Tag Archives: jack heidel

Who is Responsible for the Rise of Donald Trump?

Posted on by
Reply

 

It is generally agreed that Donald Trump’s great success as a presidential candidate is his strong appeal to working class white voters, often described as white voters without a college degree. It is also widely agreed that Mr. Trump is unsuited to be president, based on his unstable temperament as well as a poor understanding of many basic issues.
Capture0As I have described in a previous post, the quality of life for working class white men has been declining for many years. Nevertheless it has gotten even worse since the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and our slow recovery from it.
Steven Rattner, in yesterday’s New York Times, blames the Republican Congress for the rise of Mr. Trump because of Republican opposition to President Obama’s economic agenda as follows:

  • Opposition to the American Jobs Act of 2011 which proposed a $447 billion package of measures including payroll tax cuts and the creation of an infrastructure bank which would have created thousands of construction jobs.
  • Opposition to continuing federal emergency benefits for the large number of long-term unemployed.
  • Apparent opposition to a recent plan for wage insurance. Under this proposal a worker who lost a job and was forced to take a lower wage job which paid less than $50,000 per year, would receive half of the lost wages for two years, up to $10,000.

These aren’t necessarily bad ideas. In fact I think wage insurance is an excellent idea, as long as it is paid for and does not add to deficit spending.  The problem is that these measures do not generally address the basic problem of slow economic growth, averaging just 2.1% of GDP since the end of the recession in June 2009.  Only by speeding up economic growth, with fundamental tax reform, both individual and corporate, can our economy support both the new jobs and higher paying jobs that will create broad-based prosperity in the United States.
It is both detrimental and inaccurate for supporters of President Obama to blame political opposition for the plight of working class Americans.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

The Fundamental Driver of Our Debt Problem: the Cost of Healthcare

Posted on by
Reply

 

How to grow the economy faster. How to get our rapidly growing national debt under control.  These are the two main problems facing our country which I address over and over again on this blog.  Finding satisfactory solutions to these two problems will determine our future strength and prosperity as a nation.  Today’s discussion is about the major cause of our debt and deficit problem.
CaptureI recently came across the above chart showing the steady rise of overall American healthcare spending (public and private).  In 1960 it was less than 6% of GDP.  Now it is approximately 18%, a tripling, compared to the overall size of the economy, in just 55 years. Of course it is the cost of public healthcare programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act which directly contribute to our growing deficits and to the accumulated debt.
However we will never be able to limit the cost increases of these public programs until we get the fundamental drivers of private healthcare costs under control. As pointed out (in the chart below) by several scholars from the American Enterprise Institute, the basic reason for the high cost of private American health care is that “we don’t have enough skin in the game” as shown by the chart just below.  We are paying less and less of total healthcare costs out of our own pockets because more costs are paid directly by third party insurers.  This means we have less incentive to control our own healthcare costs.
Capture2The AEI has suggested several reform measures to improve this situation such as:

  • Placing an upper limit on the tax exemption for employer-paid insurance premiums.
  • Expanding the use of Health Savings Accounts to be used in conjunction with high deductible plans.

We have a stark choice in front of us. Either we move in this direction in the near future or we will face another, much worse, financial crisis.  In the latter case we will end up with an inferior healthcare system, much less responsive to our wants and desires.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

What Might Fundamental Tax Reform Look Like?

Posted on by
16

 

All four of the major presidential candidates have tax plans. Hillary Clinton would make small tweaks in our current tax system.  Bernie Sanders would raise current taxes substantially.  Both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz would both radically reduce the size of the federal income tax but would also greatly add to the national debt over the next ten years.
I have been trying to make the case on this blog that fundamental tax reform is the best thing we can do to get the economy growing faster in order to create more and better paying jobs.  I have also discussed a specific way to accomplish fundamental reform, namely the so-called Competitive Tax Plan proposed by the tax law expert, Michael Graetz.  It is a progressive consumption tax, a so-called Value Added Tax.
Capture2As reviewed in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal by Reihan Salam, the editor of the National Review, the Graetz Plan has these features:

  • A broad-based VAT of about 14% on goods and services.
  • Families earning less than $100,000 per year are exempt from the income tax. The tax rate would be 15% for incomes between $100,000 and $250,000 and 25% above this level.
  • The payroll tax (supporting Social Security and Medicare) would be greatly reduced for all workers earning less than $40,000 per year.
  • The corporate tax rate would be lowered to 15%, making it among the lowest in the world.
  • The Graetz Plan is revenue neutral as verified by the Tax Policy Center.

Think of the incredible advantages of such a tax plan. Of the expected 145 million tax returns for this year, 120 million would no longer be necessary.  Extravagant deductions such as for mortgage interest would have much less political support. The low corporate tax rate would bring jobs back to the U.S. instead of sending them overseas.  The rampant cronyism involved in tax breaks being handed out by Congress would be greatly reduced.
What is not to like about the Graetz Plan?

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

Trade Makes America Great

Posted on by
2

 

Two leading presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are running against trade expansion because they say it costs American jobs. I pointed out in my last post, that there is a strong correlation between international trade and global GDP growth.
Capture2Today I will focus on the direct benefits to the American economy of expanded international trade.  First of all, I refer to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal by Frederick Smith, the CEO of FedEx Corp.  Says Mr. Smith:

  • From less than $50 billion in total trade in 1966, the U.S. now imports and exports over $4 trillion annually in goods and services, out of a global trade market which exceeds $15 trillion annually.
  • NAFTA has clearly been an economic success. U.S. trade with Mexico and Canada has risen to $1.2 trillion in 2014 from $737 billion twenty years ago.
  • History shows that trade made easy, affordable and fast always begets more trade, more jobs and more prosperity.

The U.S. typically runs a trade deficit of about $500 billion per year. The New York Times journalist, Neil Irwin, explains what this means. Says Mr. Irwin:

  • The dollar is a global reserve currency, meaning that it is used around the world in transactions which have nothing to do with the U.S.
  • This creates upward pressure on the dollar for reasons unrelated to trade flows between the U.S. and its partners. That, in turn, makes the dollar stronger and American exporters less competitive.
  • In other words, trade deficits with other countries serve as their reserve dollars.
  • Maintaining this global reserve currency creates lots of advantages for the U.S., including lower interest rates and higher stock prices.
  • The centrality of the dollar to global finance gives the U.S. power on the global stage which no other country can match.

There certainly are workers who lose their jobs because of trade competition. We can and should do more to help these workers get back on their feet.  This will increase popular support for free trade and allow its growth to continue unimpeded.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

 

More Trade, Faster Economic Growth

Posted on by
Reply

 

My last post discusses the fact that both worldwide, and in the U.S., employment is growing robustly, while productivity is declining.  In the U.S., for example, the economy is producing lots of new (low-productivity) service jobs and fewer (high-productivity) manufacturing jobs.
CaptureAs I have pointed out previously, there is a high degree of correlation between the growth of world trade and the growth of world GDP.  Unfortunately, many Americans, especially blue collar workers, blame their own economic stagnation on the competition from foreign trade.  This has caused several presidential candidates to declare opposition to the recently negotiated Trans Pacific Trade Pact.
A very informative article by Scott Lincicome in the current issue of the National Review, “The Truth about Trade” points out the fallacy in this way of thinking.
According to Mr. Lincicome:

  • The U.S. is the world’s second largest manufacturer (17.2% of global output) and third largest exporter. America remains the world’s top destination for foreign direct investment ($384 billion in 2015). Much of this investment goes to U.S. manufacturing assets.
  • The U.S. manufacturing “decline” has been limited to employment losses primarily caused by productivity gains, not trade. Import competition explains only ¼ of the contemporaneous aggregate decline in U.S. manufacturing employment.
  • Past global trade liberalization has generated between $2800 and $5000 in additional income for the average American. Almost 90% of these gains accrue to America’s poor and middle class, because of more heavily traded sectors such as food and clothing.
  • More than half of all imports are inputs and capital goods consumed by other American manufacturers to make globally competitive products.
  • Protective tariffs force American families and businesses to subsidize the small share of U.S. manufacturers and workers who compete directly with the imports at issue.
  • We do not have a good set of policies for helping workers adjust to trade or any kind of technological change. For example:
  • The federal tax code’s business deduction for work-related education only applies to one’s current job and not a possible new job.
  • Trade Adjustment Assistance and federal job training programs are notoriously inefficient and ineffective.

Conclusion: It would be a shame if presidential politics leads to a retrenchment of our involvement and leadership in foreign trade which has so many positive benefits for the American economy.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

Another Way to View the Presidential Candidates

Posted on by
Reply

As regular readers of this blog well know, I constantly advocate for two major changes in government policy:

  • Speeding up economic growth, which has averaged an anemic 2.1% per year since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009. This will create the new and higher paying jobs that country so badly needs.
  • Shrinking annual deficits, ideally down to zero, so that our huge public debt (on which we pay interest) will begin to decrease as a percentage of GDP over time.

My last post compared the President’s proposed budget for 2017 with a proposal from the House Budget Committee. Basically the President’s budget increases both taxes and spending while the House budget keeps revenues at a steady 18.2% and leads to a balanced budget after ten years.
Capture2The non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has just produced an interesting report, ”How Much More Would Government Spend Under the Next President?” It compares the spending plans of the remaining five presidential candidates from both parties.  It finds that:

  • Only John Kasich would actually decrease spending over the next decade from 22.1% of GDP (under current law) to 21.5%.
  • The other four candidates would all increase spending: Hillary Clinton (to 22.5%), Donald Trump (to 22.7%), Ted Cruz (to 23.4) and Bernie Sanders (to 29.5%).

Mr. Kasich’s spending restraint would amount to a 2% decrease over current law while Ms. Clinton, for example, would increase spending by 2%.
As I showed a year ago,  reining in spending by 2% per year over current law is a major achievement and will lead to a balanced budget in ten years. In other words, Mr. Kasich’s spending plans are in sync with the latest House Budget Committee proposal.  Perhaps this should not be surprising since Mr. Kasich served as Chair of this House Committee in the 1990s!
Easy question: Which presidential candidate and which chamber of Congress are acting in the most fiscally responsible manner?

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

The House Budget vs the President’s Budget: Another Reason for a Balanced Budget Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

 

In January I had several posts advocating in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Briefly, the argument runs as follows:

  • Our public debt (on which we pay interest) is now at 74% of GDP, the highest it has been since the end of WWII.
  • Democrats want to raise taxes and increase spending; Republicans want to cut taxes and decrease spending. The only way to satisfy both parties simultaneously is to run huge annual deficits which is exactly what has happened ever since the end of the Great Recession in 2009.

Current planning for the next budget year beginning October 1, 2016 has now begun. Both the House Budget Committee and the President have budget proposals for next year. As reported by the Peterson Foundation, these two budgets differ substantially:
Capture0

  • The President’s budget would hold the public debt at about 75% of GDP over the next ten years by both raising taxes and increasing spending on a variety of programs.
  • The House Budget Committee plan keeps revenues steady at 18.2% of GDP over the next ten years and achieves a balanced budget after ten years. By 2026 the debt held by the public would fall to 57% of GDP from its current 74% level.

Here are two significantly different ten year budget plans. What is likely to happen is a complete standoff without any bipartisan agreement.  This means that no appropriations bills for individual government agencies will be enacted by October 1.  Finally, as usual, an omnibus spending bill will be put together by Congressional leaders and forced through at the last minute to avoid a government shutdown.
A BBA would make both sides compromise and come up with an overall plan.  It would likely contain both spending restraint and new sources of revenue.  Then the various Congressional committees would hammer out the spending details for individual agencies and department.  It would be a far more sensible and transparent process than the way things are done now.
Congress and the President have to be forced to act in such a reasonable manner.  A Balance Budget Amendment is perhaps the only way to make this happen.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

The Urgency of Defeating ISIS

Posted on by
2

 

After the terrorist attack in Paris I asked, “Does the U.S. Care about Europe?” Now, after the Brussels attack, it is time to repeat this warning. As the New York Time’s Roger Cohen points out:
Capture0

  • Over 1 million refugees entered Europe in 2015 alone. Another 136,000 have arrived so far in 2016. This creates a huge financial burden as well as a cultural challenge for a Europe which is already weakened by huge debt and slow economic growth.
  • It will bolster those campaigning to take Britain out of the European Union in the upcoming June referendum. A British departure from the EU will dramatically weaken it and might encourage other countries to leave as well.
  • Islamic State terror plays into the hands of populist demagogues such as presidential candidate Donald Trump and right wing French leader Marine Le Pen.
  • To allow ISIS to have its own territory, and capital city Raqqa in Syria, is a very high risk strategy. It allows the Islamic State to spread its evil not only around the immediate area but all over the world.
  • The question raised most urgently by the Brussels attacks, so soon after Paris, is whether and why Raqqa can be tolerated when Al Qaeda’s Tora Bora sanctuary in Afghanistan was not. Today, the West’s ponderous wait-them-out approach looks like capitulation.

The fundamental question is whether or not the U.S. can refrain from immersing itself in the crises of the Middle East and still maintain its status as the world’s indispensable super power. “George Bush will be remembered harshly for what he did in the Middle East. Barack Obama is gambling that he will be judged well for the things he didn’t do.”  The stakes are very high indeed for both the United States and our European allies.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

Solving America’s Most Basic Problems

Posted on by
Reply

 

My last two posts, here and here, argue that America’s two most critical problems are:

  • Speeding up economic growth in order to create more jobs and better paying jobs, especially for middle- and lower-income workers whose wages have been stagnant for the past 15 years.
  • Getting our large and rapidly growing national debt under control by shrinking annual deficit spending. This will put our debt on a downward path as a percentage of GDP.

Many Facebook comments on these posts inquire about how these goals will be accomplished. If tax reform is the best way to increase economic growth, how can this be done in a way that is fair to the non-wealthy. If spending cuts are necessary to balance the budget, what cuts should be made?  Here is a summary of my views on these questions:

  • Growing the economy with tax reform. The best way to spur investment and business expansion is with the lowest possible tax rates on owners and investors. Broad-based tax reform, with lower tax rates for all, paid for (i.e. in a revenue neutral way) by closing loopholes and shrinking deductions, will accomplish this. The 64% of taxpayers who do not itemize deductions will increase their income with tax rate cuts. Lower tax rates for the affluent will be offset by shrinking deductions and closing loopholes.
  • The corporate tax rate should also be cut to internationally competitive levels, again paid for by drastically shrinking, if not totally eliminating, all deductions. This way all corporations (including GE!) would pay the same tax rate. And American companies would have much less incentive to move overseas.
    Capture0
  • Reducing our national debt. We have got to drastically shrink our annual deficits (now running about $500 billion per year) in order to put our national debt on a downward course, as a percentage of GDP. The House Budget Committee has recently passed a plan to balance the budget within ten years. Not everyone will agree with the details, but at least it’s a starting point. An alternative approach is to adopt a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This would require Congress to make tradeoffs annually between either restraining spending or raising taxes.  A BBA will force them to do what they should be doing anyway!

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3

Why I Lean Republican II. Priorities for the Next President

Posted on by
Reply

 

In my last post, “Why I Lean Republican,” I endorse the ten year budget plan just released by the House Budget Committee which will lead to a balanced budget within ten years.  It represents an excellent starting point towards addressing one of our country’s most serious problems, our huge and rapidly growing national debt.
Capture1
Jim Vanderholm responded to this post by giving his own top priorities for the next President. They are:

  • Job Formation. All sorts of other problems would be addressed in the process. Record high numbers of unemployed and underemployed. Record numbers of people on 85 different welfare programs at a cost of over $1 trillion per year.
  • Highly targeted education/training of the workforce to fill the newly created jobs with American citizens.
  • Reducing annual deficits. Growing the economy by putting more people back to work will bring in more tax revenue. Along with slowing the growth of spending this will lead to lower annual deficits. Once the deficit is reduced by half or more of its current value (about $500 billion), then the debt as a percentage of GDP will begin to shrink.
  • Reduced focus on divisive social issues. The basic structural problems referred to above will not be solved by more gun control, higher carbon tax, shuttering the coal industry, free pre-school and college education, or discontinuing tax-payer funding to Planned Parenthood.

In other words, we need a new President who will focus on basic economic and fiscal issues and not be distracted by divisive social issues. In fact, an ideal division of labor would be for the House Budget Committee to take the lead in getting spending under control while the new President attempts to implement policies to get the economy growing faster. This would lead to real progress on both fronts!

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jack_heidel
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jack.heidel.3