Tag Archives: political economy

Competition and Cadillac Insurance

Posted on by
Reply

Under Obamacare, writes Emily Chasan in The Wall Street Journal, employers will be required by 2018 to pay a tax of 40% on health care plans that President Barack Obama and his minion, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, decide for themselves are somehow “excessively rich” in the benefits they pay out.

The excuse these two and other Progressives make for this is that these Cadillac plans, with their low deductibles and “generous” medical coverage, will encourage overuse of our health-care system.  Sure.  Everyone needs to be covered.  But only to a government-approved degree.  And never mind that those low deductibles make the policy purchasers ineligible for Health Savings Accounts—Progressives don’t want Americans to have those, anyway.

But these folks also ignore—or don’t understand—another aspect of their interference.  Competition in a free market for health insurance, including an ability for insurers to charge risk-based premiums, and for health services would address that “overuse” concern much more efficiently than a 2000 page law with its tens of thousands of pages of HHS rules ever could.  Such an environment would directly impact the costs born both by suppliers and their customers/patients.

The competition would drive down the prices charged, and risk-based premiums within that environment would enable insurers to bill for the coverage offered in accordance with the actual likelihood of payout.  Yes, some high-risk coverages would get more expensive, but the vast majority of coverages, by not having to be priced so as to subsidize those high risks, would get a lot cheaper.

Also, customers and patients would gravitate to the combination of policy coverage and medical service usage that actually interested them, instead of having to buy a government-approved policy that included things only a bureaucrat could love.  An equilibrium would develop that had customers and patients getting the policies and services they wanted at prices that suited them with insurers and providers offering those services and policies at prices that would let them stay in business.

There’s no need of a tax to manage demand and supply.  Americans are fully capable of doing that for themselves in a free, competitive market.

The Aftermath Begins

Posted on by
Reply

Spiegel Online International is describing it, albeit with some misconceptions.

Not even savings accounts are safe, as was recently seen in Cyprus. Such deposits are actually guaranteed to up to €100,000, but the euro rescuers cared little about this as they desperately searched for funds.  Cypriot small savers may have escaped this time around, but the realization remains, even beyond Cyprus, that a state teetering on the edge of bankruptcy will resort to all available means to raise money—and a guarantee is only worth something as long as the entity that stands behind it remains solvent.

Nothing is safe from being seized by the state, no savings account, but also no house or apartment.  …  Governments have even banned the possession of gold during currency crises, forcing citizens to exchange the precious metal for the national currency.

That’s the nub of the aftermath.  No one’s private property is safe from an overweening government.

Those paragraphs, though, carries SOI‘s first misconception: the original demand to expropriate private savings came from the Euro Group, not Cyprus.  Cyprus’ Parliament rejected it at the start.  However, Cyprus’ government, including its Parliament, is complicit in the present theft—it could have rejected that attempt, too.

Then there’s this:

Greece and Cyprus have millionaires and billionaires of whom many profited from the artificial boom fueled by low interest rates after the introduction of the euro—a boom that subsequently went bust.  Why shouldn’t they help finance efforts to deal with the aftermath?  Is it fairer to place the burden on the euro bailout fund, and thus distribute it among the taxpayers of other countries?

Why shouldn’t they?  The question is a demonstration of the lack of understanding.  Why should folks who played by the rules placed before them, and with no other responsibility for the companies, have to pay for the failures of the companies, at least as part of the first resort?  Why should not the companies’ investors and creditors be the only ones to suffer the consequences of the failure of their investments and loans—or at least be wiped out entirely  before depositors—those not responsible at all—suffer any loss?

Is it fairer to place the burden on the euro bailout fund?  To ask this is to demonstrate, again, a lack of understanding.  The euro bailout fund should not exist at all.  The taxpayers of other countries should not even be under consideration of paying for the failure of one country.

Finally, this:

A levy on assets would immediately reduce the debts of crisis-stricken countries, whereas bailout packages pool risks and shift them to the future.

Those risks can become dangerously explosive.  The more countries that have to be bailed out, the fewer countries remain that have to bear the burden—as long as they are able to.  This could even prove to be too much for Germany at some point.

The second answers the first, but only partially.  A levy on assets does not cure the reason the crisis-level debts exist in the first place, but it does destroy property rights.  Neither does any bailout address the underlying causes.  Levy or bailout, they merely perpetuate the situation—as we’re seeing in the euro zone and in the US.

Why Are We Not Surprised?

Posted on by
Reply

The Democrat-controlled Senate Thursday night voted down the House-passed budget that reached zero deficit by 2023.  Then they voted up their own budget, which doesn’t even pretend to try to reach balance, instead adding $7 trillion more to our existing debt over those 10 years.

Via Power Line we learn that Senator Jeff Sessions (R, AL) offered an amendment to the Senate Budget Committee’s bill as it was being debated on the Senate floor.  Sessions’ amendment, as all of these ought to be, was short, and to the point:

Mr. Sessions moves to commit S Con Res 8 back to the Committee on the Budget with instructions to report back no later than March 22, 2013 with such changes as may be necessary to achieve unified budget balance by fiscal year 2023.

From Senator Mike Lee’s (R, UT) office, we get a compilation of the statements of 23 Democratic Senators with the gist of their comments explicitly supported a balanced budget amendment.  One has retired since his statement, and two were defeated in the 2012 reelection process.  The remaining 20 are below:

SENATOR SHERROD BROWN (D-OH): “Before I ask for your vote, I owe it to you to tell you where I stand. I’m for… a balanced budget amendment.” (Rep. Brown, “Where I Stand,” YouTube, 11/1/06)

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): “I crossed the line to help balance the budget, as one of the Democrats that broke with my party.” (Michigan Senate Debate, 10/22/00)

SENATOR MARK BEGICH (D-AK): “It’s time to stop playing political brinksmanship with the budget and do what every Alaskan is doing – balance the budget.” (SENATOR Begich, “Begich Statement On 2011 Budget Vote,” Press Release, 4/15/11)

SENATOR BILL NELSON (D-FL): “Over the years, I have supported a balanced budget amendment…” (SENATOR Bill Nelson, Congressional Record, S.1920, 3/29/11)

SENATOR JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): “[T]he balanced budget amendment’s very, very important to me and to every governor, to every state, to every household, especially in West Virginia. And if they can do it, they think we can do it also.” (U.S. Senate, Budget Committee, Hearing, 1/27/11)

SENATOR BEN NELSON (D-NE): “I voted yes and support a balanced budget amendment that allows for flexibility in times of war and for natural disasters.” (SENATOR Nelson, Press Statement, 3/4/11)

SENATOR MARK UDALL (D-CO): “I’ve long gone by the saying, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. By restoring healthy and responsible spending through a reasonable Balanced Budget Amendment, we can begin filling in that hole.” (SENATOR Udall, “Udall Co-Sponsors Balanced Budget Amendment,” Press Release, 2/1/11)

SENATOR MICHAEL BENNET (D-CO): “U.S. SENATOR Michael Bennet broke his hesitation on endorsing the balanced-budget amendment last week… pledging support for the idea.” (“Bennet Balancing His Approach To Budget,” Denver Post, 3/6/11)

SENATOR CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO): “I think they should. …It would be great if that discipline were in place. Clearly it’s a goal we’ve got to work toward…” “…responding to a question of why the federal government can’t have a balanced budget amendment…” SENATOR CLAIRE McCASKILL (D-MO): “I think they should. …It would be great if that discipline were in place. Clearly it’s a goal we’ve got to work toward…” (“McCaskill For ‘Responsible’ Balanced Budget Amendment,” PoliticMo, 6/29/11)

SENATOR KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-NY): “New York families must continuously balance their checkbooks. Forty-nine states, including New York, require a balanced budget. An amendment to the Constitution will finally hold the federal government to the same, common sense standard.” (Rep. Gillibrand, “Nation Deserved A Balanced Budget,” The Time Union, 6/4/07)

SENATOR TOM CARPER (D-DE): “As a Member of the House, when I served with Senator Santorum over there, we were great proponents of something called a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution…” (SENATOR Carper, Congressional Record, S.8063-4, 7/14/04)

SENATOR HARRY REID (D-NV): “…I believe we should have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I am willing to go for that.” (SENATOR Reid, Congressional Record, S.1333, 2/12/97)

SENATOR MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): “I took a position to support a Balanced Budget Amendment…” (SENATOR Landrieu, Press Conference, 2/25/1997)

SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “The spending trends are what really motivates me, and I hope others, to accept a constitutional balanced budget amendment.” (SENATOR Feinstein, Congressional Record, S.1594, 2/26/97)

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): “Mr. President, I have long supported a balanced budget amendment. I expect to do so again…” (SENATOR Harkin, Congressional Record, S.2460, 2/10/95)

SENATOR TIM JOHNSON (D-SD): “It is time to get our priorities straight. I’ve been a strong supporter of a balanced budget amendment…” (Rep. Johnson, Congressional Record, H.11213, 10/26/95)

SENATOR MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “I have always supported a balanced budget. Montanans want a balanced budget. We must listen to the people and give them a balanced budget.” (SENATOR Baucus, Congressional Record, S.2469, 2/10/95)

SENATOR DICK DURBIN (D-IL): “…we need to move toward a Balanced Budget Amendment.” (Rep. Durbin, Congressional Record, H.1310, 1/11/95)

SENATOR JON TESTER (D-MT): “It’s absolutely critical.” “My folks did not teach me to not have a fiscal balanced budget. It’s absolutely critical… Because I am of the belief that you take care of your own self and you don’t pass your debts on to your kids… Let’s be fiscally responsible. Let’s have a fiscally balanced budget.” (Montana Senate Debate, 6/25/06)

“Jon Tester will lead efforts to balance the federal budget…” (“Real Change, Real Vision For Montana Plan,” Jon Tester Website, Accessed 7/14/11)

Tester Spokesman: “Of course Jon supports a balanced budget…” (“Rehberg Chides Tester Over Budget-Balancing Vote,” Billings Gazette, 3/3/11)

SENATOR BOB CASEY (D-PA): “I Believe In A Balanced Budget. Government Should Live Within Its Means, Like Any Small Business.” MR. RUSSERT: “Let me find out how you would implement something that you’re promising the voters of Pennsylvania. Here’s a Casey campaign ad about our budget.” (Videotape, Bob Casey campaign ad): MR. CASEY: “I believe in a balanced budget. Government should live within its means, like any small business.” MR. RUSSERT: “How would you get a balanced budget?” MR. CASEY: “It’s not easy, Tim, but here are the steps we should take. First of all, when it comes to the budget, what’s missing principally is a lack of fiscal responsibility, you know that. We’ve gone from about two, 236 of, of surplus down to 296 in deficit. We need some fiscal discipline.” (Pennsylvania Senate Debate, “Meet The Press,” 9/3/06)

They’re for a balanced budget amendment, but they won’t hold out for a budget that balances…sometime?  Liars all, save Manchin, who was the only one of the crowd above to vote for the Sessions amendment.  If only half of these were worthy of their word, this bill would have been sent back for work.  And we keep reelecting these…fools.

Shame on us.

A Thought on Cypress and the Euro

Posted on by
Reply

After having offered his church’s assets to a solidarity fund proposed by Cyprus’ government pursuant to Cyprus’ efforts to find a way out of their current economic debacle, Archbishop Chrysostomos II, Archbishop of Nova Justiniana and All Cyprus (the Greek Orthodox Church in Cyprus), has one.  The Guardian quotes him:

The euro cannot last.  I’m not saying that it will crumble tomorrow, but with the brains that they have in Brussels, it is certain that it will not last in the long term, and the best is to think about how to escape it.  It’s not easy, but we should devote as much time to this as was spent on entering the eurozone.

The Orthodox church is the island’s biggest landowner, and it has serious investments in a broad range of endeavors—from hotels and construction to a brewery, to a majority stake in Cyprus’ third largest bank, Hellenic Bank (right behind Laiki Bank (Popular Bank) and the Bank of Cyprus, the former of which would be seized by the government and reorganized under a version of Plan B, and the latter of which is just as insolvent and needs reorganization).  Chrysostomos’ opinions are worth listening to far beyond his position as Cyprus’ moral leader.

I agree with the Archbishop.  It’s a bad fit, Cyprus and the European Union, Cyprus and the euro zone, as has been written elsewhere.

The badness of fit has now been demonstrated, by a midnight deal between the eurozone Finance Ministers and Cyprus President Nicos Anastasiades.  The deal, according to Spiegel Online International:

…focused on the island’s two insolvent major banks.  It will wind down the largely state-owned Popular Bank of Cyprus, also known as Laiki, and shift deposits below €100,000 [$130,000] to the Bank of Cyprus.

Deposits above €100,000 euros in both banks, which are not guaranteed under EU law, will be frozen and used to resolve Laiki’s debts and to recapitalise Bank of Cyprus through a deposit/equity conversion.

[Euro Group (the finance ministers of the eurozone acting together) President Jeroen] Dijsselbloem says that

[t]he raid [that’s exactly the right word] on uninsured Laiki depositors is expected to raise €4.2 billion [$5.5 billion].

There’s more extortion and theft to come.  The takings inflicted on large depositors—those holding deposits greater than €100,000—will be determined at a later date by the Cypriot government and the troika.  Those €4.2 billion represent the target for recapitalization and bank debt resolution; the “tax” on those deposits required to achieve the target has yet to be determined.

And, because this setup is being handled as a bank restructuring and Cyprus’ Parliament had already passed a bank restructuring law that allows it during a panicky weekend session prior to this…arrangement, the Parliament cannot now block it, as it did the original raid.

It’ll be interesting to see where the Russians put their money in the aftermath of this.  It’ll be interesting to see where any large depositor, or any other depositor with the capacity (which includes most middle class folks and small/medium businesses) puts his money, now that Cyprus has been banished from the international financial center business.  The little man—those with the small deposits—have no choice.

It’ll also be interesting to see who in the rest of the eurozone or the broader EU profits from this.

SOI suggests that in the end, Anastasiades had no option but to accept to these terms.  This, though, is to misunderstand what has happened and to misunderstand the immorality of it.  This is just government theft of private money from folks—depositors—who had nothing to do with the decisions of the bankers and government functionaries that put Cyprus in this box in the first place.

Anastasiades indeed had a choice.  He could have accepted bankruptcy and the (painful) recovery of a Cyprus then free of EU and eurozone restrictions on Cypriot sovereignty.  And free of exposure of his country’s banking system to international distrust from fear that the next time it becomes convenient to government, the next batch of deposits will be similarly confiscated.  The banks in the rest of the eurozone, if not of the EU at large, must face this distrust today, especially since the original demand by the Euro Group was to confiscate significant portions of the little man’s deposits, also.

Cyprus needs to listen to the Archbishop.

Another Look at the Senate Democrats’ Budget

Posted on by
Reply

The Heritage Foundation has looked at it.  As has already been pointed out, Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray’s (D, WA) budget has little good in it; although it does preserve the sequester cuts in their magnitude and general allocation.  However.

Cynically, it raises taxes on Americans—and amazingly, on our businesses, which already are subject to the highest rates in the world—by a shade over $1.5 trillion.  This isn’t new, but their budget is worse than originally thought.  The Democrats’ guess (and I use that term advisedly) of getting $155 billion per year over the next 10 years is based on their erroneous static analysis.  A dynamic analysis, which includes the actual and ongoing effects of taking this much money out of the economy, indicates that this “budget” would only get $88 billion per year.  Heritage’s graph below illustrates the year-by-year revenue flow.                                          

This only exacerbates the impact of the Democrats’ continued increases in spending on our debt and on our economy.  Their 5% increase in spending, in every year of those same 10 years, increases the Federal budget deficit, and it contributes to a continued explosion in our national debt—to the tune of $7 trillion more added to an already ruinous level.

But that’s all to the good, anyway, right?  The Democrats say so.  The Senate Republicans have a different analysis.  Overall, they point out that this budget would

  • Lower GDP by $1.4 trillion over 10 years.
  • Cut job growth by an average of 853,000 jobs each year.
  • Slash after-tax incomes by $1.9 trillion over 10 years.
  • Shrink household income by $1,512 per year.

They also look on a state-by-state basis, and the outcome is clear and even starker (it’s important to note here that the state-by-state analysis was done by the Senate Budget Committee’s staff economists, not by Republican staffers).  Here are the outcomes for, oh, say, California and Texas.

California:

For the state of California these tax changes mean losses in personal income, household disposable income, and job opportunities:

Texas:

For the state of Texas these tax changes mean losses in personal income, household disposable income, and job opportunities:

There are no states—none—in which the Budget Committee’s staff economists projected gains in personal income, household disposable income, or job opportunities.  Every state suffers losses as a result of this Democrat budget.