well as a gastroenterologist, and whether the procedure is performed in a surgical center rather than in a doctor’s office.
The basic problem, of course, is that in the U.S. nobody is sufficiently responsible for the bottom line.  The patient isn’t responsible because the bill is paid by the insurance company.  The insurance company negotiates with healthcare providers but the insurance premium is paid by the patient’s employer.  If the insurance company has to pay too much in claims one year, then it just raises insurance premiums for the following year.
The problem is getting so serious that it will soon have to be dealt with in a comprehensive way.  There are essentially two different ways to proceed.  One is to have a single payer system like most of Europe and Canada.  Healthcare would be tightly controlled by the federal government which would set prices and ration care.  The cost of healthcare would be controlled but we’d be giving up a great deal of personal freedom in return.  Basically it would amount to expanding Medicare into a rigidly prescribed national healthcare system.
The alternative is to adopt a new payment system which makes each of us directly responsible for the cost of our own healthcare.  The best way to accomplish this is to remove the tax exemption from employer provided health insurance.  Health insurance could still be provided by an employer but it would be considered a part of total salary and be taxed as such.  Then the employee, as well as any self-employed person, would have a direct personal stake in setting up an efficient health insurance plan to keep the cost of healthcare under control.
Americans put great emphasis on personal freedom and responsibility and I believe that most of us would prefer this latter free market approach to healthcare rather than a single payer system like what most of the rest of the world has!

Income Inequality and What to Do About It

Posted on by
2

 

In yesterday’s New York Times Timothy Noah has a column in The Great Divide series “The 1 Percent Are Only Half the Problem” in which he makes the case that there are two different types of inequality which society needs to address.  First, the income gap between the top 1% and the bottom 99% is getting wider and wider.  But there is also a skills gap between the (college) educated class and those whose education ended in high school.
What can and should be done about these two different aspects of inequality in America?  Controlling the excesses on Wall Street in order to avoid future bailouts will help control the wages of the top 1%.  This is already being done with the Dodd-Frank financial reforms and current efforts to require the biggest banks to hold more capital reserves.
But much more could be done.  Unfortunately, the main effect of the Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy is to drive up the stock market which favors the more affluent.  Broad based tax reform which would lower tax rates by eliminating unjustified tax breaks for the rich would do much more to stimulate faster economic growth and give a big boost to middle class incomes.
The huge and rapidly growing cost of employer provided health care (now averaging about $5000 annually for individual coverage and about $14,000 for family coverage) is having a huge negative impact on middle class wage growth.  The U.S. spends twice as much of GDP, about 18%, on healthcare as any other developed nation.  Reforming employer provided health insurance by removing the tax exemption (and replacing it with lower tax rates) would get each of us personally involved with controlling healthcare costs.
The skills gap is driven by globalization and the advance of technology and is not going to disappear.  The only way to address it is by improving educational outcomes.  Putting more emphasis on early childhood education (ages 0-5) will help as well as making college more accessible and affordable.  Online education and especially Massive, Open, Online Courses (MOOCs) will help in both respects.  Hopefully more and more students and families will come to realize that there are many attractive alternatives to very expensive and elite residential colleges and universities.  It is not necessary to be wealthy or to borrow lots of money to attend college!
Conclusion:  inequality in American society is a large and growing problem.  But there are effective ways for both policy makers and individuals to respond.

The New York Times and Fiscal Austerity

Posted on by
2

The New York Times is devoting a lot of space recently to debunking the Republican’s supposed campaign to inflict fiscal austerity on the United States.  My May 10, 2013 blog entry responded to an NYT article on May 9 entitled “Emphasis on Deficit Reduction Is Seen by Economists as Impeding Recovery”.  Now they’re at it again!  Today there’s an Op Ed entitled “How Austerity Kills”, by David Stuckler and Sanjay Basu.  The authors state that “Recessions aren’t necessarily deadly.  But harsh spending cuts are”.
It needs to be pointed out over and over again, as often as necessary until it sinks in, that the current year’s federal budget does not represent a cut.  In 2012 actual expenditures were $3,538 billion while the 2013 federal expenditure budget, as estimated three months ago (in February 2013) by the Congressional Budget Office, is $3,553 billion.  This represents an increase of $15 billion from last year’s (2012) expenditures to this year’s (2013) estimated expenditures.  Holding down budget increases from one year to the next, at a time of enormous deficits, is exactly what our elected representatives ought to be doing.  If Mr. Stuckler and Mr. Basu want to argue that the sequester adjustments represent a poor way of holding back on large spending increases, then many Republicans, including myself, would agree with them.  Let’s definitely reduce spending increases in a more intelligent way!
But the larger issue is the question of austerity itself.  We’ve now had four years in a row of trillion dollar deficits and this year’s deficit is predicted by CBO to be $845 billion.  CBO projects deficits of $616 billion for 2014, $430 billion for 2015, and then annual deficits which start growing again (under current policy) and returning to the trillion dollar level by 2023.  This represents $7 trillion in additional debt by 2023 beyond the $6 trillion in debt already accumulated in the last five years.  To continue on this projected path is the height of irresponsibility!  And for the New York Times to refer to this amount of excessive spending as austerity is ludicrous, simply ludicrous!