Tag Archives: Wall Street Journal

A Guaranteed Income for All: Good Idea or Bad Idea?

Posted on by
3

 

The social scientist and American Enterprise Institute scholar, Charles Murray, has an interesting article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, “A Guaranteed Income for Every American,” Mr. Murray proposes a Universal Basic Income (UBI) with the following features:
Capture6

  • Every American citizen age 21 and older would get a $13,000 annual grant deposited electronically into a bank account in monthly installments. $3000 would be applied towards health insurance.
  • UBI is financed by eliminating all other welfare programs: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies, aid for dependent children, etc. as well as agricultural subsidies and corporate welfare.
  • People can make up to $30,000 a year without losing any part of the grant. Above $30,000 in earned income, the grant decreases to $6500 when the income reaches $60,000. The $6500 retained by all compensates for losing Social Security and Medicare.
  • The overall cost of UBI will be $200 billion per year less than the current system. By 2020 UBI would be nearly $1 trillion per year cheaper.

On the other hand, there are at least two possible drawbacks to the Murray plan, as discussed recently by Eduardo Porter in the New York Times:

  • It would probably discourage work. Right now 80% of Americans in their prime working years, 25 – 54, are employed. Work is not just what people do for a living, it organizes people’s lives. Making work more optional would impair this basic social structure.
  • A UBI divorces assistance from need. For example, a housing voucher could lead a family to move to a better neighborhood. A basic monthly income would probably not.
  • More generally, a single parent with several children would be strapped to get by for $10,000 per year without any additional welfare assistance. We can’t let the kids starve.

Conclusion: UBI appears to be an attractive way to simplify our vast welfare system and would save a significant amount of money (always important). But the poor would not be well served.  There are better ways to reform our public assistance programs.

Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Facebook

Black Lives Matter II. The Ferguson Effect

Posted on by
18

 

A recent post, “Black Lives Matter,” discusses the perhaps surprising fact, that the black-white life expectancy gap has been decreasing in recent years.  One aspect of this trend is that the death rate by homicide for blacks has been falling faster than it has been for whites. This may be about to change.
As recently reported by Heather MacDonald in the Wall Street Journal, “The Nationwide Crime Wave Is Building,” since Michael Brown was shot and killed by a policeman in Ferguson MO in August 2014, cops are disengaging from discretionary enforcement activity especially in big cities.
Capture4This “Ferguson Effect” is likely responsible for rising violence in urban areas.  For example:

  • Homicides increased 9% in the largest 63 cities in the first quarter of 2016.
  • These increases are on top of last year’s 17% rise in homicides in the 56 biggest U.S. cities, with heavily black cities showing murder spikes above 60%.
  • A study of gun violence in Baltimore showed an inverse correlation with proactive drug arrests. When Baltimore cops virtually stopped making drug arrests last year after the death of Freddie Gray while in police custody, shootings soared.
  • In Chicago, where pedestrian stops have fallen nearly 90%, homicides this year are up 60% compared with the same period last year.

As Ms. MacDonald notes, “If a powerful segment of society sends the message that proactive policing is bigoted, the cops will eventually do less of it. Ultimately, denial of the Ferguson effect is driven by a refusal to acknowledge the connection between proactive policing and public safety.”
Conclusion: If “Black Lives Matter” is going to be more than a slogan, it has to be tied in with sensible policies to reduce violent crime.  Demonizing law enforcement is exactly the wrong way to make things better.

Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Facebook

Thank God for the Republican House of Representatives

Posted on by
2

 

It is now almost certain that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for President and that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee. The two biggest problems facing our country today are:

  • Slow economic growth, averaging just 2.1% since the end of the recession in June 2009, seven years ago. Even though unemployment is down to 5%, stagnant wages for the middle class have not nearly recovered from their pre-recession high.
  • Massive debt. The public debt (on which we pay interest) is now at 74% of GDP and rising. When interest rates go up, as they surely will eventually, debt payment will rise by hundreds of billions of dollars per year and be a huge drain on government revenues.

The likely Presidential nominees are not adequately addressing these problems:

  • Hillary Clinton wants to increase government spending by about $100 billion per year to be spent on various new programs and raise the top tax rate to 45% to pay for them. This will do nothing to either grow the economy faster or shrink our already sizable deficit.
  • Donald Trump has promised to keep entitlements as they are and spend more on infrastructure and defense. He also sees debt as useful. “I probably understand debt better than anybody” he has stated. His tax plan (which he says is negotiable) will create massive new debt.

If Clinton is elected, she may pull the Senate Democratic along with her. But either way the House of Representatives will likely remain Republican with Speaker Paul Ryan.
Capture3Since the Republicans took over the House in 2010, they have consistently proposed budgets each year to shrink the deficit and produced a balanced budget within ten years.  The new President, either Clinton or Trump, will have to negotiate their own ideas on spending and taxes with a fiscally conservative House.
The country is indeed very fortunate for this circumstance.

Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Facebook

 

Ending America’s Slow Growth Tailspin II. What It Will Take.

Posted on by
Reply

 

One of the biggest problems facing the U.S. today is the slow growth of our economy, averaging just 2.1% per year since the end of the Great Recession seven years ago, well below the 3.5% average from 1950 – 2000.
Capture11My last post introduced an excellent Wall Street Journal Op Ed by the Hoover Institution economist John Cochrane.  He says that “the U.S. economy needs a dramatic legal and regulatory simplification.”  In particular:

  • Tax reform. Instead of arguing over tax rates, what’s really needed is deep tax reform, cleaning out the insane complexity and cronyism.
  • Social programs. Rather than arguing over whether to increase or cut spending, what’s needed is a thorough overhaul of the programs’ pernicious incentives. For example, Social Security disability (almost 9 million beneficiaries in March 2016) needs to remove its disincentives to work, move or change careers.
  • Education spending. Rather than arguing about the level of public spending, America needs the better schools that come from increased choice and competition.
  • Over-regulation. Most of all the country needs a dramatic legal and regulatory simplification. Middle-aged America is living in a hoarder’s house of a legal system, including state and local impediments such as excessive occupational licensing.
  • Growth-oriented policies will be resisted. Growth comes from productivity which comes from new technology and new companies. These displace the profits of old companies, and the hefty pay and settled lives of their managers and workers.
  • The presidential frontrunners are not championing economic growth. But the House of Representatives, under Speaker Paul Ryan, is doing exactly this. Perhaps economic policy leadership can be transferred from the Presidency to Congress.

After two disappointing presidencies our economy is lagging far behind where it could and should be. This is the reason for the rise of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.  Regardless of the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, there is hope for better days ahead!

Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Facebook

How to End America’s Slow-Growth Tailspin

Posted on by
Reply

 

My last three posts, here, here, and here address America’s slow economic growth for the past 15 years and why it is such a serious problem.  Today I begin to discuss how we can turn this around.
In today’s Wall Street Journal, the economist John Cochrane has a very informative Op Ed, “Ending America’s Slow-Growth Tailspin” which describes a clear path to speed up economic growth.  Says Mr. Cochrane:

  • From 1950 – 2000 the U.S. economy grew at an average rate of 3.5% annually. Since 2000 it has grown at only half this rate, 1.76% annually. By 2008 the average American was more than three times better off than in 1952. Real GDP per person grew from $16,000 to $49,000 during this time period.
  • There are three main theories as to why growth is slowing down.
  1. We’ve run out of new ideas.  Get used to it and start fighting over the shrinking pie.
  2. The culprit is “secular stagnation” which the Federal Reserve is unsuccessfully trying to overcome with low interest rates and quantitative easing. The only other solution is vast new stimulus spending.
  3. The U.S. economy is overrun by an out-of-control and increasingly politicized regulatory state. America is middle-aged and overweight. The solution is to eat better and exercise.
    Capture3
  • The first two camps are doubtful that better policies will produce faster growth. But the examples of North Korea vs South Korea and East Germany vs West Germany show that government policy matters for economic growth. In fact Mr. Cochrane’s chart (above) shows how a country’s “ease of doing business” score, compiled by the World Bank, correlates with increased average income. Even though the U.S. is near the top by this measure, there is still plenty of room for improvement.

In my next post I will delineate specifically how to streamline our oversized regulatory state. In the meantime, take a look at Mr. Cochrane’s article in today’s WSJ.

Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Facebook

 

After Donald Trump

Posted on by
6

 

It looks more and more likely that Hillary Clinton will be our next President. She is almost certain to be the Democratic nominee and unlikely to be indicted for mishandling classified information.  If Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, she will trounce him because his negatives are much worse than hers.  If Mr. Trump is denied the Republican nomination, he is likely to run as an independent candidate and take votes away from the Republican nominee, thereby also electing Mrs. Clinton.
Capture0What happens then?  The Republicans will regroup by broadening their base to better appeal to Mr. Trump’s constituency of disaffected white working class voters.  Yuval Levin, editor of National Affairs, has visualized what policies a reconstituted conservative party might want to embrace to replace the no longer affordable progressive model:

  • Healthcare: a new approach would liberate insurers and providers to offer many different models of coverage and care and empower consumers to choose between them.
  • K-12 Education: a new approach would allow parents to make choices for their children and reshape the educational system around their preferences.
  • Welfare: a new system would empower local problem solvers to mix resources, advice, experience and moral leadership in a process of bottom-up experimentation.
  • Higher Education: a new model would no longer reinforce a cycle of rising tuition and declining value with inflationary federal loans. Rather it would open up accreditation to allow for more options and offer aid to the needy which rewards high value rather than high prices.
  • Cultural Issues: moral traditionalists should emphasize building cohesive and attractive subcultures, offering alternatives to the chaos of the mainstream permissive society.
  • Diminished Opportunity for the Working Class: Improvements to Trade Adjustment Assistance and Job Retraining programs (wage insurance?) will have to be embraced.

Conclusion. The disruption caused by Donald Trump could lead to a new and more broadly based Republican Party better equipped to address the emerging problems of the 21st century.

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

 

Growing Employment, Shrinking Productivity: What Does It Mean?

Posted on by
2

 

I know that I occasionally repeat myself, but I can’t help it! In my opinion there are two major problems facing our country:

  • Slow economic growth which has averaged only an anemic 2.1% since the end of the Great Recession seven years ago.
  • Exploding national debt, now the highest it has been since the end of WWII. Unless we can quickly shrink our annual deficits down to zero, and therefore stop adding to the debt, interest payments on the debt will eventually rise to horrendous levels.

 

Two recent newspaper articles address the slow growth problem. Greg Ip, writing in the Wall Street Journal, points out that (worldwide) employment growth is up while productivity growth is down (see chart below).
Capture0Neil Irwin, writing in the New York Times, explains this dichotomy by pointing out that most job growth in the last decade has been in (low productivity) services rather than (high productivity) manufacturing. In other words, the U.S. economy is now producing lots of new temporary and contract jobs which do not add very much to the overall economic growth which produces higher wages and overall prosperity.
The economist John Cochrane has clearly described  why productivity growth, and therefore overall economic growth, has stagnated in recent years.  Here is a short summary:

  • Over-regulation. The Dodd-Frank Act and Affordable Care Act, for example, are hampering growth by strangling the financial and healthcare sectors of the economy.
  • Inefficient Taxation. Growth oriented taxation would have the lowest possible marginal rates paid for by shrinking deductions. Taxing consumption rather than income and savings would be even better.
  • Illegal Immigration. Solving our immigration problem would turn millions of illegals into productive citizens. An adequate Guest Worker program and e-Verify enforcement would solve this problem without the need for amnesty.

Conclusion: There are solutions to the severe economic problems facing our country. Does our political system have the flexibility to adopt these workable policies?

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

 

How to Lower Income Inequality

Posted on by
Reply

 

My last post provides evidence that income inequality has increased more under recent Democratic presidents than under Republican presidents.  Here is a brief summary of the argument:

  • Cheap money is of greatest value to those who have access to it.
  • The effects of the Bush housing bubble (in the 2000s) were more evenly distributed than for the Clinton stock market bubble (in the 1990s) or the Obama credit bubble.
  • Two earner households are the backbone of the American middle class.
  • During the first six years of the Obama presidency, the number of two-earner households declined, the number of single-earner households rose by 2.6 million and the number of no-earner households rose by 5 million. In other words, two-thirds of the increase in the number of households under Obama is accounted for by households with no-one working. This largely accounts for the shrinking middle class and the increase in inequality.
    Capture

Another way to consider this situation is to look at the labor force participation rate which has been steadily decreasing since the year 2000.  As the above chart shows, this trend is expected to continue indefinitely in the same downward direction.  Along with a slowing increase in the productivity rate, this constrains the U.S. economy’s capacity to expand. Clearly what is needed is faster economic growth in order to create more jobs and better paying jobs.  The way to accomplish this is with:

  • Tax Reform. Lower individual and corporate tax rates for all paid for by shrinking deductions and closing loopholes. More money in the hands of the middle class will stimulate demand. More money in the hands of small business will stimulate supply.
  • Expanded Earned Income Tax Credit. Putting more money in the pockets of low-income and marginally employed workers will encourage more of them to find work and stay in the workforce.

With all the headwinds holding the economy back, our national leaders (and would be leaders!) ought to be focusing much more attention on taking specific actions which would speed up economic growth.

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