Category Archives: Solutions

Should the Employer Mandate Be Repealed?

Posted on by
Reply

 

In last Sunday’s New York Times the columnist Ross Douthat makes an excellent case in “A Hidden Consensus on Health Care”,  that Obamacare’s employer mandate, recently postponed for one year until January 1, 2015, should be repealed altogether.  The reason for delaying its implementation is because of the complexity of the process for the government to gather all the necessary information about a company’s employees and coordinating with IRS tax returns to verify incomes.  This is, of course, a mammoth job.
Furthermore, small and medium sized companies, near the 50 employee cutoff for mandatory coverage, will not have to immediately slow down their growth, in order to avoid the health insurance requirement.  This could help boost the economy in the short turn.
In addition, as Mr. Douthat points out, it is the tax exemption for employer provided health insurance which is the biggest impediment for getting the cost of healthcare under control.  It means that employees are shielded from the true costs involved in receiving care and therefore have little, if any, incentive to hold down the cost of their own care.
If this tax exemption was eliminated, perhaps as part of a broad based tax reform initiative, then employers could still offer an optional health insurance benefit to their employees but it would be taxed as part of their total pay.  This would give employees an interest in holding down the cost of their own insurance.  And they would also have the option to shop around on the private market, perhaps on the new exchanges, for a better deal.
The Employer Mandate is thus altogether a dead weight on our struggling economy.  It’s certainly beneficial to have it postponed for a year.  Let’s go the rest of the way and repeal it altogether!   This would be a significant step towards true healthcare reform!

Does the Economy Need More Spending Now?

Posted on by
Reply

In today’s Wall Street Journal the economist Alan Blinder writes, “The Economy Needs More Spending Now”, that the tax hikes and spending cuts agreed to in January and before are reducing GDP growth by 1.5% – 2% annually.  Mr. Blinder claims that it would be easy to design a new fiscal stimulus package that adds 2% to GDP per year as long as it lasts.  He also claims that a fundamental change like tax reform might only add a much smaller .2% to GDP per year although this much smaller annual effect would repeat indefinitely and therefore eventually amount to a large cumulative effect.  This is a sensible argument as far as it goes but is incomplete.
In the last five years there has been almost $6 trillion in (deficit) stimulus spending, coupled with a $3 trillion quantitative easing program by the Federal Reserve.  This represents an unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus to the economy by the federal government.  And the result has been a tepid although steady 2% annual growth in GDP, much slower than usually follows a recession.
After all of this enormous stimulus, which is having only a meager effect, what makes more sense:  to try even more stimulus or to try something different?  What else is there to try?  Immigration reform will boost the economy by drawing our 11,000,000 illegal immigrants into the main stream economy.  Note that citizenship (amnesty) is not required to accomplish this, only legal status.  Also, requiring many people receiving welfare (food stamps, disability benefits, etc.) to work would boost the economy by increasing the size of the labor force.
Broad based tax reform, greatly curtailing most, if not all, tax preferences, would be so attractive that it should not be put on a back burner, as Mr. Blinder suggests.  In fact, completely repealing the ACA’s Employer Mandate, now that it’s been postponed for a year, would give a big boost to many medium sized companies for which required health insurance is a big impediment to growth.
The point is that there are many ways to boost the economy besides even more artificial deficit stimulus, whose effect would be at most temporary anyway, as Mr. Blinder suggests.  It really is important to shrink our still very large annual deficits down to zero fairly quickly so that we stop adding to the huge burden which we have already placed on future generations.  In other words, we can likely have stronger economic growth and fiscal restraint at the same time, the best of all possible worlds!

The Urgency of the U.S. Debt Problem

Posted on by
2

 

In Friday’s Wall Street Journal Kimberley Strassel has a column “Rebooting the Budget Talks” which discusses a new approach to budget planning being taken by Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican.  Mr. Johnson wants to go beyond the usual 10 year budget planning by using 20 and 30 year projections from the Congressional Budget Office for both tax revenue and spending.  Even assuming that current federal government spending grows only by population growth plus inflation (which would require unusual restraint), by 2043 the national debt will have increased by $72 trillion, with public debt (on which interest is paid) amounting to 139% of GDP.  See “Thirty-year deficits and debt” for more detail.
Of course, it is easy to say that 30 year projections are way too long to have real credibility, and so let’s just stick to the usual 10 year projection which shows the public debt shrinking from today’s 75.1% to 73.6% in 10 years and so therefore becoming “stabilized”.  Most of us old folks will be gone but today’s young and middle aged people will still be around 30 years from now and so should be very much concerned about our likely fiscal condition in 2043.  And the CBO 30 year projection assumes such unlikely restraint that the debt will probably be even greater by then.
The reason why a 30 year projection is so much worse than a 10 year projection is because  the entitlement explosion is much greater in the out years compared with just the next 10 years alone.  Conclusion: the mild restraint on entitlement growth (such as a chained CPI) being reluctantly offered by Democrats today is an entirely inadequate way to curtail entitlement growth for the long haul.  Let’s get real and propose real solutions to our nation’s urgent fiscal problems.  We’ve been kicking the can down the road for way too long already.  We can no longer afford to postpone significant action until some future date when conditions are more amenable for reform.  We must act now!

Free Market Healthcare in America: How Do We Get There?

Posted on by
4

 

Almost everyone agrees that healthcare in the U.S. is way too expensive but how do we change to a better system?  Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Avik Roy have laid out a roadmap to do this: “The future of free-market healthcare”.  Here is the essence of their plan: 1) start with what we will soon have under Obamacare: subsidized health-insurance exchanges; 2) limit subsidies in the exchanges to incomes up to 300% of the federal poverty level as in Massachusetts and also limit the growth of subsidies to the overall growth rate of the economy; 3) use the exchanges for Medicare reform by raising the eligibility age for Medicare by 3 months each year.  Retirees would then gradually migrate into the defined contribution system of the exchanges; 4) gradually shift Medicaid enrollees into the exchanges.  The exchanges would allow them to move up the income ladder while maintaining their health insurance.
Eventually all low income and retired  Americans would become part of a unified health-insurance system based on the exchanges which would provide subsidies as needed.  I would add one additional feature to this system:  remove the tax exemption from employer provided insurance.  This would, of course, create healthcare cost consciousness amongst employees.  Employers could still offer a health insurance package to their employees but it would become part of their taxable compensation.  They might decide to join an exchange instead for a better deal.
Such a system as outlined above is based on the Swiss free market model.  The Swiss choose their own doctors and have short waiting times for appointments.  The cost of healthcare in Switzerland is about half as much per person as in the U.S. so we would achieve a huge savings.  We have got to make big changes in the way we deliver and pay for healthcare in the U.S. and here is one way to do it!

What is America’s Biggest Problem?

Posted on by
4

 

I’d like to do things differently on Memorial Day and ask you to say what you think our biggest national problem is at the present time.  If you have been following this blog for a while, you can probably guess what my own answer is.  But I will not answer directly, at least not yet.   However I will respond to your comments and give you my take on your answer.  Later on I’ll give you my own answer to the question. I hope to hear back from you!

Are Low Interest Rates Hurting the Economy?

Posted on by
2

 

The former Chairwoman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila Bair, has recently stated that “Low interest rates are hurting, not helping, the economy”.  According to Ms. Bair, historically low interest rates have helped the housing market recover but are hindering business lending, which holds the key to the overall recovery.  “Very low interest rates on your (the banks) balance sheet … is not good for business lending”, says Bair.  She would like the Fed to start increasing rates in a gradual and methodical manner so that the market can adjust.
Even the WSJ’s conventional economics columnist, David Wessel, admits that “big companies continue to build an enormous cash hoard as if they are preparing for catastrophe”.  He says that “Ben Bernanke sees the exit, he just doesn’t know how to get there”.
Current policies for fixing the economy are clearly not working and may be doing grave damage.  There are lots of policy measures which might help, and certainly won’t hurt, such as broad-based tax reform, loosening regulation of small business, aggressively pursuing new trade agreements, visa reform, targeted job training, etc..  Concentrating on implementing such measures is what our national leaders should be doing!

Are the Democrats Really Serious?

Posted on by
6

In the March 18, 2013 edition of the Wall Street Journal, longtime Democratic party activist, Ted Van Dyk, essentially asks the above question in his op-ed column, “My Unrecognizable Democratic Party” . Mr. Van Dyk gives many examples of the lack of seriousness of the current national Democratic leaders.
One glaring example which he omits is the enormous difference between the recently proposed House Republican budget, which eliminates deficit spending over a ten year period, and the Senate Democratic budget, which makes no such attempt or even expresses any interest in doing so. The proposed Democratic budget actually increases the national debt by $5 trillion over the next ten years and ends the decade with annual deficits of over $500 billion dollars (see my previous post).
We have added $6 trillion in national debt over the past five budget years, 2009 – 2013, and the Democratic Senate proposes to add another $5 trillion over the next 10 years, with no end in site! How irresponsible can you be! How will this enormous new debt ever be paid off? What will happen when the Federal Reserve is forced to raise interest rates to combat the inevitable inflation which will arise from prolonged quantitative easing? When our public debt reaches $20 trillion, which will soon happen under Democratic budgeting, even an interest rate of 5% will require $1 trillion of interest payments per year forever!
It doesn’t take a lot of common sense to understand the painful fate awaiting our country if this scenario plays out. It is no consolation to predict that a conservative revolution will sweep across the country as a reaction to such irresponsible behavior from the Democrats. It would be far better for Democratic leaders to wake up and address our dire fiscal predicament before it gets even worse. Will this happen? Will Democrats heed Mr. Van Dyk’s warning? Let’s hope so!

Comparing the House and Senate Budgets

Posted on by
Reply

 

The Republican House of Representatives and the Democratic Senate have each in the past few days issued 10 year budget proposals.  The Heritage Foundation has neatly and dramatically summarized the huge differences between these two budgets and the visions they convey for the future of our country in the coming years.

By limiting the growth of spending to 3.4% per year for the next ten years, the Republican budget shows that it will be possible to shrink the deficit down to zero by 2023 and restore the sound fiscal policies which have guided our country for most of its history.  On the contrary, the Democratic budget projects 5% increases in spending for the next ten years and ends the next decade with annual deficits in the neighborhood of $600 billion.

In other words, a little bit of fiscal restraint, i.e. holding year-to-year spending increases to 3.4%, is all that it will take to get the U.S. back on a sound fiscal track.  What is so difficult about achieving such a common sense approach to budgeting?  If the Obama administration, or perhaps the Senate majority, wants to start new programs on early childhood education or green energy research, for example, then all it has to do is reduce spending elsewhere in the federal budget now approaching $4 trillion annually.

Fundamentally, in the final analysis, adopting a reasonable budget and sticking to it, is a moral issue.  Living within one’s means is such basic and transparently obvious good sense that the advocates of such a policy will ultimately prevail.  For the time being at least, the Democrats are ceding the high ground to the Republicans.

Why is Healthcare so Expensive?

Posted on by
2

Time Magazine has just published its longest article ever, a 25,000 word piece by Steven Brill, entitled Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us.  The article contains one example after another of outrageous medical bills being charged to people who are the least able to pay, either the indigent or the uninsured.  Mr. Brill’s solution to this horrible mess is for the government, i.e. the bureaucracy now being expanded by the Affordable Care Act, to do a much better job of using its clout to control costs.

But there is another point of view about what is wrong with our healthcare industry and what can and should be done to make it far more efficient and enable it to provide us with quality care at a much lower cost.  David Goldhill provides a roadmap to a consumer-driven healthcare system with his new book, Catastrophic care: How American Health Care Killed My Father and How we Can Fix It. 

Mr. Goldhill’s proposal is to introduce true competition, not quasi competition dictated by over-burdensome bureaucratic rules, into the American healthcare system.  In other words, let the marketplace figure out what works best by trial and error, rather than expecting even the brightest and most well-meaning experts to be able to figure it out a-priori.  There would still be massive government sponsored programs, such as cradle-to-grave catastrophic insurance and mandatory health accounts, to provide universal care for all.  But the myriad details would be left to the consumers and providers of healthcare to work out over time.

The healthcare crisis in the United States is not just about controlling the rapidly increasing costs of Medicare and Medicaid, as serious as this problem is.  It is also about controlling the costs of private healthcare which is retarding the growth of prosperity for the entire middle class.  Fundamentally we have two basic ways to proceed. We can either move toward a single payer government run program, like much the rest of the developed world, or we can set up a minimally controlled (to insure universal access) system where each of us has the primary responsibility for our own health.

The Connection between Business Investment and Unemployment, Revisited

Posted on by
Reply

In my previous post I discussed the very close inverse relationship between business investment and unemployment pointed out by John Taylor in his February 4, 2013 blog entry.  Paul Krugman pointed out that that investment can be subdivided into residential and nonresidential components and that residential investment shrunk dramatically during the Great Recession.  According to Krugman, this invalidates Taylor’s conclusion that the best way to boost the economy is to boost business investment.

But Taylor has done further analysis which shows that it is the nonresidential component of total fixed investment which has the very close inverse relationship with unemployment, not the residential component.

In other words, the best way to boost the economy, and thereby increase employment, is to stop giving excuses for our slow recovery because of low housing prices and to motivate businesses in general to increase investment.  There are various ways to do this, as pointed out by many commentators including myself and, the important thing, is to increase movement in this direction.