Kevin Drum

Our Lost Decade

| Thu Sep. 10, 2009 7:24 PM EDT

Today the Census Bureau released its latest income numbers, and they weren't pretty: median income dropped by nearly $2,000 between 2007 and 2008.  Nor was the long term picture much better: median income in the past decade has dropped from $52,587 in 1999 to $50,303 in 2008.

But there's more to your earnings than just cash income.  As we've all been reminded over and over lately, healthcare costs are skyrocketing, which means that healthcare premiums paid by your employer have risen dramatically during the past decade.  That's all part of your compensation too.  So if you add in employers' contributions to healthcare premiums, how do things look then?

Answer: a little better, but still nothing to write home about.  Roughly speaking, if you add together both cash income and healthcare premiums and adjust everything for inflation, median income over the past decade has increased from about $56,400 to $57,000.  In other words, a whopping 1%.  It really has been a lost decade1.

1Though not for everyone.  During the same period, the average income of the richest tenth of a percent increased by about $2 million, or about 35%.  No wonder there wasn't much left for the rest of us.

NOTE FOR NERDS: There's no bulletproof source for the value of healthcare premiums over time, and in any case the value differs depending on whether you're married, single, have kids, etc.  So here's what I did to get a rough cut on the data.

Basic cash income table is here.  Healthcare premium estimates for the past decade are here.  I subtracted the employee contribution and then took the average of family and single coverage.  This may understate the cost a bit, but not by much.  Then I applied the GDP deflator to put all the healthcare costs in 2008 dollars.  This is strictly a cheap and cheerful bloggy estimate, but it's probably not too far off the mark.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Of AIPAC and Astroturfers

| Thu Sep. 10, 2009 2:33 PM EDT

It's Laura, zooming by with the latest MoJo must reads. 3 non-health-care stories today:

1) Is AIPAC still the chosen one? Bob Dreyfuss explains the shifting terrain for the Israel lobby.

2) Who's really behind the Van Jones attack? Meet Phil Kerpen, master astroturfer and green job blocker extraordinaire.

3) Dr. Evil's Payday: How PR op Richard Berman's "economic literacy" nonprofit spun payday loans into gold.

Laura McClure hosts weekly podcasts and is a writer and editor for Mother Jones. Read her recent investigative feature on lifehacking gurus here.

Swimming With Sharks

| Thu Sep. 10, 2009 2:07 PM EDT

One of Andrew Sullivan's readers writes about the antics of congressional Republicans during Obama's speech last night:

Yes, the GOP of 2009 is the party of torture and fiscal recklessness. But as Joe Wilson's outburst last night made clear, it is every bit as much the party of the College Republicans.

....Juvenile, manipulative, impossibly smarmy, hateful — or at least more than willing to use the weapon of other people's hate — and, above all, relentlessly cynical. To these (mostly) men, politics is not the "art of the possible", not a means for peaceably grappling with the most difficult and complex issues of the day, or for attempting to improve the lives of people you will never meet. It is nothing but a game, one where the object is not just to win but to destroy your enemies with a weird mix of angry slander and junior high insults — and to have a good chuckle while admiring your handiwork.

"Swimming With Sharks," Frank Foer's 2005 article about the College Republicans, is one of the best political pieces I've ever read.  If you didn't see it back when it came out, do yourself a favor and read it now.

The Obama Economy

| Thu Sep. 10, 2009 1:54 PM EDT

John Hempton, who is himself merely a humble (Australian) investment manager, says that one investment opportunity in particular might tell us something about how Barack Obama is doing after seven months in office.  It turns out that the big runup in firearm sales to people who were convinced that Obama planned to confiscate their guns seems to be over.  In fact, according to Smith & Wesson, their order book is collapsing:

The warning about the backlog not being binding is new — and it is clear from the new disclosure that they are having massive problems during this quarter with order cancellation.

The backlog dropped from $268 million to $178 million — a drop of 90 million.  Ten percent of that (say $27 million) was order cancellation — but a net $63 million of sales came from the backlog.  Total sales were 102 million — and less than 100 million in firearms.  The rate at which Americans are placing orders for new Smith and Wesson handguns is collapsing.

The company did not tell us the current forward order book.  At that rate of collapse what they are facing is a disaster. Whether that says anything about the size and intensity of belief of the Rush Limbaugh right — well I will leave that for my readers to discern.  We just want to make money for our clients — so we are short Smith & Wesson.

Easy come, easy go. But perhaps this means the "Obama is a fascist tyrant" bubble is about to burst — since, you know, it turns out that he's actually a fairly conventional mainstream liberal politician with exactly zero interest in re-igniting any facet of the culture wars whatsoever.  And just how many extra guns do you really need to protect yourself against imaginary enemies anyway?  Just saying.

The Tentacles of the Fed

| Thu Sep. 10, 2009 1:21 PM EDT

You've heard of "regulatory capture," right?  This is the phenomenon in which interest groups end up running the government agencies originally designed to rein them in.  So farm interests dominate the USDA, Wall Street interests dominate the SEC, corporations dominate the NLRB, etc.

Today, Ryan Grim suggests that exactly the opposite has happened with the Federal Reserve.  The field of monetary economics is relatively small, and a startling number of its practitioners either currently work for the Fed or have at one time.  So if you want to get ahead in the field, it pays not to be too critical of the Fed:

The Federal Reserve's Board of Governors employs 220 PhD economists and a host of researchers and support staff, according to a Fed spokeswoman. The 12 regional banks employ scores more.

....It's fair to [estimate] that there are something like 1,000 to 1,500 monetary economists working across the country. Add up the 220 economist jobs at the Board of Governors along with regional bank hires and contracted economists, and the Fed employs or contracts with easily 500 economists at any given time. Add in those who have previously worked for the Fed — or who hope to one day soon — and you've accounted for a very significant majority of the field.

....Affiliations with the Fed have become the oxygen of academic life for monetary economists. "It's very important, if you are tenure track and don't have tenure, to show that you are valued by the Federal Reserve," says Jane D'Arista, a Fed critic and an economist with the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

....The Fed [also] keeps many of the influential editors of prominent academic journals on its payroll. It is common for a journal editor to review submissions dealing with Fed policy while also taking the bank's money. A HuffPost review of seven top journals found that 84 of the 190 editorial board members were affiliated with the Federal Reserve in one way or another.

"Try to publish an article critical of the Fed with an editor who works for the Fed," says [Jamie] Galbraith. And the journals, in turn, determine which economists get tenure and what ideas are considered respectable.

Read the whole thing.  Even Paul Krugman gets into the act, claiming that ever since he began criticizing Alan Greenspan a few years ago, he's been blackballed from the Fed's annual Jackson Hole get-together of everyone who's anyone.

Overall, though, this is more a sociological critique than a claim that the Fed uses its raw power to stifle dissent.  Rather, you pull your punches a bit knowing that the editor of the journal you're submitting to used to work for Greenspan.  You dial it down a notch because someday you might want a job at the Fed yourself.  You stay within the mainstream because that's the safest place to be when upwards of half your profession depends on the largesse of the Fed to feed their families.

Is this true?  I don't know, but it certainly sounds plausible — and the circle of monetary economists really is startlingly small.  And from a journalistic point of view, the great thing about this story is that it's nonfalsifiable: the more economists who pooh pooh your theory, the more proof you have that they've all been captured by the Fed.  And you have to admit, it sure explains a lot about what happened over the past decade or so.  Did 98% of the profession really believe that there was no housing bubble in 2004?  Or did they just decide that staying quiet was a better career move?  The latter seems rather more likely, doesn't it?

(Via Tim Fernholz.)

The Evolution of the Blogosphere

| Thu Sep. 10, 2009 12:14 PM EDT

Scott Payne of the League of Ordinary Gentlemen has posted an interview with me about how the political blogosphere has evolved over the past seven years.  If this seems like the most gruesome topic possible, don't click the link.  Do not click the link.  If it sounds like a decent excuse to avoid work for a few minutes, however, go ahead.  Click away.  It's short, and Scott had the good taste to illustrate it with the best photograph ever taken of me.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Another Million Uninsured

| Thu Sep. 10, 2009 11:23 AM EDT

Can we please please please not talk about Joe Wilson anymore?  Haven't we glorified enough assholes already this summer?  Via email, Bruce Bartlett says probably not:

No doubt, right wing publishers like Regnery and Crown will be beating down Wilson's door today to sign a book deal that will put him at the top of the New York Times bestseller list along with drivel from the likes of Michelle Malkin, who has probably already started writing her biography of Wilson, titled, "The Man Who Spoke the Truth."  By the end of the day a Wilson for President web site will be fully functioning if it isn't already.  Watch for the announcement on Glenn Beck’s show this afternoon.

OK, but we don't have to talk about it.  Instead, let's talk about this:

The U.S. Census Bureau said the number of uninsured Americans increased in 2008 to 46.3 million, compared to 45.7 million in 2007.

The poverty rate also increased to 13.2%, and the median family income declined to $50,303.  These are all worth far more discussion than the mentally unbalanced antics of yet another GOP congressman.

Following the Online Debate

| Thu Sep. 10, 2009 1:32 AM EDT

Here's something to chew on.  Market Sentinel, a British firm "specialising in online conversation monitoring and analytics," has canvassed the online media world to see who's most influential in the American healthcare debate.  As a proxy, the issue they surveyed was whether Britain's NHS was a good model for the U.S. to follow.

Their findings: The outlets most favorable toward the NHS are the Guardian and the New York Times.  The least favorable are IBD, the Telegraph, and Fox News.  The most influential medium is Twitter.  The least influential is the liberal blogosphere.

That's bad news for us bloggers.  On the other hand, is Twitter really the most influential medium out there?  Seriously?  And in what way is the UK Conservative Party influential in an American debate about healthcare?  For that matter, does trawling the web for references to the NHS really tell us anything at all about how Obama is doing on healthcare anyway?

In any case, I'm stumped by their conclusion that this chart shows that Obama "has lost the argument online."  Looks about even to me.  And color me a wee bit skeptical of their methodology: "We crawl the internet looking for pages which are about the topic, then we track mutual references between people, institutions, entities mentioned in the context.  The resulting structure gives us a mathematically verifiable measurement of 'authority' in the context."  You betcha.

But what I really want to know is whether Twitter is genuinely the most influential online medium in the healthcare debate.  Does that count Chuck Grassley's tweets?  If so, somebody please just shoot me now.  Western civilization is doomed.

UPDATE: Some good points about this from Tim F. over at Balloon Juice.  Comparing all of Twitter to individual outlets makes Twitter look a lot more influential than it really is.  And if blogs are nearly as influential as the Washington Post and the New York Times, as the graph suggests, that's actually pretty good news for the blogosphere, isn't it?

Obama's Big Speech

| Wed Sep. 9, 2009 9:41 PM EDT

A few miscellaneous comments on Obama's big healthcare speech:

The relentless attempt to appear bipartisan was kind of grating.  I mean, how many Republicans did he end up namechecking by the time he was done?  Sheesh.  Still, he wasn't trying to please me, and I imagine this kind of stuff goes over pretty well with the average viewer.

Props for not sidestepping the whole individual mandate issue.  I sort of expected him to, since requiring people to buy insurance isn't necessarily a popular position, but he met it head on.  Key quote about people who choose to stay uncovered even if they can afford insurance: "Such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money."  I'm not sure it will work, but it was admirably direct.

He waffled at first on the public option ("These are all constructive ideas worth exploring," he said unctuously about competing proposals), but then he finished up strong: "I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can’t find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice."  But was this as strong as it sounded in real time?  Not really, and I think he left things pretty fuzzy about just how vigorously he's planning to push for a serious public option — which I suppose was exactly his intention.

He did a pretty good job calling out some of the ridiculous lies that have been spread about healthcare reform.  This is where his (sometimes annoying!) focus on post-partisanship and "ending the ideological bickering" can pay off.  It allows him to get away with strong criticism of this stuff without seeming merely partisan himself.

There was no mention of subsidy levels in his speech.  This is no surprise, since that's an ultra-wonky technical detail, but it's also a pretty important one.  Even if it's just in some talking points released on the website, I'd like to hear where he stands on this.

When Obama said at the end that Americans had been sharing their stories in emails and letters and that he had "received one of those letters a few days ago," I was ready to start cringing.  But no!  It was a letter from Ted Kennedy.  That turned out to be a pretty powerful part of the speech, I thought.  Too bad he then weakened the impact by going on just a wee bit too long afterward.  Another minute would have been good.  Three or four minutes was too much.

And the big question: will it work?  Well, I've been on record for some time as believing that since healthcare reform emerged still standing even after the August hailstorm, the odds were good that it could pass this year in some reasonable form.  So obviously I still think that.  But I'd say the speech probably helped.  It won't affect Republican votes much, but it will probably move public opinon a few notches and make it easier for centrist Dems to stick together and overcome a GOP filibuster.  Basically, I'd say the odds of healthcare passing this year have gone up from 65% to about 75%.  Stay tuned.

Overdraft Hell Revisited

| Wed Sep. 9, 2009 1:25 PM EDT

Felix Salmon is every bit the hater of outrageous bank fees that I am, but he goes beyond the hate and responds to today's NYT front pager with some practical ideas for reform. Here's the Salmon Plan:

• Banks are allowed to offer automatic overdraft protection, but only if it’s free. (They can charge an annualized interest rate on the overdraft, but no set fees.)

• If a bank wants to charge fees as well as an interest rate for overdraft protection, then that protection has to be opt-in rather than opt-out, and the fees should be prominently disclosed at the opt-in stage.

• Fees should be be capped at $20, with a limit of one such fee per day.

I'm not sure I'd agree to even that much, frankly.  For my money, overdraft fees should be regulated as short-term loans with agreed-on interest rates, and banks should simply decide for themselves how to cap them.  If they don't trust you, the cap is zero and you can't overdraw your account at all.  If they trust you a lot, the cap is high and you can overdraw your debit card all you want while your bank rakes in the interest payments.  And yes, of course overdraft protection should be opt-in.  It's a sign of how fatally corrupt the finance industry is that either one of us even has to say that.

Would this make banks less profitable?  Of course not.  They'd make up for the overdraft revenue somewhere else, which is exactly what I want them to do.  I want banks to compete openly, with simple annual fees, clear interest rates, and services with plainly advertised up-front costs.  If debit cards cost the bank money, they should charge annual fees to everyone who uses them, rather than subsidizing 90% of their business with hidden fees on the 10% who are least able to afford it in the first place.  It's a disgrace that we've allowed this to go on as long as we have.