• Germany Continues to Fiddle as Europe Stagnates

    Unemployment in the euro area hit 12.2 percent in September, up from 11.5 percent a year ago. The inflation rate hit 0.7 percent, down from 2.5 percent a year ago. This suggests that Europe could tolerate a wee bit more stimulus in its economic policy, especially from its biggest and most powerful country.

    So what was the response of Europe’s biggest and most powerful country? Dismissing as “incomprehensible” U.S. criticism of Germany’s continuing dedication to running trade surpluses, and then taking a shot at high U.S. debt levels.

    I think that perhaps “incomprehensible” does not mean what they think it means.

  • Taking a Second Look at Rate Shock

    Rate shock is the subject of the day, and I have to confess to a growing unease about it. Here’s why. I think a lot of us expected that young people in good health might see higher premiums under Obamacare. This is largely because Obamacare mandates a maximum 3:1 ratio between premiums for the young and premiums for the old. Roughly speaking, this means that insurers are being forced to charge older buyers artificially low prices, and that in turn forces them to charge younger buyers more. Instead of, say, charging $100 and $500, the 3:1 ratio means they have to charge $150 and $450. In essence, the young are subsidizing the old. Add in the fact that Obamacare forces insurers to provide better coverage, and prices are going to go up even more.

    But this means that older buyers shouldn’t see all that much rate shock. After all, they’re getting the benefit of that 3:1 ratio. And yet, they are. A couple of days ago I wrote about the case of Deborah Cavallaro, a 60-year-old woman in Los Angeles who had been profiled on the NBC Nightly News. She currently pays $293 for her coverage, but got a letter saying her plan had been canceled and a replacement would cost $478. I wondered whether her insurance company was simply trying to steer her into a high-cost plan, even though they knew she could do better on the exchange.

    In a word, no. I headed over to the California exchange, entered the appropriate numbers, and found a bronze plan from Anthem Blue Cross for $479. Her insurance company wasn’t playing any games.

    But maybe this new insurance is better than her existing policy? Michael Hiltzik talked to Cavallaro, who told him that her current policy has a deductible of $5,000 a year, an out-of-pocket max of $8,500 a year, and two doctor visits per year with a copay of $40. (She pays full price for subsequent visits.)

    And the Obamacare bronze policy? It has a deductible of $5,000 a year, an out-of-pocket max of $6,350 a year, and three doctor visits per year with a copay of $60. (Subsequent visits are full cost until the deductible is met.)

    Now, when you dig into the details, this is indeed slightly better coverage. Lifetime caps are no longer allowed, for example. And Anthem probably would have increased the price of Cavallaro’s policy for 2014 even if Obamacare didn’t exist. On the other hand, the new plan might have a more limited choice of doctors than Cavallaro is getting now. This stuff is probably a bit of a wash, which means that, roughly speaking, the bronze policy costs $2,200 more per year in return for an out-of-pocket max that’s $2,200 lower. Any year in which Cavallaro goes over this max, the Obamacare bronze policy will pay off. Any year in which she stays under it, she’s on the losing end of the deal.

    So….I’m not sure what to think about this. The lower out-of-pocket max is a good thing, but basically Cavallaro is now paying for it every year instead of only in the years where she goes over $6,350. It’s hard to spin that as a good deal.

    Generally speaking, I’m trying to steer a path between denial and panic on this stuff. As Justin Wolfers illustrates on the right, there are still way more winners than losers under Obamacare. Right now, most of what we’re hearing is anecdotal, and we simply don’t know how everything is going to work out in the end or how many people are going to end up with higher rates. In Cavallaro’s case, as in many others, that will depend a lot on the subsidies she gets. But there’s not much question that any year in which her income is high enough to put her over the subsidy cap, she’ll end up paying quite a bit more for coverage that’s only marginally better. It’s no surprise that she’s unhappy about it.

    And the fact that this is happening to 60-year-olds, not just 20-somethings, is a bit of a surprise to me. I’m not going to panic over these stories yet, but the more of them I hear, the less that denial seems like a reasonable response either.

  • Conservatives Punish Fox News for 2012 Election Failure

    Via Andrew Sullivan, Connor Simpson passes along the latest results of the YouGov BrandIndex survey, which tells us which brands are the most trusted. Results for Republicans are on the right, and as you can see, Fox News has fallen so far it’s not even in the top ten anymore. Nor is this just an election year aberration. Fox News ranked #1 in both 2011 and 2012 before it cratered this year. Simpson takes a crack at figuring out what happened:

    So where did it all go wrong? Some trace the recent Republican-Fox divorce all the way back to last November, when poor Megyn Kelly roamed through the Fox hallways looking for an answer to Karl Rove’s ridiculous question: why isn’t Mitt Romney president?

    ….Right after the election, Slate’s Allison Benedikt argued Republicans should stop trusting the network because of its impossibly close ties with the Republican Party if they want honest news. “After Karl Rove’s on-air freakout and the aforementioned MegynCam challenge, Fox was forced to acknowledge that Obama had won the damn election. And now what are they left with?” Benedikt asked. “A whole lot of viewers who are quite surprised to find that they are once again outnumbered by Americans who actually like better access to health care and don’t all keep Carrie Mathison-style timelines of the Benghazi cables on their living room walls.” A Public Policy Poll released in January showed a serious decline in trust during the months after the election. Only 52 percent of those who identify as “somewhat conservative,” said they trust Fox News, down from 65 percent last year.

    Well, it would be nice to believe this, but I have to admit I’m having a hard time with it. You see, I haven’t noticed any particular increase in conservative dedication to the values of truth and compromise and caring about the less fortunate. Quite the contrary. Perhaps you’ve noticed the same thing?

    So I’m a little flummoxed. If conservatives are even more radicalized than ever—and all the evidence suggests they are—why don’t they like Fox News as much as they used to? Maybe it’s not really trust at all. Or at least, not trust in the usual sense. Maybe after Obama’s election victory, they decided that Fox News had failed them. After all, the implicit promise of Fox News was an assurance that they were going to get rid of that Kenyan socialist in the White House, and they didn’t deliver the goods. Maybe conservatives still trust Fox News in the usual sense of believing their version of events, but they no longer trust them to be effective.

    Or, who knows? Maybe conservatives are just watching less TV. The History Channel suffered a pretty big plunge too. So two TV channels got replaced by Craftsman and Lowe’s. Maybe they’re all just retreating to their workshops?

    Anyway, the whole thing is pretty weird. What’s up with Welch’s? How did they break into the top ten? Are Republicans drinking more grape juice these days? And why is Chick-Fil-A no longer highly trusted? I suppose that happened after their epic cave last year, when they traded in their anti-gay message for PR mush: “We are a restaurant company focused on food, service and hospitality; our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.” Just another bunch of losers.

    Anyway, here are the full results for 2012 and 2013. Basically, liberals like Google and conservatives like Welch’s. Feel free to make sense of that as you will.

  • Republicans Declare Yet Another War

    A couple of months ago, Democrats agreed not to fiddle with the Senate’s filibuster rules in return for Republicans agreeing to confirm several of President Obama’s executive branch nominees. The last of the nominees was quietly confirmed this week, and you’ll be unsurprised to learn that full-court obstruction reappeared instantly:

    With votes slated for Thursday, Senate Republicans were poised to reject by filibuster the nomination of Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) to head a major federal housing agency. Patricia Millett’s bid for a seat on the prestigious D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals also looked to be right on the margin of getting the 60 votes needed defeat a filibuster.

    The two standoffs come as a group of other Republicans, led by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), have threatened to filibuster the nominations of Janet L. Yellen for Federal Reserve chairman, Jeh Johnson for homeland security secretary and a host of other presidential picks.

    Sure enough, Watt and Millett have been blocked, and Yellen is being blocked two ways. Rand Paul plans to hold her nomination until he gets a vote on his father’s “Audit the Fed” hobbyhorse, and Graham and McCain are blocking both Yellen and Johnson until they “get answers” on Benghazi.

    So that’s that. All of these are perfectly ordinary, well-qualified candidates without any special ideological baggage. Except that they’re liberals, of course. Apparently that’s enough. Republicans are back to war.

  • Oddly Enough, Syria Really Is Destroying Its Chemical Weapons

    Here’s the latest news on the chemical weapons front:

    The international chemical weapons watchdog said on Thursday that Syria had met an important deadline for “the functional destruction” of all the chemical weapons production and mixing facilities declared to inspectors, “rendering them inoperable” under a deal brokered by Russia and the United States.

    ….The next phase of the timetable set down by the United Nations foresees Syria destroying its stockpiles of chemical weapons by mid-2014. Those weapons are reported to include mustard gas and sarin, a toxic nerve agent which the Obama administration says was used in the Aug. 21 attack.

    I don’t really have any comment about this, except to express a bit of puzzlement. As near as I can tell, Bashar al-Assad is really and truly sincere about destroying his chemical weapons stocks.1 But why? I very much doubt it’s because he fears retaliation from the United States. And given his past behavior, it’s hardly likely that it’s driven by feelings of moral revulsion.

    So what’s his motivation? For reasons of his own, he must have decided that he was better off without chemical weapons than with them. Perhaps it has to do with the internal political situation in Syria. Or maybe Russia got fed up for some reason. But it’s a bit of a mystery, and not one that I’ve seen any plausible explanations for.

    1So far, anyway. Obviously things might change in the future. At the moment, though, it seems like he’s genuinely being cooperative.

  • Can Conservatives Be Persuaded to Raise the Minimum Wage?

    McDonald’s operates a help line called McResource that offers advice to their employees. Among other things, that means directing workers to government programs that can help them, such as food stamps. At the Guardian, Sadhbh Walshe wants to know why conservatives are OK with this. If they hate welfare programs, why are they “seemingly okay with hugely profitable corporations exploiting these programs while they underpay their workers?” This is in the context of an argument for raising the minimum wage to $15, but Adam Ozimek says it’s misguided:

    Conservatives believe that minimum wages lead to more unemployment, and people on unemployment are going to rely on more not less public assistance….So if you’re going to try to sell them on an argument that a higher minimum wage will lead to less food stamps you’re wasting your time. You may succeed in raising their ire more about food stamps, but you’re simply not going to sell them on a minimum wage with these arguments. My guess is those who write or cheer pieces like this are simply too cloistered in their own ideological bubbles to understand that.

    Maybe. At a guess, though, it doesn’t really make any difference. Conservative politicians don’t oppose increases in the minimum wage because they think it increases unemployment. After all, they oppose even modest increases that, by almost unanimous consensus, don’t have any noticeable effect on unemployment. The truth is that they simply oppose business regulations, and the minimum wage is a business regulation.

    Of course, this still means that Walshe’s argument is falling on deaf ears. That’s OK, though, because she’s only talking to conservatives in a rhetorical sense anyway. It’s the Guardian! The real goal here is to keep pressing a campaign that, eventually, might move the Overton Window among liberals and centrists. Those are the people who might nod along with the minimum wage argument.

    So what’s the answer? Should we substantially raise the minimum wage? In one sense, I doubt that it would make a big difference. If you raise the wages of fast food workers, you help fast food workers. But you also raise the price of fast food. And who buys fast food? Mostly poor and middle-class folks. But our biggest problem of the past few decades has been a massive redistribution of economic gains to the rich, and since the rich don’t eat much fast food, this would mostly leave them unaffected.

    Still, it would help a bit, and certainly there are other minimum wage occupations that affect the rich more than fast food. And since most minimum wage jobs are in the nontradable sector these days, a big increase isn’t likely to send jobs overseas. For the most part, the kinds of jobs that can be lost to China and Indonesia are either already gone or already pay more than minimum wage.

    The bigger wild card is whether a substantially higher minimum wage would make automation more cost effective, thus replacing workers with machines at a higher rate. Regular readers know that I think the use of automation is going to accelerate no matter what we do, and with a tail wind like that already in place, it’s certainly possible that a big increase in the minimum wage would put people out of work even faster. But at this point, nobody knows. We simply don’t have enough experience to understand what would happen.

    I am, generally, in favor of paying people for work rather than giving them means-tested welfare benefits. For that reason, I like the idea of a higher minimum wage, just as I like the idea of the EITC. At the same time, though, I doubt that this would be a truly progressive reform. Welfare benefits are paid out of the general fund, which means that the money comes from income tax receipts. In other words, it primarily comes from the well off, who pay the bulk of the income tax. A higher minimum wage, by contrast, mostly raises the price of goods and services. This hits everyone equally—or maybe even regressively.

    I’m still in favor of a higher minimum wage because I believe there’s a minimum amount that any working adult should expect to receive for an hour’s labor. But it’s no panacea. For all its faults, our current system of social welfare is pretty progressive, and given the enormous redistribution of wealth we’ve seen over the past 30 years, that’s probably the most important feature to keep in mind. Ironically, it’s also a reason that conservatives should prefer a minimum wage increase: because it’s less progressive than food stamps or Section 8 vouchers. We’ve come full circle to Walshe’s original argument.

    POSTSCRIPT: For the record, I should note that I mostly agree with Ozimek’s post. “Food stamps are an excellent program. It really is the sort of basic safety net that should have near 100% support. The recent cuts to the program only amounted to a 5% change, but there are larger changes being considered. Let’s not try to undermine this program further by putting it on the corporate welfare radar of Tea Party republicans.”


  • Sometimes It’s Better for Reporters to Be Less Precise

    I complain periodically about reporters who make boneheaded arithmetic mistakes—the kinds of errors that are off by a factor of 10 or 100 and should have set off instant alarms. But Felix Salmon points out today that it’s also easy to make the opposite kind of error: insisting on numerical accuracy that simply doesn’t exist and doesn’t matter. The issue at hand is the Norwegian guy who bought $25 worth of bitcoins in 2009, forgot about them, and recently discovered that they were worth $850,000. Sweet! But wait. Was it really $25? Or was it $22? Or $27? Anthony DeRosa was unhappy that different news accounts provided different numbers, but Salmon explains what happened:

    It turns out that the reason for the disparity is very simple: the dollar-krone exchange rate fluctuated quite a lot in 2009, and it was unclear exactly when the bitcoins were purchased, so no one knows exactly how much the coins were worth, in dollar terms, when purchased. They might have been worth $22, or they might have been worth $27. Really, it doesn’t make any difference: the man made a profit of well over $850,000 whatever his initial investment was.

    But there’s a superficial exactness to numbers that doesn’t exist in words, and so people have a tendency to believe that all numbers are much more precise than in fact they are. If the Labor Department releases a report saying that payrolls rose by 148,000 in September, then a reporter who said that payrolls rose by 150,000 would be considered to have her facts wrong — even though the headline number is only accurate to within 100,000 people either way. The actual number of new jobs could easily be anywhere between 44,000 and 252,000 — and indeed there’s a 5% chance that it’s outside even that large range. But because everybody insists on one hard number, one hard number is what they get.

    One of the most important skills in financial journalism is numeracy — having a basic feel for numbers. In this case, the reporters covering the story got the numbers right: they should be applauded for that, rather than having brickbats thrown at them.

    Yep. In general, reporters should be more careful with numbers, but ironically, that sometimes means being less exact. Some numbers just aren’t precise, and we’d all be better off if we accepted it. Pretending to a precision that doesn’t exist is as bad as tossing out a sloppy estimate when a few minutes of work would provide you with the real answer.

  • How to Save Social Security By Slashing Benefits

    James Pethokoukis grabs my attention with the following:

    Is there a way to save Social Security without raising taxes — and make it better? There is, and it has nothing to do with privatization or personal accounts.

    What follows is an interview with Andrew Biggs, a colleague of his at the American Enterprise Institute and a former principal deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration. So let’s hear what Biggs has to say:

    Today we spend over $700 billion each year on Social Security benefits, yet 9-10 percent of seniors in America are living in poverty. You could give every retiree in America a poverty level benefit for half the cost of the current Social Security program.

    ….My solution is if you want middle and upper class people to save for retirement, tell them to save for retirement. Say everybody has to sign up for a 401(k) with their employer. Their employer has to match their contributions. That’s going to go a long way towards solving this problem because if everybody’s saving, then Social Security’s job is easier.

    ….The benefit would be paid irrespective of your earnings and labor force participation. It’s a universal retirement benefit. New Zealand and a few other countries have the universal pension. The idea is, We’re going to pay you these benefits, so you’re not going to starve. This is going to take the place of sort of the redistributive end of Social Security, also take the place of a number of welfare programs like Supplemental Security Income.

    Nobody will get a benefit below the poverty line. The poverty rate among seniors should go from 9 percent to 0 percent. But nobody will get a benefit above the poverty line. If you want more than that, you have to save for it. That’s where these individual-based accounts come in.

    I thought this plan had nothing to do with personal accounts. But it does. Biggs explicitly says that we should make 401(k) contributions mandatory, which sure sounds like a personal account to me.

    As for benefits, the current poverty level for an individual is $11,500. According to the Social Security Administration, about 70 percent of beneficiaries currently receive benefits above that level. So the Biggs plan would amount to a substantial cut in individual benefits for most retirees.1

    So what this proposal boils down to is this: Cut future benefits dramatically for most people; increase benefits for a few people; and put in place a forced savings plan to make up the difference. There’s nothing very new about this, and it fails on both of the initial promises: to make Social Security better and to do it without personal accounts. I think it also explains the “natural skepticism” that Biggs (accurately) says liberals have with conservative reform proposals, which he chalks up to the fact that “Republicans have often treated Social Security as a budget problem to be solved by cutting spending rather than treating it as a program that they want to fix.” He’s right. But this is just more of the same.

    1The size of the cut depends a lot on the details of Biggs’ plan. What’s the retirement age? Do married couples get two individual benefits or a single poverty-level benefit for two? What about disability payments? Etc. However, Biggs says his program will cost half of what the current program costs, so regardless of details, he’s plainly counting on a substantial average drop in benefit payments.

  • New Poll Shows Democratic Incumbents in Big Trouble

    Today brings a new poll from Democracy Corps titled “Revolt against DC and the Republican Congress.” And it’s true: their polling shows that even in Republican districts, the GOP’s brand has taken a beating.

    But once you get past the generic questions and ask about approval/disapproval of actual members of Congress, the picture turns sharply. I’ve combined two charts to show what happens when you ask people in battleground districts about their own representatives:

    In Democratic districts, net incumbent approval has plummeted by 11 points, from +8 approval to +3 disapproval. In Republican districts, incumbent approval has gone down only 4 points. You see the same results when they ask a question about warmth of feeling toward incumbents: It’s down 7 points in Republican districts and 9 points in Democratic districts.

    This isn’t good news for Democrats. It’s true that attitudes toward the Republican Party have taken a bigger hit than attitudes toward the Democratic Party, but attitudes toward actual incumbents are exactly the opposite. And in elections, that’s what matters.

    POSTSCRIPT: There’s also a very weird result (on slide 20) showing that voters in Republican districts are more eager for their representatives to work with President Obama than voters in Democratic districts. I have no idea what to make of this. In fact, it’s so strange that it makes me wonder if there’s something wrong with this poll.

  • NSA Has Even More Access to Google Than We Thought

    As we all know, the NSA has a program called PRISM that allows it to collect vast amounts of information from companies like Google and Yahoo. Apparently, though, PRISM isn’t vast enough. The Washington Post reports today that NSA collects even vaster amounts under a program called MUSCULAR that has hacked into the internal networks where documents are moved around before they’re encrypted:

    According to a top secret accounting dated Jan. 9, 2013, NSA’s acquisitions directorate sends millions of records every day from Yahoo and Google internal networks to data warehouses at the agency’s Fort Meade headquarters. In the preceding 30 days, the report said, field collectors had processed and sent back 181,280,466 new records — ranging from “metadata,” which would indicate who sent or received e-mails and when, to content such as text, audio and video.

    ….The MUSCULAR project appears to be an unusually aggressive use of NSA tradecraft against flagship American companies. The agency is built for high-tech spying, with a wide range of digital tools, but it has not been known to use them routinely against U.S. companies.

    ….For the MUSCULAR project, the GCHQ [the British counterpart of the NSA] directs all intake into a “buffer” that can hold three to five days of traffic before recycling storage space. From the buffer, custom-built NSA tools unpack and decode the special data formats that the two companies use inside their clouds. Then the data is sent through a series of filters to “select” information the NSA wants and “defeat” what it does not.

    This is apparently all done overseas in order to evade rules that govern domestic data collection. According to the story, “Two engineers with close ties to Google exploded in profanity when they saw the drawing.” As always, read the whole thing.

  • Our Economy Is Suffering From an Investment Drought, Not Low Treasury Rates

    Paul Krugman alerts me today to the latest argument against the Fed’s policy of keeping interest rates low. Unfortunately, I don’t get it. It comes from bond king Bill Gross, and his argument is that if the yield on other investments—corporate bonds, stocks, private equity, etc.—is as low as the yield on treasury notes, then no one will bother investing their money and the economy will stall. Here’s Krugman:

    When I read Gross and others, what I think is lurking underneath is a belief that capitalists are entitled to good returns on their capital, even if it’s just parked in safe assets. It’s about defending the privileges of the rentiers, who are assumed to be central to everything; the specific stories are just attempts to rationalize the unchanging goal.

    Interest, classically (and I do mean classically, as in Mr. Keynes and the), is the reward for waiting: there’s supposedly a social function to interest because it rewards people for saving rather than spending. But right now we’re awash in excess savings with nowhere to go, and the marginal social value of a dollar of savings is negative. So real interest rates should be negative too, if they’re supposed to reflect social payoffs.

    This really isn’t at all exotic — but obviously it’s a point wealth-owners don’t want to hear. Hence the constant agitation for monetary tightening.

    Maybe. But that’s not how I read Gross. His complaint doesn’t seem to be that risk-free returns are low. His complaint is that returns on risky investments are also pretty low. And if those returns are low, investment stalls and the economy suffers.

    I don’t understand this. It’s backward. Real investment yields aren’t low because the Fed is keeping treasury rates low. They’re low because the economy sucks and nobody has much confidence in the future. This lack of confidence keeps cash on the sidelines, and this in turn means there’s a huge supply of investment capital competing for a small number of good investment opportunities. When this happens, any project that’s even halfway promising can demand very low rates because investors are all clamoring to be let in. They bid each other down, which produces low yields even on risky investments.

    I suppose Gross has some baroque explanation for why this is the fault of low Fed rates, but if he does, it’s nowhere to be found in his investment letter. The boring truth is that if we want higher investment yields, what we need is a stronger economy, one where the middle class is likely to thrive and consumption will increase robustly. In that economy, there are lots of great investment opportunities and yields will increase.

    In the meantime, it’s hard to see how raising treasury rates would help things. As best I can make out, Gross is supposing that if Fed rates went up to, say, 3 percent, then corporations would have to offer 5 percent on their bonds. If they did that, then investors would pile in and the economy would start to roar. But that makes no sense. If the hurdle rate for new investments goes up, corporations will simply cut back on their bond issues. It doesn’t matter if investors would love to give you money at 5 percent; what matters is whether your project makes long-term sense even if you have to pay 5 percent for financing. If it doesn’t, the project doesn’t get approved; there are fewer corporate bond issues; and interest rates get competed down once again.

    At least, that’s what Economics 101 says. Maybe I’m missing something here. But my take is that the risk premium depends primarily on whether there are lots of good investment opportunities in the real world. There haven’t been for a long time, which is why our economy has been powered by housing bubbles and financial rocket science for the past decade, rather than real-world investment. This investment drought is the problem we need to solve. Fussing over Fed rates is irrelevant.

  • Republicans Launch Debt Ceiling Apology Tour

    I didn’t realize this, but when the Senate voted a couple of weeks ago to raise the debt ceiling, the legislation included a provision that there would be a second vote expressing approval or disapproval of the first vote. That vote was held yesterday:

    Twenty-seven Republican senators voted with Democrats on Oct. 16 to lift the debt ceiling and avert a catastrophic default. And each one of those 27 senators voted Tuesday to “disapprove” of their own votes. The vote Tuesday was a symbolic “resolution to disapprove” of the debt limit hike. It was mandated by the deal thanks to a last-minute provision inserted by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The motion failed 45-54 because all Democrats opposed it.

    WTF? Does this make sense even on craven political grounds? Do these guys really think the tea partiers are going to forgive them as long as they cast a vote saying they’re really, really sorry about caving in and saving the American economy from massive default and Armageddon?

    I dunno. Maybe this will now be a standard feature of all legislation: a first vote on the legislation itself, followed by a second “apology tour” vote in which you make it clear that you’re sorry you did what you did. At a guess, I’d say that voting to apologize for your voting record would only make the zealots—not to mention every other non-comatose human being in the country—even more contemptuous of you, but what do I know? Everything’s worth a try.

  • Who Pays Corporate Income Taxes?

    It’s fairly easy to examine tax returns and figure out the share of personal income taxes paid by various groups. But what about the corporate income tax. Who pays that?

    One way or another, people ultimately end up paying corporate taxes. Corporate shareholders pay much of it in the form of lower profits and dividends, but not all. So who else? Bruce Bartlett summarizes some new reasearch on this:

    Companies may try to raise prices to compensate for the corporate income tax, thus shifting some of the burden onto consumers.

    Most economists don’t believe that much, if any, of the corporate tax is shifted onto consumers this way, because corporations face competition from noncorporate businesses, such as sole proprietorships and partnerships, and from businesses based in countries with higher or lower corporate taxes. Competition sets prices for goods and services without regard to the corporate tax rate.

    While economists still believe that the bulk of corporate income taxes is paid by the owners of capital, in recent years they have come to believe that workers ultimately pay much of the tax in the form of lower wages. This results from lower capital investment due to a higher cost of capital, which reduces productivity and hence wages, and because capital investment moves to other countries where corporate income taxes are lower.

    So when you take all this into account, what’s the distribution of corporate income taxes? The Joint Committee on Taxation took a crack at estimating this and came up with the following table:

    The numbers in this table represent the total amount of taxes paid by various income groups, in millions. The lowest income group, for example, pays an aggregate of $5.5 billion if you don’t count corporate taxes, and $6.5 billion if you do. Thus, corporate taxes increase their federal tax burden by 17.8 percent. Other groups see similar kinds of increases.

    Bartlett suggests that this might make a bipartisan deal on corporate taxes more likely. “Politically, it is now easier to show that a cut in the corporate tax rate will have benefits that are broadly shared.” That might be true if these estimates are confirmed by other groups. But it would still depend a lot on what kind of tax replaced the lost revenue.

  • Are All Those Insurance Company Cancellation Letters Too Good to Check?

    Paul Waldman recounts yet another story of someone allegedly getting screwed by Obamacare. This time the victim is Deborah Cavallaro, profiled yesterday on the NBC Nightly News:

    We learn in this story that her insurer is cancelling her current plan, which costs $293 a month, because it doesn’t comply with the new law. They’ve offered her a new plan at $484 a month. That sounds like it sucks!….But wait. Maybe she’s not a victim after all. How does the $484 plan her current insurer is offering compare to the other ones she could get? Did she or the reporter go to the California exchange and try to figure that out? Apparently, they didn’t. But I did.

    It took less than 60 seconds. Let’s assume that Deborah has a high enough income that she isn’t eligible for subsidies. I put in that I was 45 years old and got nine different choices for a Bronze plan, which in all likelihood most closely resembles what Deborah has now. The average monthly cost was $258, or $35 a month less than what Deborah’s paying now for her bare-bones plan….She can get a Silver plan, with more generous coverage, for $316, only $23 more than she’s paying now. Congratulations, Deborah!

    In a follow-up post, Waldman makes the right point about this:

    I want to talk about the thing that spawns some of these phony Obamacare victim stories: the letters that insurers are sending to people in the individual market….There’s something fishy going on here, not just from the reporters, but from the insurance companies. It’s time somebody did a detailed investigation of these letters to find out just what they’re telling their customers.

    ….If the woman I discussed from that NBC story is any indication, what the insurance company is offering is something much more expensive, even though they might have something cheaper available. They may be taking the opportunity to try to shunt people into higher-priced plans. It’s as though you get a letter from your car dealer saying, “That 2010 Toyota Corolla you’re leasing has been recalled. We can supply you with a Toyota Avalon for twice the price.” They’re not telling you that you can also get a 2013 Toyota Corolla for something like what you’re paying now.

    I’m not sure that’s what’s happening, and it may be happening only with some insurers but not others. But with hundreds of thousands of these letters going out and frightening people into thinking they have no choice but to sign up for a much more expensive plan, it’s definitely something someone should look into. Like, say, giant news organizations with lots of money and resources.

    It’s true that there are some people who are going to end up paying more for coverage under Obamacare than they’re paying now. But Waldman is right: there’s something very fishy about these letters. Over the past three years, insurance companies have swapped their plans around so fast and so often that virtually no one today has a plan more than a couple of years old—something that seems an awful lot like a deliberate effort to evade Obamacare’s original intent that most individual policies would be grandfathered and therefore remain available to existing customers who wanted to keep them.1 Now, having engineered a situation where most current policies aren’t grandfathered, millions of people are getting letters canceling their existing plans and being told that the replacement is far more expensive.

    I’m not sure what’s going on here, but there’s at least one lesson in this for the press: never take these letters at face value. If you find someone who’s going to end up paying more thanks to Obamacare, fair enough. Run with the story.2 But first, you’d better perform the due diligence to find out what a comparable plan really costs. That means getting income and coverage details from the subject of your story and then doing a detailed search of the local exchange to find out what’s on offer. We’re not seeing enough of that.

    1Plans in existence before March 23, 2010, are grandfathered, which makes them exempt from most of the new requirements of Obamacare. However, if your insurance company switched you into a “better” plan after that date, it’s not grandfathered and can be canceled at any time.

    2Of course, it would be nice if you also ran some stories about people who are benefiting from Obamacare, especially since they probably outnumber the other folks by 100:1 or so.

  • The NSA Strikes Back

    The great European spying scandal just got a little more complicated. There’s been an uproar in France and Spain over reports that the NSA has collected millions of phone records in those countries, but today brought this news:

    Leaked U.S. documents appearing to show that the National Security Agency collected data on tens of millions of European phone records, an issue that has sparked outrage among U.S. allies, actually represented data handed over to the NSA by European intelligence services as part of joint operations, U.S. officials said Tuesday.

    Hmmm. What records were involved? Why were they turned over?

    Army Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the NSA, said reports to the contrary, based on revelations by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, were “completely false.” He said European intelligence services collected phone records in war zones and other areas outside their borders and shared them with the NSA.

    “This is not information that we collected on European citizens,” Alexander told the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. “It represents information that we and our NATO allies have collected in defense of our countries and in support of military operations.”….The French and Spanish intelligence agencies have had extensive, long-running programs to share millions of phone records with the United States for counterterrorism purposes, according to current and former officials familiar with the effort.

    And what do Spain and France have to say about this?

    The NSA declined to comment, as did the Spanish foreign ministry and a spokesman for the French Embassy in Washington. A spokesman for Spain’s intelligence service said: “Spanish law impedes us from talking about our procedures, methods and relationships with other intelligence services.”

    Roger that. The NSA, aka “current and former U.S. officials,” is also fighting back on a different front, saying that European countries have targeted the communications of U.S. citizens in the past. The obvious implication is that European leaders should cool it on the feigned outrage over NSA wiretapping of their citizens.

    Will this work? Or will it simply piss off the European public even more? I can’t decide. Wait and see.

  • BREAKING: Republicans Threaten Armageddon, Consumers Get Scared

    Neil Irwin notes today that consumer confidence took a sharp downward turn in October. But it’s not clear if this will have any real effect on the broader economy:

    Turns out, shutting down the government for 16 days while using the threat of a government debt default to battle over the nation’s budget isn’t great for peoples’ psyche

    ….It’s worth remembering that measures of confidence are always far more volatile than the actual amount of money Americans spend….So there are no guarantees that the plummeting consumer confidence will materialize into worse economic results for October. Still, coming off of a slew of weaker-than-expected data, it’s hard to imagine that the wallop that consumer confidence took in October will help matters.

    Yep. If Republicans get down to business and agree to pass a simple budget by the end of the year, the effect of the October debacle will probably be limited. But if we go through the exact same thing again in January? Then all bets are off.

  • Chart of the Day: The End of Fish?

    Brad Plumer takes a look today at recent research on overfishing:

    Ideally, we’d have in-depth stock assessments for the entire world, but those are difficult, expensive, and fairly rare. So, in their paper, Pitcher and Cheung review a number of recent studies that use indirect measurements instead. For example, they note that recent analyses of fish catches suggest that about 58 percent of the world’s fish stocks have now collapsed or are overexploited.

    Note that 91 percent of all fish stocks today are either fully exploited or overexploited. There are some success stories of fish stocks being rebuilt, but that’s the almost invisible dark green line near the top. It represents less than 1 percent of all global fish stocks.

    But all is not lost. Most of these success stories are in advanced economies, including the U.S., Australia, Canada, and Norway, which is exactly where you’d expect progress to begin. Low-income countries lag behind, but that may change as the success stories start to percolate downward:

    Yet many low-income countries lack the resources to monitor their fisheries. And even richer nations struggle to enforce the laws they have: In Europe, regulators have consistently set lax fishing quotas — in part due to lobbying from the fishing industry. (“Europe is not one of the places that’s doing well,” says Pitcher, “with a few exceptions like Norway.”) Meanwhile, as climate change warms the ocean and disrupts ecosystems in unpredictable ways, regulating fisheries may become even more difficult.

    “Attempts to remedy the situation need to be urgent, focused, innovative, and global,” the paper concludes. But that’s harder than it sounds.

    Yes it is.

  • The Real-World Consequences of Obama Derangement Syndrome

    Jim Tankersley has a fine piece in the Washington Post today about the anger that people in conservative communities feel about both the stagnant economy and the man they blame for it: President Obama. One guy in Rome, Georgia, obviously lost his specialty butcher shop business because of the recession and a new supermarket opening down the street, but apparently his bank decided to tell him they wouldn’t extend him another loan due to Dodd-Frank. This was almost certainly just a convenient fib, but he believes it. Another guy is shutting down his wholesale produce business because of the recession and the loss of a big contract to another bidder, but he blames Dodd-Frank too. Needless to say, both these folks would be better off if conservatives in Congress had permitted a stronger response to the financial crisis. Instead they blame Obama and praise their congressman for shutting down the government this month.

    And then there’s Donald Rizer:

    Rizer did not have a new job lined up. He had come down to Rome after leaving a carpet factory several years ago. He needs shoulder surgery but can’t afford insurance. And because of a quirk in the health-care law, and the fact that Georgia declined to expand Medicaid coverage for low-income people like him, Rizer can’t qualify for a subsidy to buy coverage on his own.

    When he visited the federal health insurance exchange Web site, he found the cheapest policy available to him cost $200 a month — one quarter of his current salary. “Obama,” he said, “he thinks that he’s helping things, but he ain’t.”

    As Tankersley points out, Rizer should soon qualify for free health coverage thanks to Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid. The reason he’s not getting it is because (a) conservatives on the Supreme Court made Medicaid expansion optional, (b) Georgia’s conservative governor has refused to be “bullied” into joining the expansion, and (c) conservatives in the Georgia legislature supported him.

    But who does Rizer blame? Obama, of course.

    The whole piece is worth a read. It places a small spotlight on the real-world consequences of Obama Derangement Syndrome, and it’s both a little bit sad and a little bit enlightening.

  • How Much Did Obama Know About NSA Spying on Foreign Leaders?

    Was President Obama truly unaware that the NSA was spying on leaders of friendly foreign countries? The LA Times reports that the intelligence community is pretty peeved at White House denials:

    The White House and State Department signed off on surveillance targeting phone conversations of friendly foreign leaders, current and former U.S. intelligence officials said Monday, pushing back against assertions that President Obama and his aides were unaware of the high-level eavesdropping.

    ….Precisely how the surveillance is conducted is unclear. But if a foreign leader is targeted for eavesdropping, the relevant U.S. ambassador and the National Security Council staffer at the White House who deals with the country are given regular reports, said two former senior intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity in discussing classified information.

    ….Some U.S. intelligence officials said they were being blamed by the White House for conducting surveillance that was authorized under the law and utilized at the White House. “People are furious,” said a senior intelligence official who would not be identified discussing classified information. “This is officially the White House cutting off the intelligence community.”

    Does the intelligence community really have good reason to feel like it’s being thrown under the bus? Or is this kind of plausible deniability just the way things go in spook land? I’m not sure. But John McCain wants to find out: “Obviously, we’re going to want to know exactly what the president knew and when he knew it,” he told reporters in Chicago. In related news, however, the New York Times seems to have confirmed my guess about the timeline for this story:

    [The spying program] was not suspended until sometime last summer after the theft of the N.S.A. data by Mr. Snowden was discovered. “At that point it was clear that lists of targeted foreign officials may well become public,” said one official, “so many of the interceptions were suspended.”

    So the programs were indeed suspended “this summer,” but only after it became clear that they were highly likely to become public. If it weren’t for Edward Snowden, they’d be continuing to this day with no one the wiser.

  • Good Stories Duel With Bad Stories in Obamacare Rollout

    This morning I braved the horror show of Steve Benen’s newly redesigned site—Obamacare isn’t the only IT project with problems!—and came across the right’s latest infatuation: Dianne Barrette, a 56-year-old resident of Winter Haven, Fla., “who’s made a flurry of television appearances after Blue Cross/Blue Shield informed her that her old plan is being replaced with a new one, and her new coverage will be more expensive.” Erik Wemple investigated, and discovered that Barrette’s old coverage was pretty crappy. Benen summarizes:

    If this woman had a serious ailment and was forced to stay in the hospital for a while, her old plan would have likely destroyed her financial life permanently, leaving her bankrupt. Now, thanks to “Obamacare,” in the event of a disaster, she’ll be protected with coverage her insurer can’t take away — with no annual or lifetime caps.

    In other words, the new horror story for critics of the health care law features a middle-aged woman trading a bad plan for a good plan, and health care insecurity for health care security.

    I think we’re going to be seeing a lot of shiny new television stars like Barrette whose stories don’t really check out. On the other hand, a couple of regular readers emailed to tell me that the stories aren’t all bunk. Here’s JG:

    I stopped employer-subsidized insurance last year and went with a Blue Cross high-deductible plan for my family of four. $5,000 individual deductible, $10,000 family deductible, and $330/month in premiums….A couple of weeks ago, I got a letter from Blue Cross that my policy was not being offered next year….Similar benefit plan is $750 a month premium with a $12,500 family deductible.

    Another wrote that his premium will be increasing from about $600 to $1,300. These are both nontypical cases that represent extremes, and both readers have incomes high enough that they don’t qualify for any subsidies. On the other hand, neither is selling some kind of conservative doomsday story. They may eventually discover that things are a little better than they thought once they navigate the exchanges in more detail, but they’re facing pretty big increases regardless. As one of them wrote:

    I was and am for Obamacare, recognizing that my income allows me to pay more to make sure others have health care. But over 100% increase in monthly premium is kind of shocking. I have no idea if my situation is representative, but if it is, that’s going to be the real story going forward. I think people certainly contemplated 20-30% increases in premiums for the same health care plan, but more than 100%?

    How many people like this are really out there? We don’t know yet. Stay tuned.