How much would a single-payer universal health care system cost in the United States? You don't need to do anything very complicated to get a ballpark figure. Here's the arithmetic:

  • Total spending on health care in the US is $3.2 trillion
  • Of that, $1.5 trillion is already funded by federal and state programs. That leaves additional required spending of $1.7 trillion.
  • A universal system will still require some copays and other out-of pocket expenses. Figure $200 billion or so. That leaves $1.5 trillion

So that's it. A universal health care system in the US would require about $1.5 trillion in additional government spending. If you want to make heroic assumptions about how much a single-payer would save, go ahead. But nobody serious is going to buy it. If we're lucky, a good single-payer system would slow the growth of health care costs over the long term, but it's vanishingly unlikely to actually cut current costs.

There was a lot of surprise today about an estimate that a single-payer plan for California would have a net additional cost of about $200 billion. But California has 12 percent of the nation's population, and 12 percent of $1.5 trillion is $180 billion. So that estimate is right in the ballpark of what you should expect. Short of some kind of legislative miracle, there's really no way around this. Health care is expensive.

If you want to read about President Trump's just-released budget, the rest of the news media has you covered. They have articles about cuts to food stamps, cuts to the border wall, cuts to the NIH, cuts to health research, cuts to Medicaid, cuts to the State Department, cuts to the EPA, trillions and trillions in cuts all over the place, and explainers about why 3 percent growth projections are ridiculous. Here's the tl;dr version: Trump's budget proposes huge cuts in spending on the poor along with preposterous assumptions about how much revenue they'll raise. The details really don't matter much since no one in Congress will read it. It's just a statement of Trump's callous guiding values.

So I'm mostly going to skip the whole thing unless someone points out something especially amusing. And someone has! Section 2 of the budget document is titled, "What went wrong: Inheriting $20 trillion in debt and a broken, stagnant economy." Sure enough, it contains page upon page of woe. That Obummer dude sure did screw up the economy something fierce.

However, a reader emails to point out something he thinks I'd appreciate: "Note the cherry picking of dates going on around pages 6 and 7 of the just-released Trump budget. Just as do the climate 'skeptics,' the authors of the Trump budget document pick inconsistent starting dates when they calculate growth rates of various things in order to get the good or bad results they desire. The best, perhaps, is the growth rate for real private nonresidential fixed investment."

Hmmm. Real private nonresidential fixed investment, you say? Here's what the budget document says:

Due to high taxes, high regulations, and poor economic policies, real private nonresidential fixed investment has grown by only 1.3 percent each year (on a fourth quarter-over-fourth quarter basis) since 2007, compared to 4.9 percent annually before the recession.

Yikes! That sucks. Is it true? I admit that I can't quite replicate their numbers, but let's call it close enough for government work. It's pretty nearly correct.

Of course, it only works if you start precisely at 2007 so that you include the big drop from the recession. Here's what it looks like over the longer term:

It doesn't really look all that different anymore, does it? In fact, since the Bush-era growth rate caused a massive property bubble and subsequent massive crash, we might well prefer a wee bit less growth than we had before 2007.

I suppose it says something disturbing about me that I find this kind of technocratic lying with statistics more interesting than a thousand words about how the cuts to food stamps will hurt the poor. Then again, if you made it this far, it probably says something disturbing about you, too. In any case, I figure this is my comparative advantage. Everyone is writing about food stamps, but who else will point out the obscure but telling lies like this?

Lunchtime Photo

Remember that Canada Goose nest I showed you a while back? It came to a sad end, unfortunately. I'm not sure what happened, exactly, but it was abandoned shortly before the eggs would have hatched.

But there are other Canada Geese around, and they've had better luck. Here's a pair of goslings trying to catch a quick nap after a tiring day of pecking away at the grass looking for bugs. [UPDATE: According to Rob Mac in comments, they aren't looking for bugs, they're just eating the grass.] Aren't they adorable? Mom and Dad are keeping a close eye on the kids below.

How did the FBI's investigation into the Trump-Russia connection get started, anyway? Former CIA director John Brennan says he was the one who got the ball rolling:

I encountered . . . intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign,” Brennan said, adding that he did not see conclusive evidence of collusion but feared that Trump associates were wittingly or unwittingly being used to advance the interests of Moscow.

....Brennan testified that he was disturbed by intelligence that surfaced last year showing a pattern of contacts between Russian agents or representatives and people with links to the Trump campaign. “That raised concerns in my mind,” Brennan said....With that remark, Brennan appeared to identify the point of origin of the FBI investigation that began in July — the first time a U.S. official has provided insight into what prompted the bureau probe.

That's from the Washington Post. Brennan was testifying before Congress about Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the New York Times adds this disheartening tidbit:

On Aug. 4, as evidence of that campaign mounted, Mr. Brennan warned Alexander Bortnikov, the director of Russia’s Federal Security Service, known as the F.S.B., not to meddle in the election. Not only would interference damage relations between the two countries, he said, it was certain to backfire.

“I said that all Americans, regardless of political affiliation or whom they might support in the election, cherish their ability to elect their own leaders without outside interference or disruption,” Mr. Brennan said. “I said American voters would be outraged by any Russian attempt to interfere in election.”

Mr. Brennan’s warning proved futile. Though intelligence agencies are unanimous in their belief that Russia directly interfered with the election, it has become a divisive partisan issue, with Democrats far more likely than Republicans to accept the conclusion. President Trump has declared that “Russia is fake news” and tried to undermine the conclusions of his own intelligence services.

I don't blame Brennan for thinking that Russian interference in the election would outrage everyone regardless of party. I suppose I might have thought the same thing. But it ain't so anymore:

As always, click the link for the whole story.

Last week, a bunch of security goons working for Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan waded into a demonstration outside the Turkish embassy in Washington DC and started beating up the protesters. A few days ago, the Washington Post's Philip Bump made a pretty good case that Erdogan did more than just watch as this happened. He actually ordered his guards to attack. Rich Lowry has the right response:

This is second offense for the Turks. A year ago, they beat up protesters and disfavored journalists outside an Erdogan talk at the Brookings Institution in Washington. One reporter wrote of that earlier incident, “Never seen anything like this.” If you hang around President Erdogan long enough, though, you’ll see it all.

....The Trump administration is obviously not putting an emphasis on promoting our values abroad. But it’s one thing not to go on a democratizing crusade; it’s another to shrug off an assault on the rights of protesters on our own soil. If nothing else, President Donald Trump’s nationalism and sense of honor should be offended. Not only did the Turks carry out this attack, they are thumbing their noses at us by summoning our ambassador over it.

The Turkish goons who punched and kicked people should be identified and charged with crimes. They are beyond our reach, either because they are back in Turkey or have diplomatic immunity. But we should ask for them to be returned and for their immunity to be waived. When these requests are inevitably refused, the Turkish ambassador to the U.S. (heard saying during the incident, “You cannot touch us”) should be expelled.

It's obvious that Turkey is a delicate problem. On the one hand, they're a NATO member, and their location makes them a critical player in the war against ISIS. On the other hand, Erdogan is steadily converting Turkey into a totalitarian state. In the real world, sometimes you overlook this because you need allies and you don't always have the option of choosing someone who's pure and unsullied. But even if you accept this, Turkey is on thin ice since the Kurds are also our allies and Turkey interferes pretty seriously with our ability to team up with them. Even from a strictly realist/strategic perspective, our alliance with Turkey comes with a price.

I won't pretend to have the answer. It's above my pay grade. But ordering your embassy security to attack protesters in the US who are lawfully and peacefully assembled is a whole different thing. That deserves a strong response even if it might cause strategic tension. Enough's enough.

Jon Chait says the Trump White House has made a $2 trillion mistake:

Trump has promised to enact “the biggest tax cut in history.” Trump’s administration has insisted, however, that the largest tax cut in history will not reduce revenue, because it will unleash growth....But then the budget assumes $2 trillion in higher revenue from growth in order to achieve balance after ten years. So the $2 trillion from higher growth is a double-count. It pays for the Trump cuts, and then it pays again for balancing the budget.

It's true that the budget summary document includes a line item called "Effect of economic feedback" (in Table S-2) that comes to $2.062 trillion over ten years. Is that the same as the economic feedback that will pay for tax cuts? Who knows, really. It's all just made-up nonsense anyway. But here's an interesting thing. In the detailed projections, the Trump budget projects lower tax revenue than the final Obama budget:

What's up with that? Does the Trump budget not include any economic feedback after all? But even if it doesn't, why is their projection lower than Obama's? Is it so they can use this lower number as a new baseline for comparison when they unveil their growth-exploding tax plan later in the year?

I know, I know: who cares? The Trump numbers are just random gibberish plucked from the sky. Still, you'd think they could at least make them agree from one spreadsheet to the next. Where's the economic feedback in the tax revenue numbers?

Over at the Weekly Standard, Michael Warren interviews budget chief Mick Mulvaney:

If a budget proposal is a message about priorities, it's clear entitlement reform isn't even on President Trump's radar. When starting on 2018 budget proposal, Mulvaney came to the president with a one-page list of entitlement programs to reform.

"We went down the list: Yes, Yes, No, No, Yes, No, Yes, No, No," said Mulvaney. "The nos were all Social Security and Medicare. And that's it. He said, 'I promised people on the campaign trail I would not touch their retirement and I would not touch Medicare, and we owe it to them.'"

That's quite a trick memory Trump has. He actually promised not to touch Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But he seems to have forgotten all about that last one. What happened?


Well, this is a kick in the gut. In tonight's season finale of Supergirl, the good guys unearth a weapon originally designed by Lex Luthor as a way of encouraging Superman to self-deport himself by irradiating the atmosphere with kryptonite. At the moment, however, the threat to Earth is from Daxamites, whose weakness isn't kryptonite, but lead:

At least Superman has the good sense to look unhappy about this. On the bright side, if irradiating the atmosphere with lead ends up causing more crime, that's a sort of job security for him, isn't it?

According to the Washington Post, James Comey wasn't the only person that President Trump pressured regarding the FBI's Russia investigation:

Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president....Trump’s conversation with Rogers was documented contemporaneously in an internal memo written by a senior NSA official, according to the officials. It is unclear if a similar memo was prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to document Trump’s conversation with Coats.

....In addition to the requests to Coats and Rogers, senior White House officials sounded out top intelligence officials about the possibility of intervening directly with Comey to encourage the FBI to drop its probe of Michael Flynn....“Can we ask him to shut down the investigation? Are you able to assist in this matter?” one official said of the line of questioning from the White House.

This. Is. Nuts. Trump is not only corrupt, he's an unbelievable moron. He personally asked the NSA director and the overall director of national intelligence to publicly weigh in on an ongoing investigation. Not only that, he basically asked them to lie, since they weren't privy to what the FBI was doing. In what universe did Trump think that either of them would respond positively to such a blunt request? Or that this kind of thing wouldn't leak?

What's more, in addition to directly asking Comey to shut down the FBI investigation, he apparently had some of his aides call senior intelligence officers to ask them to intervene with Comey. There are two big questions here:

If there really are contemporaneous memos from Comey, Rogers, and maybe Coats, and if all three can be called to testify about their conversations with Trump, then what more do we need? This is Nixon-level stuff.

This post is long and wonky and probably not worth your time to read. You have been warned! But it's something I've been wrestling with for a while, and this is basically a way of getting my thoughts in order so that I can continue pondering it.

The subject is inflation. Specifically, what's the best way to measure inflation? I'm talking here about the best general index, not specialized things like CPI-X (an attempt to measure inflation for the elderly) or core PCE (useful to the Fed as a way of judging the strength of the economy). The most common measure of inflation is the Consumer Price Index (CPI), and that's what you see in the headlines each month when the BLS reports a new inflation number.

But CPI has its problems, and lots of people prefer the Personal Consumption Expenditure index (PCE). Scott Winship has led the charge on this, and you can read a pretty readable explanation of his views here. Long story short, Winship makes a good case for the problems with CPI, but I'm not thrilled with PCE either. I'm usually interested in measuring the lived experience of people—especially the non-rich—and in my opinion PCE uses a weighting system that obscures this.

So what's the best index? First off, there are plenty of times when it doesn't matter. Here's a chart showing CPI and PCE over the last ten years:

They're nearly identical. If you're comparing something to last year, or even to ten years ago, just go ahead and use CPI. It doesn't really make any difference. Here's a comparison over 20 years:

There's a little more difference, but still not that much. Obviously this difference might be important in an academic or professional economic setting, but for everyday journalistic use, you can use CPI for a comparison of anything between a year and 20 years ago. It's going to be fine.

But what if you want to go back further? Here are both indexes going back to 1978:

Now we're up to a difference of 21 percent. That's enough to really matter. Luckily, the BLS has created a series called CPI-U-RS that's become pretty popular. I like it because it seems to hit the right sweet spot between fixing the problems with CPI but retaining better weightings than PCE. In terms of the actual things that people use and buy, I think that CPI-U-RS is probably the best measure we have.

Unfortunately, it only goes back to 1978. However, before then there's only a tiny difference between CPI and PCE. Here they are from 1929 to the present:

So the best index to use is PCE (indexed to 1978=104) from 1929-1977 and CPI-U-RS from 1978-present. It would be nice if BLS would merge the two series and give the result a snazzy name like CPI-A1, but they don't. Until then we'll just have to home brew it ourselves.