Monthly Archives: April 2014

Obamacare Jobs Impact

Posted on by
1

The American Health Policy Institute has some data [emphasis in the original].  Although their study concerned itself primarily with the cost impact of Obamacare to large employers—those with 10,000 or more employees—the study’s outcome has implications for our economy’s jobs picture.

  • The cost of the ACA…is estimated to be between $4,800 to $5,900 per employee.
  • These large employers will see overall ACA-related cost hikes of…4.3 percent in 2016 and 8.4 percent in 2023 over and above what they would otherwise be spending.
  • The total cost of the ACA to all large US employers over the next ten years is estimated to be from $151 billion to $186 billion.

This comes after a downward trend in employer cost increases—to no and nearly no increase just prior to Obamacare’s passage—for employee health care benefits has been completely reversed by Obamacare, as this graph from the study demonstrates:

Now for those implications:

At the US median annual wage of $51,000 in 2013 (a decrease from 2012, an added bonus of President Barack Obama’s economic policies), and just taking the lower bound of the 10-year cost range, those $151 billion in added dollar costs work out to a jobs cost of nearly 3 million jobs over that decade—300,000 jobs per year—in a static analysis that ignores the economy’s response to the loss of those jobs: a loss that would increase by some amount each succeeding year as the economy actually responded.

Alternatively, that $151 billion cost is money not being spent on R&D or product development.  To put this in perspective, US companies spent some $424 billion on R&D in 2013; at $15.1 billion/year over the decade, that works out to a 3.6% cut in R&D.  This is a very large drop in a company expense that’s already very low in an increasingly competitive global economy (if not particularly competitive anymore in the US)—Apple’s R&D spending, for instance, amounted to just 3% of net sales in 2013; IBM and GM spent just 5-6% of total revenue on R&D.  This reduction leads directly to a commensurate cut in company profitability, with its own cascade effect on jobs in the US.

Of course, the true outcome will be somewhere in between—a loss of fewer than 3 million jobs, but still a large loss, and a cut in R&D of less than 3.6%, but still a significant cut—each and both with still significant cascade effects in future job losses.

The Ryan Budget Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R, WI) has laid out the Republican budget proposal for the decade beginning FY2015.

It begins by balancing the Federal budget over those 10 years, a measure of fiscal responsibility to which the present crop of Democrats don’t even pretend—vis., the Democrat-controlled Senate’s refusal even to produce a budget their first four years of the Obama administration, and which refusal they’ve renewed in the current year, insisting that they don’t need to bring up a budget anymore.

It repeals Obamacare, with that act’s enormous deficit-increasing costs.

It increases Defense spending, contra Democrat—White House—desires.  Plussing up our military is an especially glaring need in this day of a resurgent Russia routinely invading and occupying parts of its neighbors—Georgia and Ukraine come to mind—and an equally aggressive, if more subtly so, People’s Republic of China and its territorial grabs of the East and South China Seas.

It renews the Republican proposal to give “premium subsidies” to senior citizens enrolling in Medicare beginning in 2024—folks today who are not older than 56—and letting them shop for their own insurance in a free(r) market, rather than being dragooned in to Medicare.  Even so, Medicare would be one of their choices, and guaranteed to be no more than second least expensive.  Democrats deride this as a voucher system and object to it.  Aside from the fact that Democrats object to voucher systems in any form, I have to wonder why Democrats object so vociferously to older Americans making up their own minds, without the oversight of Democrat Betters.

It walks away from past practice of projecting budget effects into the future under the assumption that today’s conditions won’t change over the period being projected, including the premise that the economy won’t respond to spending changes by the Federal government—a static analysis—and makes use, instead, of the more realistic assumption that the economy does, in fact, respond to such inputs—dynamic analysis.

This is an outline that should be pursued, and Democrats who insist on continuing their profligate spending instead de-elected.

A Political Party’s Fiscal Philosophy in Microcosm

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal has the tale.

Today, a year and a half after the 2012 elections, the Democratic National Committee owes its creditors $15 million.  It closed out the 2012 election season owing $22 million, and after all this time, it’s only paid down a third of that debt.

Today, a year and a half after the 2012 elections, the Republican National Committee owes its creditors…zip.  Nada.  The RNC has no debt.  It also closed out the 2012 election season with…wait for it…no debt.  The RNC, in fact, had $3 million cash on hand.

And with those relative fiscal performances, the Republicans won everywhere—the House, with fewer than usual losses for the minority party in a Presidential election year; the Senate, with fewer than usual losses for the minority party in a Presidential election year; in the state houses, with net gains in legislatures and Governors’ offices—except the White House race.

The Democrats lost everywhere—the mirror image in a two-party system—but the White House.  And we’ve seen how effective this President has been.

Which party’s fiscal performance indicates which party is more fit to govern a nation?

UCSB’s “Apology”

Posted on by
Reply

Recall a week, or so, ago when UCSB Women’s Studies Professor (her class: “Black Woman in Pornography”) Mireille Miller-Young objected to a pro-life demonstration that a 16-year-old girl and her 21-year-old sister were holding in the “free speech” (!) zone on the UCSB campus.  Miller-Young progressed from berating the girls for their demonstration, through stealing a sign they were using as part of their demonstration, to assaulting the younger girl, pushing her a number of times.

After considerable delay, UCSB’s Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Michael Young, has issued a memo.  The meat of that memo comes near the end:

While urging you to engage with differing ideas and opinions in a civil manner, I also want to remind you that you have the option not to engage at all.  You do not have to listen to, look at, or even acknowledge speech or expression that you find provocative or offensive.  …  If you do not want to be confronted by certain materials or expressions, you should avoid the free-speech areas when you expect that you might encounter them, or simply ignore them.

And

If you feel that you must respond, hold a peaceful, thoughtful, civil, and dignified counter-demonstration, and show how students engage intellectually and politically at UCSB.

The “you” to whom Young is speaking are the UCSB students.  There’s not a word directed to his misbehaving professor.  There’s not a word of apology for his professor’s misbehavior.  Not a syllable.  The rest of the memo is given over simply to a sermon on the trials of tolerating the disagreeable speech of those with whom a UCSB student might disagree.

To date, there’s no indication that UCSB intends to discipline Miller-Young in any way for her misbehavior.

As an aside, Young also wrote this in his memo:

You also know that I hold equally strong views on the sanctity of free speech.

Yeah.  As long as it’s done in your carefully restricted pair of squares of the campus grounds and confines itself to the limits of your comfort zone.  “Free speech” zone, indeed.  You seem to have lost sight of the fact that every square inch of public ground in our great nation is a free speech zone.

American Oligarchs

Posted on by
Reply

According to the Progressives in America:

  • the Koch brothers—billionaire oil men and entrepreneurs, who also support Conservative political causes

Those they’ve…missed:

  • George Soros—billionaire hedge-fund manager who supports Progressive political causes
  • Tom Steyer—multihundred millionaire (via capital markets) who supports anti-fossil fuel development
  • Al Gore—multihundred millionaire (via “green” energy firm investments) and supporter of al Jazeera
  • Elon Musk—multimillionaire (via “green” energy subsidies, electric-car tax credits, and solar-energy mandates) who supports more “green” freebies

Hmm….

 

h/t The Wall Street Journal