Category Archives: political economy

Obama’s Stimulus Promise Revisited

Posted on by
Reply

James Pethokoukis at AEIdeas did the visit, and this graph is the highlight of it.

The red dots on the right axis reveal the Obama tale.  It’s an especially humorous, if simultaneously mendacious, one, given that in this auspicious quarter we were supposed to be in the same prosperous state with or without Obama’s promised stimulus benefit.  The benefit, after all, only was supposed to ameliorate the pain of the last five years.

Instead, those red dots demonstrate, not just the failure of Obama’s stimulus, but the active damage that “stimulus,” in concert with the rest of Obama’s economic and jobs policies, have done and still are doing to our economy.

This is a preview of Obama’s Stimulus Promise Revisited. Read the full post (196 words, 1 image, estimated 47 secs reading time)

Keystone XL’s Fate

Posted on by
Reply

Here are two Congressmen who oppose building this pipeline.

  • Senator Tim Kaine (D, VA):
    • $15k-$50k stake in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, intent on building a Keystone competitor pipeline
  • Congressman Alan Lowenthal (D, CA):
    • $15k-$50k stake in Enbridge Energy Management
    • $1-$15k in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners
    • $15k-$50k stake in Kinder Morgan Management; these three also are intent on building Keystone competitor pipelines

Crony capitalism, indeed.

Permanent link to this post (66 words, estimated 16 secs reading time)

Is Government Intervention in the Market Counterproductive?

Posted on by
Reply

There have been many iterations of the boom and bust cycles inherent in a free market economy; standing out in national memory are the series of recessions and panics/depressions through the 19th and 20th centuries and the early parts of the current century in the US.

This is a preview of Is Government Intervention in the Market Counterproductive?. Read the full post (511 words, estimated 2:03 mins reading time)

Moral Hazard and Obamacare Welfare

Posted on by
1

The recent CBO report on the mid- and long-term effect on willingness to be employed of Obamacare hinted at the moral hazard of Obamacare and of welfare, generally [emphasis added].

In 2014, for example, a single person or a family whose income is 150 percent of the FPL [Federal Poverty Level] and is eligible for subsidies will pay 4 percent of their income for a certain “silver” health care plan purchased through an exchange; if their income is 200 percent of the FPL, they will pay 6.3 percent of their income for that plan.  An increase in income thus raises the enrollee premium (and reduces the subsidy) both because the percentage-of-income formula applies to a larger dollar amount and because that percentage itself increases.  People whose income exceeds 400 percent of the FPL are ineligible for premium subsidies, and for some people those subsidies will drop abruptly to zero when income crosses that threshold.

This is a preview of Moral Hazard and Obamacare Welfare. Read the full post (982 words, 1 image, estimated 3:56 mins reading time)

Friday’s Jobs Report

Posted on by
Reply

…again shows the failure of President Barack Obama’s economic ideology.  And it comes in conjunction with the CBO’s report that Obama’s Obamacare is destructive of American employment.

The jobs report showed that we added all of 113,000 jobs in January.  Oh, and the headline unemployment rate fell to 6.6%.  That drop in unemployment is a thing about which to brag?  Not so much.

This is a preview of Friday’s Jobs Report. Read the full post (307 words, 1 image, estimated 1:14 mins reading time)

Regulations Begetting Regulations

Posted on by
Reply

Insurers are facing pressure from regulators and lawmakers about plans that offer limited choices of doctors and hospitals, a tactic the industry said is vital to keep down coverage prices in the new health law’s marketplaces.

Yeah—Obamacare regulates what coverages must be offered and at what prices (i.e., at no increase in price while adding mandatory coverage for contraceptives, pre-natal care, maternity care, etc.  And regardless of whether the man required to buy a health plan needs these things.  Or the empty-nesters.  Or post-menopausal women.  Or…).

This is a preview of Regulations Begetting Regulations. Read the full post (275 words, estimated 1:06 mins reading time)

Income Inequality and Education

Posted on by
Reply

Senators Lamar Alexander (R, TN) and Tim Scott (R, SC) are proposing legislation that would address income inequality (while acknowledging that income inequality by itself is not, of necessity, bad) by addressing a critical aspect of opportunity equality (or inequality): education.

While I disagree with the details of the plans, the two Senators most assuredly are on the right track.

Alexander’s proposed bill, the Scholarships for Kids Act, would transfer Federal dollars to States, and each State then would determine how parents could apply the funding.  Scott’s proposed bill, the CHOICE Act, would use Federal transfers to States to facilitate each State’s ability to supplement existing scholarship programs for “military families, those with children facing physical challenges, and students in impoverished areas.”

This is a preview of Income Inequality and Education. Read the full post (350 words, estimated 1:24 mins reading time)

A Tiny Step

Posted on by
Reply

But sufficient for the moment.  Recall this in the next Congress, though, and address it more firmly then.

What is this?  It’s the food stamp compromise just reached between the Democrat-controlled Senate and the people’s House of Representatives.  The compromise keeps food stamp benefits for most Americans while cutting them overall by $800 million per year—a 1% cut.

This is a preview of A Tiny Step. Read the full post (217 words, estimated 52 secs reading time)

Income Inequality

Posted on by
Reply

According to a recent Fox News poll, most Americans don’t agree with President Barack Obama’s emphasis on income inequality, nor are we as dumb as Obama makes us out to be on the matter.

Obama’s latest squirrel is income inequality.  However,

  • all of 21% of voters with annual household incomes below $30,000 think the government should do something about it
  • 12% of those with incomes $100,000 or more feel that way.

What’s up with that?  It turns out that most Americans understand that economics in a free market isn’t a zero-sum game.

This is a preview of Income Inequality. Read the full post (204 words, estimated 49 secs reading time)

Obama’s Obamacare Tax Increases

Posted on by
Reply

Here are many of the ones that start this year.  As does President Barack Obama’s war on marriage, using his IRS to prosecute it.

  • top marginal tax rate rose to 39.6% for those at higher incomes
    • $400,000 for single filers
    • $450,000 for married couples filing jointly
    • $425,000 for heads of household
  • itemized deductions and personal exemptions phase out as income increases
    • beginning at $300,000 for married couples filing jointly
    • $250,000 for singles
  • higher capital gains taxes—up to 20% for some taxpayers
  • additional 0.9% Medicare tax
    • on earnings over $250,000 for married couples filing jointly
This is a preview of Obama’s Obamacare Tax Increases. Read the full post (128 words, estimated 31 secs reading time)