Tag Archives: spending

Medicaid Block Grants

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration is planning to set up procedures for allowing States to convert the Medicaid funding they receive from the Federal government from matching funds to block grants.

The new procedures would represent a large change.

Medicaid funding is open-ended, meaning the federal government matches state spending. If that funding is converted to a block grant, a state could get a limited, lump sum of federal money instead.

There are two key differences here. One is that the funding would go from strings-attached matches to no-strings block grants. The other is that the decision to go to block grants would be each requesting State’s, resulting in less Federal control over that State’s internal affairs.

Of course, this has vested interests twisting in their knickers.

Consumer groups and [Progressive-]Democrats say that limitation means thousands of people could lose Medicaid coverage or be unable to enroll if states’ costs rise or enrollment swells.

This is cynical and disingenuous. Whether a State’s citizens lose or can’t get access to their own State’s Medicaid is a matter strictly for, and wholly under the control of, the politicians and bureaucrats in that State’s government and the citizens who elect those politicians—who are the bureaucrats’ direct bosses.

At bottom, there is nothing at all preventing a State from reallocating its own spending to cover those costs or enrollments. Or of limiting access to ensure the truly needy can get the aid, limits that too often are blocked by those Federal strings.

Universal Basic Income

Posted on by
Reply

It’s creeping ever more deeply into the Progressive-Democratic Party’s psyche and ideology. It’s an idea that was first dreamed up in the ’70s, and it remains an idea that can only fail were it to be implemented.

Giving everyone a basic income won’t improve anyone’s income; it’ll only incentivize employers to pay a wage diminished by the amount of the guaranteed government payment.  But the failure runs much deeper than that.

Such a scheme is inflationary: the outcome can only be a spike in inflation followed by price stabilization at a higher price level.

Consider an economy in which a producer has two widgets to sell, and two consumers each have a dollar. The producer can sell his widgets for a dollar each.

Now give the two consumers their basic income of $1,000 (let’s say).  The producer still has two widgets, now the consumers each have $1,001 dollars, and the producer can sell his widgets for $1,001 each.  That’s price inflation to a new level—but the consumers’ buying power remains unchanged*: they each still have only enough money to buy one widget, and no more.

Nor is there any incentive—or buying power capacity—for the producer to make more widgets to sell. The producer is getting those same dollars, devalued by the same inflation, that his consumers are getting (from his sales) and so he’s getting no added value to induce him to produce more.  Furthermore, he still can buy the same amount of widget production inputs, and no more; he cannot produce more without incurring greater cost.

 

*Actually, buying power decreases on net for producer and consumer alike, not from the weaker dollar, but from fewer of them in hands of both.  The money for that guaranteed income can only come from one or more of three (sort of) sources. The money must come from the government’s printing press—but that’s the same as the guaranteed income; the dollars just follow a more convoluted path into economy than direct disbursement.  Or the money must come from taxes, which takes money away from consumers and producers directly and leaves them with fewer dollars with which to buy goods and services or to buy inputs to production. Or the money must come from borrowing—which is future taxes or future money printing.

It’s hard to believe that all of those politicians slept through their high school economics, whether they’re today’s crop, like Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and minor town mayor Pete Buttigieg, newly graduated from high school, or Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidates and Senators Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D, MA), who were in high school the first time this idea was floated those years ago.

European Keynesianism

Posted on by
Reply

Europe’s investors are hoping for some Keynesian stimulus—or what passes for Keynesian stimulus—in the coming year to continue 2019 boomlet in stocks.

Getting stocks to propel higher however, may require faster growth. Some see that slug of faster economic activity coming from a possible government ramp up in stimulus spending.
“Whichever way you slice it, there is a much greater burden on governments to do more” said Anik Sen, Global Head of Equities at PineBridge Investments.

That’s not stimulus; that’s investors addicted to government spending.  Not even Keynes (to stimulate this horse once again) said higher spending was stimulative. He held that it was the spike in spending that did that, following which spending needed to go back to its original level and the debt resulting from the spike soon repaid.

Which brings me to the second item in this European Keynesian nonsense.

During the European sovereign-debt crisis in the early part of the last decade, governments in the region adopted austerity budgets to rein in spending and calm bond markets. Many investors now say such frugality has been counterproductive….

Again, no. It’s not austerity to lower government spending and thereby get government to stop competing with private enterprises for resources, which is inflationary, and to get government to stop competing with the private economy for borrowable funds, which applies upward pressure on interest rates (for all that governments fix rates by arbitrary fiat), which is also inflationary.

Great Britain’s Socialist Party

Posted on by
Reply

Nominally, it’s the Labour Party, but its MFWIC, Jeremy Corbyn is moving to make it overtly socialist.  He’s jumped onto the Free Stuff, Higher Taxes, and Pay Raises for Government bandwagon with both feet. Sure, these things have been staples of Labour for generations, but Corbyn really intends to outdo his forebears. Corbyn intends to nationalize enormous sectors of the British economy:

  • fixed line network of telecoms provider BT [British Telecom] to provide free broadband
  • rail
  • water
  • mail delivery services.

Having taken over the economy, Corbyn then would raise taxes even higher than they are already, reorganize what would remain of private enterprises, and increase spending:

  • top 5% of earners would see higher taxes
  • workers would be placed on company boards
  • increased spending on health, education, and transport

A Labour victory will do no good for Great Britain, in or out of the EU’s gaol.

An Economic Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday that the two-year budget deal will increase our annual deficits significantly over the next ten years.  That puts a premium on Republicans regaining the majority in the House, retaining/expanding its majority in the Senate, and retaining the White House, with an emphasis on Conservative Republicans in that mix.  That’s for another post, though.

What…triggered…me was this bit at the end of the article CBO Director Phillip Swagel:

The nation’s fiscal outlook is challenging. To put it on a sustainable course, lawmakers will have to make significant changes to tax and spending policies—making revenues larger than they would be under current law, reducing spending below projected accounts, or adopting some combination of those approaches.

Close, but no cigar—not even an ersatz vaping cigar (do they make these?).  To get onto a sustainable course, the only change to tax policy is to continue reducing the rates: make the individual income tax rates permanent, then move onto a course to (permanent) low flat tax rate on all income, regardless of source. Add to that elimination corporate income taxes altogether; it’s corporations’ customers who pay the bulk of those taxes, anyway, in the form of higher prices.

Then cut spending to levels below the resulting revenues, with an emphasis on cutting non-defense spending.  It’s time the government stopped misspending us citizens’ money.  It’s also time the government stopped competing in the economy for products, services, and resources to produce those products and services.

With more money left in our hands, and with less competition from Government driving up our prices, the private economy will truly take off—increasing along the way revenues to the government from that greatly increased economic activity.

That increased economic activity and revenue to Government will have an additional mid-term salutary effect, if politicians are sensible and don’t lose their nerve.  The increased revenue could ease the pain of transitioning our Social Security and Medicare programs to privately done facilities, getting Government further out of our personal economic and health lives.

The increased economic activity also would redound to the States’ collected revenues—facilitating over the same mid-term a conversion of Federal Medicaid transfers to block grants to the States on an annual declining balance to zero schedule.