Daily Archives: 16 October 2013

Food Stamps and Farm Support

Posted on by
5

Why do we even have food stamps and farm support?  Here’s a brief, over-simplified history.  During the Great Depression, with unemployment at historic levels and mom-and-pop farms failing at a high rate (not enough income from not enough sales of produce to an unemployed population), Franklin Roosevelt pushed through Congress a pair of bills that had negative impacts on the unemployed and on those farms (and that prolonged the Depression, but that’s for a different post).

Those two bills were wage controls in the form of a mandated minimum wage that an employer could pay—or that a prospective employee could accept—and a mandated minimum price at which a farmer was allowed to sell his produce (thus, farm supports).  Think about that: in a time of enormous unemployment (Obama’s 10% unemployment in 2009 was full employment, and today’s 7.2% is Phat City compared to Depression levels), Americans were priced out of the labor market.  And at the time those Americans couldn’t get work, they had no income from which to pay those artificially inflated farm prices.

Roosevelt thought about that, and the light went off in his head: he pushed through Congress a mechanism for giving subsidies to the poor (read: unemployed) so they could afford to buy food (thus, food stamps). (It didn’t occur to this Progressive to rescind his minimum wage and price support programs so the markets could clear, folks could get work, and they could buy their own food.)

That’s the long and short of it: food stamps and farm supports are Depression-era attempts fix a failing economy.  Today, Americans pay over $14 billion annually in the form of farm support tax money transfers, and we pay nearly $80 billion per year in the form of food stamp tax money transfers (to a near-record 47 million Americans).

What to do about this?  Much has been made, especially by conservatives and by Conservatives, of States’ Rights—the 10th Amendment, and all that.  What too often gets overlooked, though, is the dual of that: States’ Obligations.  The States should be taking care of themselves on this, not taking money from the taxpayers of other States’ citizens.

My solution is in two parts.  One part is to take all money the Feds currently send to the States for farm support and food stamps and convert the funds to block grants, making the year of conversion the baseline year.  Every year after that, reduce the size of each block grant by 10% (let’s say) of the baseline amount until the money being sent to each state for each program is $0.  This gradual, but steady, forced reduction gives the States time to break their addiction to OPM and to adapt to relying solely on internal State funds for what are essentially internal State problems.  Aside from that, the good citizens of nearly bankrupt New York or nearly bankrupt Illinois have no business being forced to send their tax money to a nearly bankrupt California or a flush Texas.

The other part is to get rid of the ethanol mandates.  American refineries are required by the EPA to blend over 18 billion gallons of ethanol into their gasoline.  The primary source of that ethanol is corn, and as recently as 2011, 40% of US corn production went to ethanol rather than to food.  That elevates the price of a broad range of food, and not just corn-based food, at that.  Food that eats corn—beef and chickens, for instance, and the eggs from corn-fed chickens, get elevated prices from that diversion.  It spreads further: the prices of corn substitutes, like wheat, soya beans, and so on, are also elevated by this diversion.  The States’ problems funding their own food stamp programs (to the extent any of these programs persist when the States discover they can’t fund them with OPM) will be greatly reduced by the increase in food affordability due to the elimination of this pernicious mandate.

Really, What Default?

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama and his…colleagues…in the Senate keep threatening national default if those Evil, Anarchist, Terrorist Jihadi Republicans don’t promptly shape up and pass a budget, raise the debt ceiling, and otherwise give him a blank check.  One of his more recent threats is this:

…if Republicans aren’t willing to set aside their partisan concerns in order to do what’s right for the country, we stand a good chance of defaulting.

Let’s look at some numbers:

So much for default.  Federal revenues exceed debt payments by roughly 12:1.  There’s a double potful of money left over, too, even by DC standards—nearly $2.5 trillion.

What other major expenses are there?

  • Social Security and Medicare payouts in 2012 (close enough to 2013 outlays for this discussion) were a combined $1.4 trillion.
  • Medicaid and CHIP transfers to the states in 2012 ran to $260 billion.

(Incidentally, the various Social Security System trust funds had some $2.6 trillion on hand as of 2012.  Although payroll tax revenues aren’t enough to cover outlays, so that pile is being drawn down, there’s plenty to last through quite a long delay in raising the debt ceiling.  Let’s assume for the sake of this illustration, though, that the SS/Medicare outlays are being paid out of the general revenues.)

Our debt payments are easily covered (so no default) and so are our entitlement payments (so our seniors and our poor are taken care of), and we have $840 billion in annual Federal revenues left to spend on such minor matters as national defense, Federal payroll, scheduled payments to government contractors, and so on.

Certainly, those Federal revenues come in in fits and starts, but that’s the environment any private sector business faces all the time.  They plan ahead so they can deal with those uneven flows.  The Federal government can do such planning, also.

The only way a default will happen will be if Obama decides not to make the debt payments.  The only way our seniors and poor will be hurt will be if Obama decides to withhold payments to them.  His only purpose for doing such shameful things is to make a political point, to heap blame on Republicans for his own failures.

One last thing: it’s interesting to note that he’s threatened to veto a House proposal to mandate prioritizing Federal outlays.

More Obamacare Fallout

Posted on by
Reply

Among the requirements of Obamacare is this: insurance companies selling individual health plans no longer can sell cheaper, bare-bones plans for very low premiums; instead, these companies must offer a mandated bundle of “benefits”—regardless of whether those “benefits” are wanted, or even needed, by the purchaser.  Of course, the premiums for these broader, less useful policies are far higher, too.  As a result, and because they don’t consider the gains from the resulting insurance market worth the cost of the changes,

Aetna, American Family Mutual Insurance, Humana, Independence American Insurance Company, Reserve National Insurance Company, Standard Security Life Insurance Company of New York, Companion Life Insurance, and United Security Life and Health Insurance have all informed the [Nebraska] insurance department of their intent to stop selling health insurance to individuals—and in some cases—groups.

In the Nebraska health insurance market, these companies are small players, but they’re major companies in the health insurance industry.  Their example will be carefully watched, and the remaining players are, rather tautologically, small companies.

The Cornhusker Kickback bought a lot, didn’t it?  The kickback later was rescinded, certainly, but the vote that was bought with it was not refunded.  And here we are.