Tag Archives: economics

The Wrong Question

Posted on by
Reply

Jim Angle, of Fox News, usually does better than this.

“Right now the savings that was projected to pay for all this spending [on Obamacare] is not being collected as originally projected,” said Charles Blahous, of the Mercatus Center. He estimated the law will eventually cost $200 billion a year by 2020.

And

“There was about $100 billion that was supposed to come in over the next 10 years from penalties on individuals, if they did not carry health insurance, penalties on employers, if they do not offer health insurance, and to date, those penalties have not been enforced,” Blahous said.

The law also counted on more than $700 billion in cuts to Medicare, including up to $150 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, but the president set those aside at the behest of Senate Democrats who feared angering seniors in an election year.

It’s gotten so bad that the CBO will no longer do estimates on Obamacare’s costs, Angle cites American Enterprise Institute’s Joe Antos as saying.

But then Angle goes astray:

The changes, and the overall uncertainty regarding the price tag, are raising concerns about whether the law even has enough revenue coming in to pay for the program.

This is the wrong question. The delays and alterations illustrated above show the essential capriciousness of any government effort—not just the present administration’s effort; this one is only the most active—at emulating a private business arrangement. This law shouldn’t have any revenue coming in to pay for it. This should be a private enterprise matter, with private enterprise raising the money for its private enterprise endeavor—or the endeavor fails, because the free market—American citizen participants—don’t want it. The law shouldn’t exist.

Gina “Joe” McCarthy

Posted on by
Reply

…is at it again. Operating carefully in the proverbial dead of night, burying its new rule in the 80,000 page Federal Register and unadorned by any other announcement,

The Environmental Protection Agency has quietly floated a rule claiming authority to bypass the courts and unilaterally garnish paychecks of those accused of violating its rules….

The EPA also has fast-tracked passage of this rule in an effort to get it into effect before anyone knows it’s there. Until it’s applied. The EPA has justified the fast-tracking by claiming, with an absolutely straight face, that this isn’t a “significant regulatory action.”

On top of that, Gina “Joe” doesn’t feel any need to explain herself.

EPA officials did not respond to repeated questions by The Washington Times about why they thought it was necessary to garnish people’s wages.

The explanation she’s reluctant to say out loud, though, clearly is, “Courts? We don’t need no courts! I don’t have to take you into any stinkin’ courts!”

A Thought on a European Polity

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote about this a bit ago. Daniel Hannan, Conservative Party MEP for South East England, has a more recent thought.

Churchill [as early as 1946] makes clear that this United States of Europe should not include Britain:

There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. Why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this turbulent and mighty continent and why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings in shaping the destinies of men?

In case anyone had missed the point, Churchill ended with a call for Britain and the Commonwealth, along with the United States and perhaps even Russia, to “be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe, and champion its right to live and shine”.

Hannan and a number of his fellow Center-Right MEPs are working out the details of a new proposal to achieve that:

a European Common Market—a lightly but effectively regulated free trade area, stretching from Iceland and the Faroe Islands to Turkey and Armenia—within which a smaller group of states could form a political union without prejudice to the non-participants.

At this point, it’s a long shot, but today is different from 1946. There’s a better chance. I say good luck to Hannan and his fellows.

Another Thought on Immigration

Posted on by
Reply

Gordon Crovitz, in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, pointed out some statistics.

The Congressional Budget Office last year estimated that legalizing the 11 million undocumented immigrants would boost federal revenues by $48 billion over 10 years while costing $23 billion in public services. Adding more skilled workers would bring in $100 billion over a decade, mostly from increased income taxes.

In addition to this, I add (and reiterate) immigrants start more businesses than Americans who’ve been here for two or three or more generations. Those businesses employ people, and more so than “just” immediate family members.

There’s also the demographic question: the Unites States has only just returned to a birth rate that even barely replaces our death rate. We need immigration for continued population growth; we don’t want to face the population implosion risk from aging that Russia, the People’s Republic of China, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, and lots of other nations are facing. When Social Security was enacted, there were seven workers to contribute to the SS payments for every retiree, and that retiree had a retired life expectancy of some five to seven years. Today there are three workers per retiree, and that retiree has a retired life expectancy of nearly fifteen years. If we don’t intend to change the structure of Social Security, we need immigration.

Friday’s Jobs Report

Posted on by
Reply

…which came on a Thursday last week…. Some tidbits from the BLS, behind the headline number, the unemployment rate of (now) 6.1%.

The number of unemployed persons decreased by 325,000 to 9.5 million.

That’s a couple million and four or five years late, but still: cool. Who is it, though, who’s newly employed now?

  • The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), while declining by 293,000 in June, is still 3.1 million
  • The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) increased by 275,000 in June to 7.5 million.
  • 2.0 million persons still are only marginally attached to the labor force, even though this is down by 554,000 from a year earlier. … These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
  • Among the marginally attached, there still were 676,000 discouraged workers in June; although this is a decrease of 351,000 from a year earlier. … Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.
  • The number of people employed full-time (according to the household survey that also counts self-employed) declined by 523,000, while the number of part-time workers increased by 799,000 [see the various tables available at the above link for these two aggregated data]

Hmm….