Showing posts with label Fiscal Policy Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fiscal Policy Government. Show all posts

Dec 25, 2017

Noam Chomsky on Paul Ryan and President* Trump

Noam Chomsky, speaking April 24, 2017 at the First Parish
Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His latest book and
now film is Requiem for the American Dream.

Trump, Ryan seize white support while "kicking them in the face with abandon"


Insulated from the American public, President* Trump and Paul Ryan are likely taking a break from their project to direct the springs of cooperative wealth to a concentrated elite class.

Amy Goodman is running a conversation today with Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now.

Other aims of Republicans, a pathological "organization ... dedicated ... to the destruction of organized human life on Earth," in Chomsky's words, continue.

Social dominance; police-utilized infliction; and terror against fellows of disfavored color, history and ideas are objectives in themselves as well as proven means to appeal to the white working class.

For many American whites, to the extent public policy and endorsement of hate can be crafted to inflict injury against black, brown, and Muslim people, success has been achieved, assuming appropriate rhetoric directed against these less-than people for the emotive benefits generated from hearing a Trump, Ryan, or a Roy Moore put anti-Americans in their place.

Said Chomsky in part on Trump, Ryan and the Republican Party's descent into rhetorical and policy madness:

My sense is—this is just a guess—that this is a media strategy, that it’s the Bannon-Trump-Spicer strategy to try to keep attention focused on one or another form of lunacy, but not look at what’s actually happening. And what’s actually happening is that Paul Ryan and his associates behind the scenes are systematically and carefully dismantling every element of government that is of any benefit to people and that doesn’t maximize corporate power and profit.

I mean, the dedication of the Republican leadership, especially the Ryan-type leadership, their dedication to slavish servility to corporate power and wealth is just phenomenal. I mean, read this morning’s business pages. ...

I mean, the healthcare proposal was so shocking that, I mean, it was a proposal basically to cut taxes for the rich and to ensure that poor and middle-class people—the people who voted for Trump, in fact—don’t get medical aid. ...

And step by step, that’s what’s happening behind the façade of Trumpisms and, you know, Spicer antics before the press. And the press is pretty much falling for it. That’s what they focus on, not what’s being carried out. There is, of course, criticism—mild criticism—of outrageous lies, but I think that just plays the game. That’s what the lies are for. Then you can yell about the liberal press that is trying to undermine us. It’s all a kind of a desperate effort to keep a con game going. Trump does have a base, a voter base. He’s kicking them in the face with abandon. And the idea is: How do you hold onto them while you’re doing this? Not an easy trick. And this, I think, is part of the con. And there are people in the press who are pointing it out—Paul Krugman, for one—but nothing like it should be.

Republicans are lunatics, dangerous lunatics.

Dec 20, 2017

Republicans and Tax Scam to Face the Nation in 2018

House Speaker Paul Ryan looks to
destroy Social Security, Medicare
and Medicaid in 2018.
From Bloomberg:

Now, Pelosi and her party will try to turn the tables, targeting the GOP’s main achievement of 2017: tax legislation that, so far, rates poorly with the public. Republicans are pitching its middle-class benefits and potential economic growth to win over wary voters, but Democrats have united in labeling it a "tax scam" that benefits the wealthy and corporations.

"The American people will see through what this is, which is a scam," said Representative Ben Ray Luján, who chairs the House Democrats’ campaign arm. "This bill is terribly unpopular across America," he said, adding that the party’s internal polling shows it to be unpopular "especially in swing states."

House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, says he’s utterly untroubled by Democrats’ threats.
"No concerns, whatsoever," Ryan said Tuesday during a news conference. He added: "Results are going to make this popular."

Once American wage earners see their paychecks in February 2018 -- after employers have adjusted withholding -- they’ll start to appreciate what a boon they’ve received, he said. He and other GOP leaders also cite what they say will be a major boost to the economy, pushing annual growth to 3 percent.
---
After Republicans engineered their latest tax scam, Dana Duncan, an attorney in Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, writes:
Meanwhile, a campaign fight beckons in 2018, and Republicans are off to a lying start.

Paul Ryan was asked how the tax scam would affect the deficit, and lying Ryan said he didn't know the answer to that question because "that’s in the future."

Jan 19, 2017

Save Social Security and Medicare from Paul Ryan and Republicans

Senior abandonment by Paul Ryan and
Republicans is a betrayal and moral
dislocation unprecedented in American
history. Join the fight for the people
who made America and bequeathed
us our very lives
.
From the moment you received your first pay-check in the day when paychecks were paper, you may have wondered what that FICA deduction figure, (Federal Insurance Contributions Act), represents on your pay-stub (IRS).

FICA represents the contribution by workers and employers to Medicare and Social Security—the most successful federal programs in United States history.

Last year these earned-benefits, social insurance guarantees, enjoyed sky-high popularity as critical earned benefits: Medicare (77 percent), Social Security (83 percent), (Kaiser). This level of support is persistent across decades, continuing today.

As Paul Ryan and the Republicans target Social Security and Medicare for phase-out and privatization, seniors are scared; afraid that without Social Security and Medicare, "they won't be alive," in the words of one senior-care advocate in Madison, Wisconsin.

Donald Trump promised not to cut Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Few believe anything Trump has said.

Noted Bernie Sanders in questioning the right-wing Rep. Tom Price (R-Georgia), Trump's nominee for secretary of the U.S. Dept of  Health and Human Services:

During the course of his campaign, Mr. Trump said over and over again that he would not cut Social Security, not cut Medicare, not cut Medicaid. Let me read some quotes. On May 7th, 2015, Mr. Trump tweeted, ‘I was the first and only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.’ On April 18th, 2015, he said, quote, ‘Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security, they want to do it on Medicare, they want to do it on Medicaid, and we can’t do that, and it’s not fair to the people who have been paying in for years and now all of a sudden they want it to be cut,’ end of quote. August 10th of 2015 Mr. Trump said, quote, ‘I will say Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will be saved without cuts. We have to do it, people have been paying in for years and now many of these candidates want to cut it,’ end quote.

March 29th, 2016, Trump said, ‘You know, Paul Ryan wants to knock out Social Security, knock it down, way down. He wants to knock Medicare way down, and frankly, well, two things. Number one, you’re going to lose the election if you’re going to do that. I’m not going to cut it and I’m not going to raise age limits, and I’m not going to do all of the things they want to do. But they want to really cut it. and they want to cut it very substantially, the Republicans and I’m not going to do that,’ on and on and on.

Point being, this is not something he said in passing. I think it is likely he won the election because millions of working class people and senior citizens heard him say he was not going to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Congressman Price, a very simple question:  Is the president-elect, Mr. Trump, going to keep his word to the American people and not cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Or did he lie to the American people?

Will Donald Trump stand up for seniors and others in need of healthcare? The universe of those needing healthcare would include everyone.

But if Republicans get their way in throwing seniors into the health insurance market, seniors will re-live the trauma of exclusions, per-existing conditions, benefit caps, sky-high deductibles and all the red tape that health insurance companies employ with the aim of making them give up and leave.
---

By Bill Walsh of the AARP

As Donald Trump was mounting his insurgent candidacy for president, he repeatedly set himself apart from the Republican field by vowing to protect the Social Security and Medicare Americans have come to know.

He assured older voters, who proved to be a decisive voting bloc, that those programs would remain intact and the benefits delivered as promised.

"Every Republican wants to do a big number on Social Security. They want to do it on Medicare. They want to do it on Medicaid. And we can’t do that,” he said at a New Hampshire rally during the primaries. “It’s not fair to the people who have been paying in for years.”

Yet within days of Trump’s historic election, the guaranteed health coverage provided by Medicare was cast in doubt. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) revived his plan to replace it with a fixed-dollar subsidy that beneficiaries would use to buy private health insurance. Meanwhile, Congress is expected to move quickly to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which could have the effect of erasing the consumer-friendly Medicare benefits that the law created.

Stirring Fears and Uncertainty

As news of Ryan’s proposed Medicare overhaul spread, it stirred fears among the 57 million beneficiaries who rely on it to cover prescription drugs, doctor visits and hospitalizations. Democrats lined up to pledge their opposition. It also prompted an outcry from consumer groups, including AARP.

What remains to be seen in January, as Congress reconvenes and the president-elect takes office, is how Trump’s campaign assurances to protect Medicare will hold up against House lawmakers intent on revamping the popular health program.

Trump contributed to the uncertainty by announcing House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) as his pick to run the Department of Health and Human Services. Price has been an advocate of Ryan’s Medicare approach, which supporters call “premium support” and critics decry as a “voucher system.” Trump’s website further raised questions about his plans for Medicare. It says he wants to “modernize Medicare,” which is often seen as Washington code for the type of changes Ryan wishes to make.

Since the election, Trump has not made any comments about Medicare. But in an interview with ABC News on Dec. 4, Vice President-elect Mike Pence said Trump “made it very clear in the course of the campaign that we’re going to keep our promises in Social Security and Medicare.”

The Ryan Approach

Ryan’s Medicare overhaul, a version of which passed the GOP-controlled House, would fundamentally change how Medicare works.

Since its creation in 1965, Medicare has been a “defined benefit” program, guaranteeing a certain level of health coverage. It now pays about 80 percent of costs associated with doctor and hospital visits. Beneficiaries are responsible for paying monthly premiums, copayments and annual deductibles.

57 million Americans rely on Medicare to afford health care Ryan would convert Medicare from a “defined benefit” to a “defined contribution” program. Instead of a guaranteed level of coverage, a dollar amount would be set for Medicare beneficiaries to pay premiums on insurance they would buy from private-sector companies (this is why Ryan calls it “premium support”). Ryan’s plan would also increase the eligibility age from 65 to 67.

A former chairman of the House Budget Committee, Ryan wants to limit how much the government spends on Medicare. In 2015, Medicare accounted for 15 percent of the federal budget, a proportion expected to grow as the number of beneficiaries rises.

“The reforms we’re talking about do not affect the benefits for anyone in or near retirement,” Ryan said last month. “But for those of us in the younger generations, it won’t be there for us if we stay on the current path.”

The Mounting Opposition

Consumer advocates also want to address growing costs in the health care system, including Medicare. But they contend that Ryan’s approach would erode much-needed coverage and shift costs to many who live on fixed incomes and continue to struggle in the shadow of the Great Recession.
While Ryan says the annual subsidy would be greater for low-income people, critics say it is unlikely to keep pace with the rising costs of insurance. The result, they say, is that beneficiaries would shoulder more of the financial burden — or go without needed medical care. Although Ryan also says people would be allowed to stay in traditional Medicare, critics argue his approach is designed to gradually increase out-of-pocket costs in the program and nudge beneficiaries into private plans with no guaranteed level of coverage.

Opponents also say that there are better cost-saving options available. One of the most popular is giving Medicare the authority to negotiate prescription drug prices directly with drug companies. The change would help the federal government control a cost that accounts for $1 out of every $6 Medicare spends. That idea was supported by more than 80 percent of people in a Kaiser Family Foundation poll in 2015. As a candidate, Trump also embraced the idea, another potential point of friction with House Republicans, who generally oppose it, as does the pharmaceutical industry.

The Impact of Obamacare Repeal

What Trump and GOP leaders wholeheartedly agree on is that the first order of business will be repealing the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Republican congressional leaders want a repeal vote in January so that a bill can be on the president’s desk right after he is sworn in.

77 percent of people say Medicare is a “very important” program Although it has received little attention, a full repeal of Obamacare would eliminate Medicare benefits created by the law. Among other things, it improved Medicare’s financial outlook by slowing the growth of spending and clamped down on fraud, waste and excessive payments. It also enabled tens of millions of Medicare beneficiaries to get free preventive services such as flu shots and screenings for cancer and diabetes. And between 2010 and 2015, nearly 11 million Medicare beneficiaries saved $20.8 billion on prescription drugs—an average of $1,945 per person — because of the gradual closing of the coverage gap known as the doughnut hole.

While Obamacare remains controversial — in part because of its mandate to purchase health insurance and because premiums have increased for some plans—the Medicare provisions have proved popular with beneficiaries.

Medicare’s Enduring Popularity

Even in an era of hostility toward the federal government, support for some programs has remained strong. A Kaiser poll found that 77 percent of people say Medicare is a “very important” program, just below the level of support for Social Security at 83 percent.

Trump’s campaign assurances about protecting Medicare and Social Security undoubtedly played a role in his Election Day victory, especially among older voters. Those 65 and older supported him with 53 percent of the vote, compared with 45 percent for Democrat Hillary Clinton, according to the Pew Research Center. There will be a lot at stake for them when Congress reconvenes.

Next: Our AARP Plan

Jun 18, 2012

State employment numbers echo slow national growth for May

Downward Revisions to Real Potential Economic Output

GOP: 'Let's make the economy scream.'

"The continued erosion of public-sector employment highlights the extent to which policymakers at both the national and state levels have undermined economic recovery through shortsighted austerity measures. While teachers, police and firefighters have been bearing the brunt of these cuts, we all have suffered from the resulting drag on the economy."
- The Economic Policy Institute

By Dong Hall

"[The] Bureau of Labor Statistics release of state-level employment and unemployment data echoes the slow national employment growth in May, with 16 states experiencing job loss in the preceding three-month period (February 2012 to May 2012), twice as many as experienced three-month job loss in the April report."

Consider now the national commitment of Republicans to block any and all stimulus initiatives, a program that is nothing less than economic terrorism.

This one-two punch by the GOP on the state and national levels leaves economist such as Paul Krugman to state "we're doomed."

A longer treatment is pulbished today by Andrew Fieldhouse, Failure to stimulate recovery is costing trillions in lost national income.

By Andrew Fieldhouse

In a recent blog post on the (negligible, if not nonexistent) long-run economic cost of deficit-financed fiscal stimulus at present, I noted in passing that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has downwardly revised potential economic output for 2017 by 6.6 percent since the start of the recession. This may seem trivial, but for a $15 trillion economy, this dip reflects roughly $1.3 trillion in lost future income in a single year, on top of years of cumulative forgone income (already at roughly $3 trillion and counting). The level of potential output projected for 2017 before the recession is now expected to be reached between 2019 and 2020—representing roughly two-and-a-half years of forgone potential income. This represents a failure of economic policy and merits considerably more attention than received, especially when weighing the benefit of near-term fiscal stimulus versus deficit reduction.


Potential output is the estimated level of economic activity that would occur if the economy’s productive resources were fully utilized—in the case of labor, this means something like a 5 percent unemployment rate rather than today’s 8.2 percent. Potential output is not a pure ceiling for economic activity, but the level of economic activity above which resource scarcity is believed to build inflationary pressures. As of the first quarter of 2012, the U.S. economy was running $861 billion (or 5.3 percent) below potential output—the shortfall known as the “output gap.” This has a number of implications for federal fiscal policy:

1.Deficit-financed fiscal stimulus will have a very high bang-per-buck while large output gaps persist. The government spending multiplier is much larger in recessions than expansions (see Figure 3 of Auerbach and Gorodnichenko 2011) and the U.S. remains mired in recessionary conditions, where economic growth is insufficient to restore full employment.

2.Deficit-financed fiscal stimulus is largely self-financing because every dollar of increased output relative to potential output is associated with a cyclical $0.37 reduction in budget deficits, and this feedback effect is greatly amplified by the large government spending multiplier.

3.There is so much slack in the U.S. economy—i.e., supply of resources in excess of demand—that government borrowing will not “crowd-out” productive private investment; this can be seen in the near record-low 1.6 percent yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries.

So deficit-financed fiscal stimulus is highly cost-effective, largely self-financing, has a very low opportunity cost, and poses no risk to inflation. But there is another potential benefit: closing today’s output gap can increase potential future output (thereby also increasing the ability to repay debt incurred). The reason is simple—if long bouts of inactivity leave permanent “scars” on the potentially productive resources (and they do), then the longer the economy operates below potential, the more future potential is damaged. Concretely, factories aren’t built because firms can’t even sell what existing factories are producing. Children’s educational outcomes are damaged as economic distress forces their families to move and as they lose access to decent nutrition and health. Desirable early-career jobs for recent graduates that could impart valuable skills throughout their working lives aren’t available to them, so lifetime earnings suffer. And so on.

The CBO certainly is worried about this scarring—look at the annual revisions to real potential GDP made by them since the onset of the recession: Estimates have consistently been revised downwards except between Jan. 2009 and Jan. 2010, when the deficit-financed $831 billion Recovery Act arrested economic contraction and began shrinking the output gap.

The Recovery Act, however, was nowhere near large enough to restore full employment and close the output gap—the 10-year cost of the stimulus, after all, was smaller than the annual output gaps that have persisted since 2009. As the economy has slowed as fiscal support waned, CBO’s potential output forecasts have withered as well. So why did Congress pivot from job creation (i.e., stimulus) to deficit reduction at the start of the 112th Congress?

The whole point of long-term deficit reduction, after all, is to raise future income. But failure to restore full employment decreases potential future income. Worse, while the economy remains depressed below potential output, near-term deficit reduction—particularly spending cuts—greatly exacerbate the output gap because the government spending multiplier is so high. (We’ve seen this play out across much of Europe, where government “austerity” programs have cut spending, pushed economies back into recession, pushed up unemployment, and cyclical deterioration in the budget deficit has rendered spending cuts entirely counterproductive.)

The downward revisions to potential output in CBO’s forecast reflect a failure of Congress to resuscitate the economy and restore full employment, but it’s a policy failure that can still be reversed. Fiscal stimulus can increase employment and industrial capacity utilization today and actually “crowd-in” private investment, thereby increasing today’s capital stock and future potential output. With respect to fiscal tradeoffs, cost effective deficit-financed fiscal stimulus will actually decrease the near-term debt-to-GDP ratio (the relevant metric for fiscal sustainability), whereas deficit reduction cannot raise future income until the output gap is closed and the private sector is competing with government for savings instead of plowing cash into Treasuries. The full cost of Congress’ misguided pivot from job creation to austerity is larger than even just today’s mass underemployment—trillions of dollars of potential future income will also be lost unless we pivot back to addressing the real crisis at hand.