Monthly Archives: January 2013

Takers vs Doers

Posted on by
Reply

Nicholas Eberstadt has the call.

A growing body of empirical evidence points to increasing dependency on state largess.

Then he enumerates [emphasis his]:

  • Over the 50-plus years since 1960, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, entitlement transfers—government payments of cash, goods and services to citizens—have been growing twice as fast as overall personal income.  Government transfers now account for nearly 18% of all personal income in America—up from 6% in 1960.
  • According to the BEA, America’s myriad social-welfare programs (the federal bureaucracy apparently cannot determine exactly how many of these there are) currently dispense entitlement benefits of more than $2.3 trillion annually.  Since those entitlements must be paid for—either through taxes or borrowing—the burden of entitlement spending now amounts to over $7,400 per American man, woman and child.

To pay for this, every child is born with a $7,400 debt.  Including those who will be recipients of this welfare.  Which means, as a practical matter, the other children are born with an even greater debt.

  • In 1960, according to the Office of Management and Budget, social-welfare programs accounted for less than a third of all federal spending. Today, entitlement programs account for nearly two-thirds of federal spending.  In other words, welfare spending is nearly twice as much as defense, justice and everything else Washington does—combined.  In effect, the federal government has become an entitlements machine.

Yet President Barack Obama insists that entitlements don’t sap us, they strengthen us.  He’s partially right: they strengthen those who control the handouts from these entitlements.  Politically.

  • According to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly half (49%) of Americans today live in homes receiving one or more government transfer benefits.  That percentage is up almost 20 points from the early 1980s.  And contrary to what the Obama White House team suggested during the election campaign, this leap is not due to the aging of the population.  In fact, only about one-tenth of the increase is due to upticks in old-age pensions and health-care programs for seniors.
  • As entitlement outlays have risen, there has been flight of men from the work force.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the proportion of adult men 20 and older working or seeking work dropped by 13 percentage points between 1948 and 2008.
  • In recent years, the biggest increases in disability claims have been for “musculoskeletal” problems and mental disorders (including mood disorders).  But as a practical matter, it is impossible for a health professional to ascertain conclusively whether or not a patient is suffering from back pains or sad feelings.  The government’s disability-insurance programs were intended to address genuine need.  On the current trajectory, the Social Security disability fund is projected to run out of money during Mr Obama’s second term.
  • The president and others describe Social Security and Medicare as “social insurance” programs rather than transfer schemes.  True, the eventual beneficiaries of these programs contribute payroll taxes to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds during their working lives.  But “insurance” programs are meant to pay for themselves; Social Security and Medicare cannot do so.

Moreover, insurance programs pay the premium payer or the payer’s designated beneficiary later, not some stranger currently.

And who’s paying for all of this?  Slightly over half, and dwindling, of those Nancy Kress called mules in her Beggars novels.  And those of our children who are picking up the debt.

Recovery

Posted on by
2

Here, from Zero Hedge, are some graphs illustrating the ongoing failure that is the Obama Economic Recovery.

As ZH notes (his emphasis), this is

the worst in US history, having just dipped below the heretofore lowest on record.

This one shows the effervescent fluffiness of this failed recovery:

There are actually those who tout gains like this as meaningful (Federal Reserve Bank President Ben Bernanke among them*).  They speak of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, or of the S&P 500, or of some other market index as proof of the efficacy of President Barack Obama’s policies.  The indices have been doing quite well; the DJIA is at a five year high, for instance.

The indices, though, are not the real economy.  They’re just a measure of how well investors like me have been doing; they have nothing at all to do with how poorly folks who actually work for a living—or who would like to work for a living—are doing.  And that real economy is what underlies those indices.  Heads up.

*Certainly, that’s a two-year old op-ed, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate he’s altered his views—not about the (ir)relevance of stock prices in assessing our recovery, and not about any of the several other misapprehensions he included in his piece (but which are the topics of other posts).

The Cost of Price Supports

Posted on by
Reply

They’re disastrous for our food costs, which harms our poor especially, and they drive the “need” for food stamps.  Here are some numbers, from a recent op-ed by Burleigh CW Leonard in The Wall Street Journal.  The parity prices for some farm products are these:

  • corn: $12/bushel vs actual market price of $7.01
  • wheat: $18.30 vs $8.33
  • rice: $42.20 per hundred weight vs $14.80
  • milk: $52 vs $21.10.

We care about parity prices because the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 and the Agricultural Act of 1949 require, unless other temporary support prices  are specified by subsequent Congresses, that farm support prices be set to parity according to a formula based on farm prices extant in 1910-1914 [sic].

Notice that: farmers (read: agribusiness, who are the vast majority of our modern farm industry, not the mom and pops over whom our politicians shed so many crocodile tears) can get three times the market price of rice from those supports so they produce to their heart’s content and sell the excess to the government.

This doesn’t actually happen to a great extent, though, because of an epicycle in the government’s Ptolemeic orrery of controls: the government imposes on each farmer (agribusiness) limits on how much (rice) he can produce.  I won’t get into the inconsistent manner in which such limits get applied across farm products.  Nor will I get into the interference such controls represent in each man’s right to choose for himself what he will produce with his labor (and what price he will charge for that produce, or that labor).  (Nor will I get into the mandatory diversion of food into fuel products, which is what the ethanol mandates are.  That’s for another discussion entirely.)

It’s sufficient, here, to see that the price distortion remains.  And the “need” for food stamps remains.

Leonard is on the right track with the solution he offers:

…craft a new long-term farm bill.  Its first step should be to repeal permanent law that governs commodity price support programs.  Then the default setting for US agriculture would be a free market….

He goes too far, though.  There’s no need for a new “long-term bill.”  His proposed bill’s first step is nearly sufficient by itself: repeal the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938, the Agricultural Act of 1949, and associated laws.  Then take the only additional step necessary: stop instituting other price support legislation.

Watch the need for food stamps fall precipitously.

There is nothing to fear from free market competition but fear itself.

The Proper Role of Crime

Posted on by
Reply

From Atlas Shrugged:

“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr Ferris.  “We want them broken.  You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against—then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures.  We’re after power and we mean it.  You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it.  There’s no way to rule innocent men.  The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.  Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.  One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.  Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens?  What’s there in that for anyone?  But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt.  Now, that’s the system, Mr Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

Hmm….

h/t Instapundit

The Blinders of the Liberal

Posted on by
Reply

Juan Williams has a piece in The Wall Street Journal that illustrates this quite nicely.  He writes of the “Clouds over [President Barack] Obama’s Second Term,” and surely there are such clouds.  But he couches his discussion in this way.

…there is no sign that the GOP’s current goal is anything other than hastening this president’s transition to lame-duck status and stopping any Democrat from succeeding him in 2016.

…Republicans have made it difficult for the president to get any bill passed without a supermajority of 60 votes because of the minority party’s increased use of the filibuster in the modern era.

Even leaving aside the fact that the rise in the use of the filibuster includes several Congressional sessions of Democratic Party minority, this is an interesting argument.  Williams is claiming that Republican opposition to Obama’s bills couldn’t possibly be because those bills are terrible ideas.  No, being universally fine, the only purpose for opposing them must be personal—to harm Obama.

But this is entirely consistent with Williams’ next point.

…one factor for anyone judging Mr Obama is race.

Really, Mr Williams?  Have we met?  Certainly it’s no secret to my half-dozen readers that I disagree, with considerable enthusiasm, with nearly all that Obama has done or said.  But on what basis do you ascribe my opposition to race?  I reject your racist slur.

Along these lines, Williams offers this:

Even among his liberal supporters, the conventional wisdom is that Mr Obama’s leadership style is lacking in forcefulness because he is the “first black” in the White House.  By that line of thinking, he is not allowed to be too forceful in his emotions, or he will risk being seen as scary—an “angry black man.”

This is another manufactured beef, or it’s a concession that Liberals generally are racist.  Certainly no Conservative whom I know looked at Obama as anything other than a bad president.  Not a bad black president.  And not, even when he did show anger, an “angry black man.”

Where are you getting this stuff, Mr Williams?