Archive for January, 2010
Thursday Links
- Nat Hentoff: If you’re looking for reform in Cuba, don’t rest your hopes on Raul Castro.
- Tim Carney, author of Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses gives the inside scoop on why big government is good for big business.
- The Patriot Act: What should go, and what should stay?
- Dear Poor People- “Please remain poor.” Sincerely, Obamacare.
- Podcast: “Obamanomics in Health Care” featuring Tim Carney.
Madeleine Albright’s Confusion
Former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright writes in Parade magazine that 20 years after the Berlin Wall, “We Must Keep Freedom Alive.” A commendable sentiment, but the article is a bit confused, notably in that it seems to use “freedom” and “democracy” interchangeably. But as Fareed Zakaria and Tom Palmer, among others, have demonstrated, they’re not the same thing. Freedom is the right and ability of individuals to make the important decisions about their lives. Democracy — especially constitutional democracy, with separation of powers, the rule of law, and constraints on government — can be the most effective way to protect liberty. But democracy isn’t liberty, and we shouldn’t confuse the relationship.
Albright writes:
democracy is a prerequisite to economic growth.
That seems clearly, spectacularly wrong. Consider some historical cases of great economic growth: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan grew rapidly in recent decades without being democracies. (And I would say that that growth led to Taiwan’s becoming a democracy.) Beyond that, look at the United States and Great Britain during the unprecedented growth of the 19th century; neither was a democracy by modern standards. And of course China has been experiencing rapid growth in the past 30 years without democracy.
But look at Albright’s complete sentence:
In fact, democracy is a prerequisite to economic growth, which only flourishes when minds are encouraged to produce, invent, and explore.
That is a much stronger hypothesis. Indeed economic growth flourishes “when minds are encouraged to produce, invent, and explore.” And the condition in which that happens is actually called freedom, not democracy. So perhaps the problem is just that Albright is using the terms “freedom” and “democracy” loosely. And if by democracy she means the modern Western conception of a system of individual rights, private property, and market exchange protected by a limited constitutional government featuring divided powers, an independent judiciary, and free and independent media, then it would be true that that kind of “democracy” is a solid foundation for economic growth — though not a prerequisite, as the examples above demonstrate.
The relationships between the rule of law, popular participation in government, constraints on government, protection of property, the market economy, and economic growth deserve serious study, and that study should start with conceptual clarity.
HHS Bureaucracy Is Not up to the Task
One aspect of the health care debate that has not been sufficiently addressed is how the Department of Health and Human Services will handle all its new responsibilities given the massive fraud and abuse that already plagues its existing programs.
It seems that every week there’s a new report of government health care being bilked. Since what’s reported is typically only what is caught, one can only imagine how much isn’t being caught. Harvard’s Malcolm Sparrow, a top specialist in health care fraud, estimates that up to 20 percent of federal health program budgets are consumed by improper payments, which would be a staggering $150 billion a year for Medicare and Medicaid.
New York Times columnist David Leonhardt did raise the question this week of whether the HHS bureaucracy is up to the task. He notes that the president is yet to choose a nominee to head the HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and he suggests that “the lack of a Medicare nomination suggests that the White House is not giving enough attention to what will happen once Mr. Obama signs a bill.” Well that’s because most politicians are primarily concerned with getting accolades for passing bills, but don’t worry too much about how programs actually work.
As I mentioned in an earlier post on this subject, CMS is the reincarnation of a previous HHS bureaucracy with a poor reputation. David Hyman recounts in his book, Medicare Meets Mephistopheles, that in 2001 HHS’s Health Care Financing Administration became CMS in an attempt to rebrand the universally disliked HCFA. CMS Administrator Tom Scully told Congress in 2003:
The fact is, the health care market…is extremely muted and extremely screwed up and it’s largely because of my agency. For those of you who don’t follow CMS, which used to be called HCFA, we changed the name because it was so well loved. I always say it’s kind of like when Enron comes out of bankruptcy, they’ll probably change their name. So, HCFA—Secretary Thompson and I decided to confuse everybody. We changed the name to CMS for a couple of years so people wouldn’t realize we’re actually HCFA. So far, it’s worked reasonably well.
Oh sure, the president is promising that this time it will be different. But Leonhardt relates a story from former CMS administrator Mark McClellan that shows why the president’s promise will be impossible to keep:
[Mark McClellan] likes to tell the story of a Medicare demonstration project that Congress approved in 2003. Once the bill passed, officials had to devise the project’s details, decide how to measure the results and choose the locations. All of that took until 2009. The first round of projects — coordinating care across medical specialties, in Indiana and North Carolina — has only recently started. Years more will pass before the results are in.
Why Do You Want to Tax ‘Cadillac’ Health Care Plans?
The battle is intensifying between Democratic leaders and their labor supporters over a proposal to tax higher premium employer-provided health care plans. The proposal, which is contained in the Senate Democrats’ health care bill and supported by President Obama, would add a 40% excise tax to any amount above $8,500 paid for an individual worker’s coverage, or above $23,000 for a worker’s family. Labor leaders claim that a quarter of unionized workers would be subject to the tax, and government analysts estimate that 22 percent of all workers would be subject to it in 10 years.
A reasonable policy argument can be made for taxing employer-provided health coverage (more on this anon). That argument is not the one that the media (uncritically) reports is the chief motivation for President Obama and Senate Democrats. According to the press, the president and Senate Democrats want the tax so as to disincentivize employers from buying more comprehensive and elaborate coverage for their workers, which would mean that insurers would pay less for workers’ care and thus “lower the cost curve.” That thinking does not make for good public policy.
To be sure, the public worries about the rising cost of health care. But that doesn’t mean that we should embrace any policy that lowers that cost; otherwise, we would simply outlaw surgery and cancer treatments. Instead, what people want is to pay no more than they have to for the health care they want. Put more carefully, people want greater efficiency in health care (that is, more bang for their buck), not a cap or threshold tax on the care they receive.
Higher-premium health coverage does not violate this demand for efficiency. A so-called “Cadillac” plan can be broadly comprehensive and elaborate, and still be efficient, while a “Yugo” plan can be horribly inefficient. Just as important, the purchaser of that coverage (the employer, acting in place of the worker) has plenty of motivation and opportunity to consider different levels of coverage at different prices from different providers that compete on efficiency (and other dimensions). If the employer selects an expensive plan as part of its workers’ compensation, what’s the policy issue?
Sharp readers will point out that there is a policy issue in that employer-provided health care is an untaxed benefit, whereas most other forms of compensation — especially wages — are taxed. This brings us to the “anon” from above: The different tax treatments distort worker compensation, resulting in workers receiving more health care benefits and less wages than they would if all forms of compensation were treated equally. But notice that this distortion occurs when any amount of employer-provided health care is untaxed, not just the amount over $8,500 per worker or $23,000 per family.
The distortion problem is seldom mentioned in press coverage of the “Cadillac” tax proposal, and when it is discussed, it’s portrayed as a minor justification for the tax, behind the chief justification of “bending the cost curve.” And it is the latter, bogus justification that President Obama, Senate Democrats, and the press seem to be focused on.
Head Start EPIC FAIL
Andrew’s earlier post is a great overview of the context for the Head Start findings.
I thought we should also highlight the description of the Head Start Impact Study findings in the report itself (p.215/4-31):
Looking at effects on participants does not change the overall patterns found in the main analysis, which show that Head Start improved children’s language and literacy development during the program year but not later and had only one strongly confirmed impact on math ability in a negative direction. (For the 3-year-old cohort, kindergarten teachers reported poorer math skills for children in the Head Start group than children in the control group.)
This is a devastating report for proponents of government-run early childhood initiatives.
It’s past time we turn to the education reform that has proven itself through multiple random-assignment studies; school choice.
Head Start’s Impact Evanescent — HHS Study
HHS has finally released the second installment of its series of studies on the persistence of Head Start effects. Its finding (see page xiv): virtually all academic effects disappear by the end of 1st grade. There is only one positive statistically significant finding out of eleven academic outcomes measured, the size of that effect is minuscule by recognized standards (it’s half way between zero and what most social scientists consider “small”), and the confidence in the finding is low by recognized standards. (Many authors would categorize it as “insignificant” rather than “significant” — it’s only significant at a 90% confidence interval, not the more common 95% confidence interval).
We have spent more than $100 billion on the program to date (ballpark estimate from Table 375 here) and HHS’s own research shows that its results diminish to essentially nothing by the end of the first grade.
There are other government education programs whose effects actually grow substantially over time, and that are comparatively economical. Consider the federal DC voucher program. Just a year or two after switching from public to private schools, the effect of the private schooling was not big enough to rise to the level of statistical significance. But by their third year in private schools, the evidence was clear that voucher-receiving students were reading more than two grade levels above a randomized control group that stayed in public schools. This program, as I’ve previously documented, costs 1/4 as much per pupil as DC spends on public education: about $6,600 vs. $28,000.
But Congress, and particularly Democrats, have defunded the DC voucher program while raising spending on Head Start. President Obama is at the forefront of this travesty. If you weren’t already jaded and disgusted by education politics and its domination by employee unions opposed to educational choice, start now.
Neither Standards Nor Shame Can Do the Job
Washington Post education columnist Jay Mathews has done it again: lifted my hopes up just to drop them right back down.
In November, you might recall, Mathews called for the elimination of the office of U.S. Secretary of Education. There just isn’t evidence that the Ed Sec has done much good, he wrote.
My reaction to that, of course: “Right on!”
Only sentences later, however, Mathews went on to declare that we should keep the U.S. Department of Education.
Huh?
Today, Mathews is calling for the eradication of something else that has done little demonstrable good — and has likely been a big loss – for American education: the No Child Left Behind Act. Mathews thinks that the law has run its course, and laments that under NCLB state tests — which are crucial to standards-and-accountability-based reforms — “started soft and have gotten softer.”
The reason for this ever-squishier trend, of course, is that under NCLB states and schools are judged by test results, leading state politicians and educrats to do all they can to make good results as easy to get as possible. And no, that has not meant educating kids better — it’s meant making the tests easier to pass.
Unfortunately, despite again seeing its major failures, Mathews still can’t let go of federal education involvement. After calling for NCLB’s end, he declares that we instead need a national, federal test to judge how all states and schools are doing.
To his credit, Mathews does not propose that the feds write in-depth standards in multiple subjects, and he explicitly states that Washington should not be in the business of punishing or rewarding schools for test performance.
“Let’s let the states decide what do to with struggling schools,” he writes.
What’s especially important about this is that when there’s no money attached to test performance there’s little reason for teachers unions, administrators associations, and myriad other education interests to expend political capital gaming the tests, a major problem under NCLB.
Someone in Europe Is Talking Sense on Carbon Tariffs
The nominee for EU Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht has taken the brave step of opposing carbon tariffs, called for by many European politicians (including, notably, French President Nicolas Sarkozy).
In the first day of his confirmation hearings, Mr. de Gucht expressed concern that carbon tariffs were a possible first step in a “trade war” and implied that they were in any event inconsistent with current trade law. (I agree.) He also called for abolishing tariffs on goods beneficial to the environment as a trade-friendly way to reduce greenhouse gases, and expressed support for the Doha round of multilateral trade talks. (More here.) While the Trade Commissioner’s influence over actual trade policy in the EU is arguably limited, it is good to have someone in the post who is instinctively suspicious of green protectionism and friendly towards the WTO.
The European Parliament is due to vote on the European Commission nominees (en masse) on January 26.
A Shortage of Sand?
In Soviet times people used to say that if the Communists took over the Sahara desert, there’d soon be a shortage of sand.
Which I guess explains why there’s an energy crisis in energy-rich Venezuela.
Wednesday Links
- A real stimulus: To create jobs, repeal the corporate-income tax.
- As if times weren’t hard enough: The individual mandate on health insurance would impose high implicit taxes on low-wage workers. For more on this, read the new Cato study on burdens the health care legislation will place on the poor.
- Hot off the press: New issue of Regulation magazine looks at lessons from the financial crisis and property rights.
- Even though the government is running massive deficits, interest rates and inflation are low. So, what’s the problem?
- Podcast: “Bernanke’s Conceit” featuring Mark A. Calabria.
Reforming the Insane Tax Code
We’ve got an IRS Commissioner who doesn’t even do his own taxes, and is not embarrassed about it. We’ve got complex deductions that nobody understands, including the government, as the Maryland nurse with the MBA found out. We’ve got a Treasury Secretary and other high appointees who apparently cheated on their taxes. And we’ve got the Democrats hell-bent on greatly increasing the power and responsibilities of the overwhelmed IRS with their health care bill.
Now, more than ever, it’s time to scrap the current income tax and put in a flat tax. Or at least we could take a big jump in that direction with a “Simplified Tax,” as discussed in a new National Academies report. Get rid of all almost all deductions, exemptions, and credits and drop individual rates to 10 and 25 percent. While we’re at it, let’s drop the federal corporate rate to 25 percent or less.
For more on the two-rate tax idea, see my Options for Tax Reform and Rep. Paul Ryan’s American Roadmap.
Michael Savage: Still Banned in the UK
In my Policy Analysis “Attack of the Utility Monsters,” I noted that U.S. talk radio host Michael Savage had been preemptively banned from entering the United Kingdom, for fear that he would incite hatred on arrival. I also noted that the ban had been rescinded — which, anyway, it appeared to have been at the time. Today I read that Savage’s travel ban is back on again.
What had Savage done that was so terrible? I’m not exactly sure, but here are some things that he’s said:
On homosexuality, he once said: “The gay and lesbian mafia wants our children. If it can win their souls and their minds, it knows their bodies will follow.”
Another of his pet topics is autism, which he claims is a result of “brats” without fathers.
He has also made comments about killing Muslims, although in one broadcast he cited extremists’ desires to execute gays as a reason for deporting them.
None are sentiments I agree with. In fact, I think all of them range somewhere from foolish to idiotic. Which is exactly why I’d welcome Michael Savage into a liberal, tolerant society: Let him contend with his betters, and he will lose. Treat him like a danger, and the tolerant society will appear weak — and intolerant.
Cato on Facebook
Cato on Twitter
Cato on Google+
Cato on YouTube
