President Obama wants to put people in jail if they don’t buy health insurance. Give that man a peace prize.
Cato at Liberty
Cato at Liberty
Topics
A Bankrupt FHA: It’s Only Money, Part XXVI
Think the bailouts are over? Think again! The Federal Housing Administration could become the next Fannie Mae.
Problems at the Federal Housing Administration, which guarantees mortgages with low down payments, are becoming so acute that some experts warn the agency might need a federal bailout.
Running questions about the F.H.A.’s future — underscored by interviews with policy makers, analysts and home buyers — came to the fore on Thursday on Capitol Hill. In testimony before a House subcommittee, the F.H.A. commissioner, David H. Stevens, assured lawmakers that his agency would not need a bailout and that it was managing its risks.
But he acknowledged that some 20 percent of F.H.A. loans insured last year — and as many as 24 percent of those from 2007 — faced serious problems including foreclosure, offering a preview of a forthcoming audit of the agency’s finances.
We’ve already spent about $13 trillion bailing out banks, financial institutions, automakers, insurance companies, and most everyone else. So what’s another few billion dollars among friends? As they say, it’s only money!
Related Tags
Realizing Freedom
Last month, I talked with Reason senior editor Michael C. Moynihan on Reason.tv about my book Realizing Freedom: Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice.
Are Living Standards Higher in Denmark or the United States?
The left loves Scandinavia, but for the wrong reason. Nations such as Denmark and Sweden have much to admire, particularly their open markets, low levels of regulation, sound money, and honest governments. Indeed, if fiscal policy is removed from the equation, both Denmark and Sweden are more laissez-faire than the United States according to Economic Freedom of the World (as I noted in this recent video).
But fiscal policy is where the Scandinavians have serious problems. Taxes are confiscatory, punishing people who work, save, and invest. High levels of government spending, meanwhile, reduce economic growth by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy and funneling them into the stifling welfare state.
Not surprisingly, this is the reason why statists admire Scandinavian nations. Matthew Yglesias, for instance, recently expressed his great admiration for Denmark. And I suppose I would agree with him if asked to pick the world’s best welfare state. I’ve been to the country several times and there is no question that laissez-faire policies in areas other than fiscal policy have helped the nation remain relatively prosperous.
But Yglesias is a bit lovestruck about the Danes (an understandable impulse for non-economic reasons), and it leads him to make some rather strange assertion — presumably because he wants us to believe that Denmark’s good points are because of (rather than in spite of) an onerous fiscal burden. What jumped out at me was his claim that Danes enjoy a “higher average material standard of living” than Americans. I’m not sure where he gets that, since the World Bank, CIA, United Nations, and IMF all show that the United States has more per-capita economic output.
To be fair, measures of per-capita gross domestic product are not a perfect measure, even if they are adjusted for purchasing power parity. So let’s take a look at other statistics that try to compare living standards. The two that I found (perhaps Yglesias found others, in which case I look forward to his identifying the source) are from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and, coincidentally, the Danish Finance Ministry.
The OECD, many of you already know, is not my favorite organization. The bureaucracy’s anti-tax competition campaign is a reprehensible attempt to hinder the flow of jobs and capital from high-tax nations to low-tax jurisdictions. So surely nobody will claim that the OECD is a collection of market fundamentalists trying to manipulate statistics to make high-tax nations look bad. So let’s now look at this chart, which is based on the OECD’s calculations of average individual consumption per capita, pegged against an average for member nations of 100. It certainly appears that living standards in the United States are much higher.
Now let’s look at numbers from the Danish Finance Ministry. The bureaucrats there, in response to a parliamentary request, put together figures on per-capita individual consumption and per-capita private consumption.
I suspect the Finance Ministry is not trying to make Denmark look bad compared to the United States, yet the data certainly suggest that Americans enjoy higher living standards than their Danish counterparts.
Related Tags
Baucus Bill’s Spending Cuts Won’t Stick
Why? Just ask Sen. Evan Bayh (D‑IN):
You can sort of see this coming. The savings from the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance industry, you can kind of count on that because they’re not very popular.
The hospitals are a different story. People, you know, like their hospitals; they tend to trust their hospitals. The hospitals have pledged big savings. I can easily forecast at some point in the not-too-distant future the hospitals coming in and saying, “You know what, this isn’t working exactly the way we expected. Please spare us from this,” and them getting a good hearing in [Congress].
The same thing goes for physicians.
Related Tags
The Baucus “Failsafe” Is a Failsure
To reassure us all that Baucus 2.0 would not increase the deficit, its author Sen. Max Baucus (D‑MT) included a “failsafe” provision: if the OMB director determines that the Baucus bill would increase the deficit in the following year, that determination would trigger automatic cuts in the bill’s health insurance subsidies.
Sooooo, would those automatic cuts operate more like the failed Gramm-Rudman-Hollings automatic cuts, or the failed sustainable-growth-rate automatic cuts? Automatic spending cuts never work because today’s Congress cannot bind future Congresses.
The CBO estimates that, if the failsafe were to work, it would require 15-percent cuts in the bill’s new health insurance subsidies from 2015 through 2018. But the agency essentially says the mechanism would be unworkable.
The failsafe is a failsure. Baucus 2.0 would increase the deficit.
Related Tags
“Read the Bill” = Deliberative Process, Please
The debate about whether members of Congress and senators should read bills has been getting highly literal lately. It’s capped off by Angie Drobnic Holan’s article, “Speed-Reading the Health Care Reform Bill?, on Politifact (a St. Petersburg Times site) this morning.
Faced with a 1,000-or-so-page health care reform proposal, “a person could conquer the bill in seven to 13 hours.”
There you have it! That’s what it takes if you want ‘em to read the bill!
Of course, the “read-the-bill” concept is a stand-in for others:
One is simply having a more deliberative process in Congress. It’s dawning on the American public that bad things happen when Congress operates in haste—the derivatives debacle, for example. Oh, and also, government takeovers. Oh yeah, and spending orgies.
But “read the bill” is also about power.
“Waiting periods … tend to disperse power to people who might otherwise be at the margins of the debate,” reports Holan. “Centrist Democrats in the Senate, for example, have asked for waiting periods after amendments and conference reports.”
It goes beyond that, too. Letting the public read finalized bills before they become law allows the public to second-guess Washington, D.C. and transfers power back home. People want to use the Internet to have more say in governance.
And there is far more knowledge, sense, and brain-power out there in the land than on Capitol Hill (I say as a former legislative staffer). Given a regular process for doing so, the people (and lawyers) faced with implementing proposed federal laws would examine and critique proposals in Congress much more than they do now. This would help improve results, though Members of Congress would surely chafe at being overseen by the lowly public.
Speaking of waiting periods, recall that President Obama promised to post the bills coming out of Congress for five days before he signs them. Let’s take a look at how he’s done with this promise so far:
Still only one of 68 have been posted online for five days before signing. Forty-six of 68 (nearly 68%) have been held at the White House for five days after presentment. There is nothing stopping the president from posting these bills online for the time he promised.
It might be that the folks in the White House don’t want to reveal the trivialities that Congress and the president deal with. Eighteen of the 68 new laws this year (26%) have renamed post offices and courthouses.
Also, five bills have been temporary extensions of existing laws (plus one temporary government funding measure). These are all examples of Congress and the president failing to manage existing government programs and spending. It’s possible that the White House doesn’t want to give exposure to these laws and bring discredit on the federal government generally.
Whatever the case, here’s the list so far of new laws and the president’s adherence to the “Sunlight Before Signing” pledge.