Tag Archives: jack heidel

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.

Where Are the Jobs? III. The Real Inequality Gap

Posted on by
Reply

 

Today’s Wall Street Journal has a story “Job Gap Widens in Uneven Recovery”, which shows how unbalanced the economic recovery is.  For workers aged 25 and older, unemployment is only 6%, compared to the overall unemployment rate of 7.3%.  But for the young, ages 16 – 24, unemployment is 15%.  Since the end of the recession in June 2009, wages have risen by 12% for the highest paid 25% of all workers.  For the lowest paid 25%, wages have only risen by 6% over this time period.
“Households earning $50,000 or more have become steadily more confident over the past year and a half.  Among lower income households, confidence has stagnated.  The gap in confidence between the two groups is near its widest ever.  That isn’t only bad for those being left behind.  It’s also hurting the broader recovery, because it means families are able to spend only on essential items.  Consumer spending rose just .1% in September 2013, after adjusting for inflation.”
Unfortunately, this data is entirely consistent with other gloomy economic trends which I have been reporting on recently such as the threat of technology to the middle class, the increased competition from globalization, and the shrinking size of the labor pool because of baby boomer retirements.
The New York Times has a running series of articles on “The Great Divide” and how to address it.   Here is a clear cut example of this divide: how older, better trained and more affluent Americans are recovering from the recent recession more quickly than the less well off.  This evident unfairness is damaging to the health of our society.  The question is how do we address it in an effective manner?
The basic problem is the overall slow growth of the economy, about 2% of GDP per year, since the recession ended in June 2009.  There are many things that policy makers can do to speed up this growth if they were only able to set aside ideological differences.  The best single action by far is tax reform, for both individuals and corporations, lowering overall rates in exchange for reducing deductions and loopholes which primarily benefit the wealthy.
Here is yet another reason why it is so important to speed up the growth of our economy.  How exasperating that our national leaders cannot figure out a way to come to together and get this done!

Does Our Economy Need More Inflation?

Posted on by
Reply

The lead story in this week’s Economist, “The Perils of Falling Inflation” and a recent article in the New York Times, “In Fed and Out, Many Now Think Inflation Helps“, both make the case that the U.S. core inflation rate of 1.2%, excluding food and energy prices, is dangerously low, risking deflation.  “Rising prices help companies increase profits; rising wages help borrowers repay debts.  Inflation also encourages people and businesses to borrow money and spend it more quickly.”
But there is another distinctly different point of view.  In a Barron’s column last week “Deflating the Inflation Myth”, Gene Epstein points out that “business activity is motivated by profit, not prices.”  He shows with a chart that profits decreased during the highly inflationary 1970’s and 1980’s but they have been increasing since the end of the recession in 2009, even with very low inflation.  The key to boosting the economy is more business investment and risk taking but a higher rate of inflation is not the way to accomplish this.
In a speech at the Economic Club of New York in June of this year, former Fed Chair Paul Volcker said that “the implicit assumption behind that siren call (to let inflation increase) must be that the inflation rate can be manipulated to reach economic objectives – up today, maybe a little bit more tomorrow, and then pulled back on command.  All experience amply demonstrates that inflation, when fairly and deliberately started, is hard to control and reverse.”
As soon as interest rates go up as they surely will in the not too distant future, interest payments on our now enormous national debt will skyrocket and become a huge drag on the economy.  If and when inflation goes up, it will pull interest rates up along with it.  Let’s not push inflation, and therefore interest rates, up any faster or higher than necessary!

Is It Mean Spirited to Cut Food Stamps?

Posted on by
2

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, columnist William Galston writes “In Defense of Food Stamps” that “food stamps reach their intended targets, poor and near-poor Americans. The large increase in the program’s cost over the past decade mostly reflects worsening economic conditions rather than looser eligibility standards.  Since 2000 the number of individuals in poverty has risen to 46.5 million from 31.6 million.”
Mr. Galston also states that “the number of able-bodied adults without dependents receiving benefits under the food stamp program has risen to nearly 5.5 million from under 2 million since 2008 even as work requirements for those individuals have been relaxed.  Here the critics have a case: the federal government should reconsider the waivers of current requirements it has extended to 44 states and the District of Columbia and it should consider toughening those standards.”
Congressional Republicans have proposed cutting $40 billion from the food stamp program over 10 years, or $4 billion per year.  Since the total food stamp budget is $80 billion per year, this amounts to a 5% cut.  And this 5% cut is directed precisely at those 5.5 million able-bodied adults without dependents.  Expecting these people to find a job, even if minimum wage, in return for receiving food stamps, is not asking too much.  It is really just “tough love” more than anything else.
Putting a substantial portion of these 5.5 million able bodied adults back to work would also be a big boost to the economy.  One of the biggest drags on the economy at the present time is the low labor participation rate which has dropped from about 66% to 63% since the recession began in 2008-2009.
Trying to make the food stamp program more cost effective is really just an example of what should be done across all programs of the federal government, routinely, as a matter of sound operating procedures.  It is unfortunate that ideology and political partisanship get in the way of such common sense!

Labor’s Share of National Income Is Falling

Posted on by
2

The latest issue of the Economist shows quite dramatically in the article “Labour Pains” that labor’s share of national income is dropping.  In the U.S. workers’ wages have historically been about 70% of GDP.  In the early 1980s this figure started falling and is now 64%.  Similar declines are occurring in many other countries.
This phenomenon is closely related to what others are observing as I have reported recently.  Tyler Cowen’s new book “Average is Over” discusses the threat of technology to the middle class.  Daniel Alpert in “The Age of Oversupply” talks about the increase of competition from various global forces.  Stephen King’s “When the Money Runs Out” makes the case that “a half-century of one-off developments in the industrialized world will not be repeated.”
Historically the stability of the wage to GDP ratio “provides the link between productivity and prosperity.  If workers always get the same slice of the economic pie, then an improvement in their average productivity – which boosts growth – should translate into higher average earnings. … A falling labour share implies that productivity gains no longer translate into broad rises in pay.  Instead, an ever larger share of the benefits of growth accrues to the owners of capital.”
A shrinking share of a GDP which itself is slowing down is a double whammy.  The only way to address the problem effectively is to deal with the root causes.
First of all, we need to boost overall economic growth by the proven methods of broad based tax reform, especially including much lower corporate tax rates, making regulations less onerous, carrying out immigration reform, and giving special attention to helping entrepreneurs create new businesses.
How can we, additionally, help low skilled and low waged workers move up the ladder?  Long term the most worthwhile action is to change K-12 education by putting more emphasis on career education to produce more highly skilled workers.  Short term, we should provide crash job training for the estimated three million current job openings in the U.S. which require skilled workers.
Economic inequality in the U.S. is becoming progressively worse all the time.  There are fiscally sound ways to address this alarming problem and it is important that they be clearly and forcefully advocated.

Many Skilled Jobs Are Going Begging in the U.S.

Posted on by
Reply

A few days ago the Omaha World Herald ran a story, ”Manufacturers Want More Young People to Consider a Job on the Factory Floor”, pointing out that there are almost 100,000 manufacturing jobs in Nebraska paying an average salary of $55,000 per year, many of which are unfilled because of a lack of qualified applicants.  Says Dwayne Probyn, Executive Director of the Nebraska Advanced Manufacturing Coalition, “Science, technology, engineering and math, that’s what we need.”
This is in fact a nationwide problem.  A few weeks ago the New York Times had an article, “Stubborn Skills Gap In America’s Work Force” reporting on a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development assessing literacy, math skills and problem solving using information technology, for people aged 16 – 65, in the 22 advanced nations of the O.E.C.D..  Eduardo Porter reports that while the U.S. is about average in literacy skills, it lags way behind in both math and problem solving skills.
One question addressed by Mr. Porter is the much larger wage premium for highly skilled U.S. workers over unskilled workers, than in most other O.E.C.D. countries.  Another question is “how can the U.S. remain such an innovative, comparatively agile economy if the supply of skilled workers is so poor?”  The suggested answer is troubling.  “The American economy rewards skill very well but the supply hasn’t responded.”
This situation is first of all an indictment of K-12 education in the U.S. which has a high school graduation rate of only 80% and also focuses too much on college preparation rather than career education.  These two problems are likely interrelated and at least partially explain the skills gap.
Another factor is immigration.  Right now the U.S. is still attracting more talented foreigners than other countries.  But it is risky to our economy to depend on foreign talent which can stay home as well as choosing to go elsewhere.  Immigration reform will help with this problem but improved K-12 education will help even more.