Immigration Reform is Pro-Growth

Posted on by
2

 

The lead editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal, “A Pro-Growth Reform”, is right on the money.  It challenges the GOP House to improve the Senate immigration bill, not kill it.  The emphasis in the Senate bill is to provide an eventual path to citizenship for the approximately 11,000,000 illegal immigrants currently in the US.  To offset the charge that this is amnesty, the Senate bill greatly increases enforcement by doubling the size of the border patrol, at a cost of $4 billion per year, and increasing the criminal penalties for employers who mistakenly hire an illegal.  The Senate bill also increases the quota for skilled workers from the current 65,000 per year limit to 120,000 per year but it only barely increases the annual quotas for construction and agricultural guest workers, which doesn’t nearly meet current needs.
What is needed is less emphasis on eventual citizenship (coupled with stronger enforcement) but rather more emphasis on simply having an adequate supply of both skilled and unskilled legal guest workers.  This presents an opportunity for the House of Representatives to produce a better bill.
First of all, raising the quotas for both skilled and unskilled guest workers should be the first priority for the House.  An adequate supply of legal guest workers means there will be much less demand for illegals, which, in turn, means less need for the increased enforcement measures of the Senate bill.
Secondly, what immigrant workers need most is legal status rather than a guaranteed path to citizenship.  It is the constant risk of deportation and separation from their families which adversely affects their quality of life, rather than the lack of US citizenship.
More immigrants, both skilled and unskilled, will help our economy grow faster and recover more quickly from the Great Recession.  We should provide immigrants with the legal status they need to come to our country and succeed and prosper!

Who is Conducting War on the Unemployed?

Posted on by
Reply

In his ever provocative fashion, columnist Paul Krugman claims in today’s New York Times that fiscal conservatives, i.e. Republicans, are conducting “War On the Unemployed” because extended unemployment benefits are being allowed to expire both nationally and in various states around the country.  According to Mr. Krugman it is “meanspiritedness converging with bad economic analysis” because more government spending will boost the economy and, moreover, the federal deficit is nothing to be concerned about.
The problem is that we have now had enormous fiscal stimulus, i.e. huge federal deficits, for five years, as well as a highly expansive monetary policy, and the economy is still barely limping along at a 2% growth rate.  It is unfortunate that so many liberals are ideologically opposed to broad-based tax reform whereby tax rates would be lowered in a revenue neutral way by either eliminating entirely, or else cutting back substantially, the many tax preferences, deductions and loopholes which pervade the tax code.  By emphasizing profit potential over tax avoidance strategies, this would give a big boost to business risk takers and thereby lead to economic growth and lower unemployment.
At the same time that our economy is suffering from low growth and high unemployment, our national debt is exploding to a large extent because the federal government is spending too much money.  Efforts to rein in government spending across the board are highly desirable and should be supported as simple common sense.
By advocating tax reform to boost the private economy and, at the same time, restraining federal spending wherever possible, fiscal conservatives are helping the long-term unemployed far more than their supposed champions who are doing just the opposite!

Why it’s So Hard to Get the Long-term Unemployed Back to Work

Posted on by
2

 

Earlier this month the economist Edward Lazear had an op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal “The Hidden Jobless Disaster”, pointing out that, even though the unemployment rate has been dropping for the past four years, the employment-to-population ratio has stayed stuck at 58.5%.  This low labor participation rate means that many workers have dropped out of the labor force and stopped looking for work.  In fact the disability rolls have grown by 13% since 2009 and the number of people receiving food stamps has grown by 39%.  These disincentives help to explain why the proportion of long-term unemployed is still so very high at 37%.
The WSJ reported in April, “Workers Stuck in Disability Stunt Economic Recovery”, that the federal disability rolls have jumped from 7.1 million in December 2007, when the recession started, to 8.9 million today, which is 5.4% of the civilian workforce.  This exodus to disability costs 0.6% of GDP, a sizable chunk when GDP is only growing at an annual rate of about 2%.  Furthermore only 0.5% of federal disability recipients return to work in a given year compared to 20% for private, employer sponsored, disability recipients.
Two conclusions can be drawn from this data.  First of all, the federal government should be much stricter in establishing and enforcing work requirements for all public welfare recipients, including those on disability.  This should be noncontroversial but it won’t happen unless Congress and the President take the initiative and make it happen.
But even more important, our national leaders need to get far more serious about boosting the economy to get many more millions of the unemployed and underemployed back to work.  Fundamental tax reform would help the most but targeted deregulation and expanded foreign trade would also help a lot.  The Republicans have the strongest, free market, argument on this basic and high priority issue and they should hammer away at any Democrats, including the President, who are dragging their heels on it!

Should Welfare Recipients Be Required to Work?

Posted on by
Reply

 

On June 18, 2013, Lawrence Mead, Department of Politics and Public Policy, New York University, testified before Congress, “Making Welfare Work”, that even as the number of Americans receiving welfare has dramatically increased in recent years, welfare programs are failing to provide sufficiently strong incentives for the recipients to find work.  This has contributed to the fact that “the share of our population that is employed has recently fallen sharply compared to several European countries” such as Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Mead shows that there are three main reasons for this: “(1) work tests in the major income programs are still limited, (2) we have neglected the problem of poor men, and (3) the disability programs are diverting too many Americans from the work force entirely”.  He points out that the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 required that the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program put 50% of their cases in rigorous “work activities” by 2002.  This led to a dramatic reduction of the AFDC/TANF rolls by more than two-thirds. But since then exemptions and waivers have sharply limited the specific work activity demands which mobilized welfare recipients to hold jobs.
Even with the currently high unemployment rate, there are plenty of low-paid, low-skilled jobs available, which are suitable for welfare recipients.  After all, even a low-paid job may well provide the opportunity to learn skills as well as to develop better work habits. Congress clearly needs to strengthen work requirements for welfare.  And the incentives need to be right so that these workers keep more pay than they give up in benefits.
Putting more welfare recipients back to work will not only help control the federal budget but also give our economy a boost by increasing the size of the workforce!

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!

Is America in Decline?

Posted on by
2

A new book by the two economists Glenn Hubbard and Tim Kane “Balance: The Economics of Great Powers from Ancient Rome to Modern America” analyzes the decline of many of the great empires and civilizations in human history.  According to the authors, they all declined (or are now declining!) primarily for internal economic reasons rather than from external military threat.  The authors conclude that America’s own existential threat is fiscal.  Our lowest debt level in recent years was 23.9% of GDP in 1974 ($344 billion) which has climbed to 75% of GDP today ($12 trillion) and is predicted to keep growing worse in the years to come.
Our political system is too polarized to solve our huge debt problem.  Republicans want lower taxes; Democrats want higher spending.  If Republicans succeed in cutting spending, it upsets the voters and gives the Democrats an advantage.  If Democrats succeed in raising taxes, it upsets the voters and gives the Republicans an advantage.  So we end up with low taxes, high spending, fiscal imbalance and political stalemate.  This is the dilemma we are in.
But the authors propose a solution: a flexible balanced budget constitutional amendment where total outlays for a year do not exceed the median annual revenue collected in the seven prior years.  A three-fifths supermajority of each house of Congress can declare a one-year emergency exemption.  Additional one-year exemptions may be approved only by escalating votes in each house of Congress.  The amendment would take effect in the seventh year following ratification by the states.  During the seven year transition period the deficit would be reduced gradually each year until it reached zero.
Messrs Hubbard and Kane provide an excellent, nonpartisan analysis of the deep predicament in which our country now finds itself as well as an attractive means of extricating ourselves from this precarious situation.

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!

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!

Looking for Help!

Posted on by
Reply

 

America is in a tough position at the present time, both economically and fiscally.  Our economy is stuck in a slow growth mode of 2% per year, ever since the end of the recession four years ago.  The unemployment rate, now 7.6%, is dropping only very slowly which means many millions of people are either unemployed or underemployed.  Our national debt, now almost $17 trillion, is still growing rapidly.  As interest rates increase and return to normal levels, as they may be starting to do already, just paying the interest on this enormous debt load will take an increasingly large portion of government revenues in the years ahead.  At the same time entitlement spending, on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, is also increasing rapidly.  It is absolutely essential for our national leaders to strongly focus on finding solutions for these escalating problems and only a few of them, but not nearly enough, are making a concerted effort to do this.
I am trying to do something about these critical and urgent problems.  First of all, I challenged the incumbent Congressman for Nebraska’s Second District, Lee Terry, in the Republican Primary in May 2012, but to no avail as he was easily re-nominated and then re-elected in November 2012.
After the 2012 elections I set up a blog: https://itdoesnotaddup.com/ to address these critical national issues and to propose ways of addressing them.  There are over fifty individual posts by now which go into much detail on possible actions that could be taken at the national level to make more progress on all of these matters.  But I need to reach a wider audience and to create a greater sense of the eminent danger we are in if we don’t take our current situation more seriously.
I have employed a graphic designer to come up with a new and more exciting logo and website to hopefully create more visibility for what I am doing.  Take a look: http://thebudgetjack.com/.  I am also looking for one or more people to help out with new content for the new website.  Perhaps it could be authoring a separate but related series of blog posts on these same issues.  Or perhaps by contributing a new feature to the website which would never occur to me on my own.
If you have any ideas about any of these things, please let me know.  I am easy to reach at jackheidel@yahoo.com. I look forward to hearing from you!