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.

The Mess in Detroit: A Stern Warning for the Whole Country

Posted on by
Reply

 

An article in yesterday’s New York Times, “Detroit Ruling Lifts a Shield on Pensions”, reports a ruling by bankruptcy judge Steven W. Rhodes that Detroit “could formally enter bankruptcy and that Detroit’s obligations to pay pensions in full is not inviolable.”
The article goes on to say “that most here agree that the city’s situation is dire:  annual operating deficits since 2008, a pattern of new borrowing to pay for old borrowing, miserably diminished city services, and the earmarking of about 38 percent of tax revenues for debt service.  A city that was once the nation’s fourth largest has dropped to 18th, losing more than half of its population since 1950.  The city was once home to 1.8 million people but now has closer to 700,000.”
The parallels and analogies between what has happened in Detroit and what is now happening in the U.S. are striking.  The U.S. has had huge annual deficits for five years in a row and the accumulated debt is enormous, the Federal Reserve is holding interest rates down to make borrowing cheaper, and our country’s infrastructure is deteriorating much faster than it is being repaired.
Right now interest on the national debt is small ($223 billion in 2013, or 8% of federal revenues).  But interest rates will inevitably return before long to their average historical rate of about 5%.  Right now the public debt (on which we pay interest) is just over $12 trillion.  This means that in the near future interest on the national debt will be at least $600 billion per year and probably much larger because the debt is still growing so rapidly.  This will take a huge bite out of revenue and leave far less of it for other purposes.
This problem will continue to exist even if the budget were to be miraculously balanced from now on but it would at least lessen over time as the economy continues to grow.  Without budget restraint the problem will never go away and will be a perpetual drag on our national welfare.
This is, of course, exactly the condition in which Detroit finds itself at the present time.  Detroit has the option to declare bankruptcy and make its creditors and pensioners take big losses.  Once it does this it can make a fresh start and perhaps recover its former status.
But are we prepared to let the whole country suffer a similar fate?  The consequences would be enormous.  If the U.S. goes down, the whole western world could come down with it.  Democracy and human progress would be severely threatened.  This is really too terrible a tragedy to even contemplate.  Let’s turn things around before they get any worse!

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?

Nowhere to Cut?

Posted on by
1

After five years of enormous deficits, our national debt now stands at over $17 trillion.  The only spending restraint that Congress has been able to achieve so far is an approximately one trillion dollar “sequester” over ten years, therefore amounting to about $100 billion per year in spending cuts.  Federal expenditures have actually dropped for two years in a row now so the sequester really does work.  Of course, almost everyone complains about cutting spending in such a “dumb” way.  Why not make intelligent budget cuts by eliminating the least effective programs instead of having to make small percentage cuts in all discretionary spending, good and bad alike?  Well, this really should not be all that difficult to do if Congress would try a little harder.
The Congressional Budget Office has just released a helpful report, “Options for Reducing the Deficit:  2014 to 2023”, which lists 103 ways for either decreasing spending or increasing revenues over the next decade.  Amazingly, enacting all of these proposals would amount to a budget savings of $13 trillion over 10 years, ten times what is required by the sequester!  Here are some examples of what could be done (along with the 10 year savings):

  • Eliminate direct payments to agricultural producers                             $25 billion
  • Increase federal insurance premiums for private pensions                    $5 billion
  • Reduce the amounts of federal pensions                                               $6 billion
  • Tighten eligibility for food stamps                                                          $50 billion
  • Use more accurate measure of inflation for all mandatory programs  $162 billion
  • Replace some military personnel with civilian employees                     $19 billion
  • Limit highway funding to expected highway revenues                           $65 billion
  • Eliminate grants to large and medium sized airports                               $8 billion
  • Eliminate subsidies for Amtrak                                                               $15 billion
  • Reduce the size of the federal workforce through attrition                     $43 billion
  • Tax carried interest as ordinary income                                                 $17 billion
  • Limit medical malpractice torts                                                               $57 billion
  • Raise the age of eligibility for Medicare to 67                                         $23 billion
  • Modify Tricare fees for working-age military retirees                              $71 billion
  • Total                                                                                                      $566 billion

Right here is more than enough to offset half of the sequester.  You don’t like these cuts?  Then replace them with others from the CBO report.  There are lots of options to choose from!

Beyond ObamaCare: Where Do We Go From Here?

Posted on by
Reply

Last Sunday’s Washington Post has an Op Ed column by Jon Kingsdale, “Beyond Healthcare.gov, Obamacare’s Other Challenges” which describes the many challenges confronting ObamaCare besides just the website problems and the millions of individual policies which will be cancelled for not meeting the minimum requirements of the Affordable Care Act.  Based on his experience setting up the Massachusetts Health Insurance Exchange from 2006-2010, there will  be huge problems in getting enrollment, billing and premium collections working smoothly for such a large government program.  For example, an estimated 27% of those who will be eligible for tax credits under the ACA do not have checking accounts.  How will their monthly premiums be paid and tracked for these people if they’re late?
Considering all of the problems involved in the implementation of ObamaCare, and the fact that it does not really reform our current very costly healthcare system but rather just extends it to cover more people, it makes much sense to move toward real healthcare reform, which will control costs.
A column in today’s Wall Street Journal by Ramesh Ponnuru and Yuval Levin, “A Conservative Alternative to ObamaCare”, lays out several basic features which should be included in a sensible, market oriented approach to healthcare reform.   The principles are:

  • A flat and universal tax credit for coverage which applies to everyone and not just for employer provided healthcare.  The (refundable) credit would be roughly the amount necessary for catastrophic coverage.
  • Medicaid could be converted into a means-based addition to this tax credit.
  • Everyone with continuous coverage (which would be provided by the tax credit) would be protected from price spikes or cancellations if they get sick.  This provides a strong incentive to buy and retain coverage without the need for a mandate.

A market oriented healthcare system like this is not only preferable to all of the mandates and restrictions of Obamacare, it also improves our current system by both expanding coverage to more people as well as controlling costs by giving health consumers (all of us) a much bigger stake in purchasing healthcare.
The United States spends 18% of GDP on healthcare, twice as much as any other country in the world.  Our fiscal stability and future prosperity depend on getting this huge and growing cost under control.  The ObamaCare fiasco provides an excellent opportunity to get started on doing this.