Economics
Posted at 11:12am on Jul. 7, 2008 Economists Support McCain Economics
By California Yankee
Three hundred economists support John McCain's economic plan:
Economists' Statement on John McCain's Jobs for America Economic Plan
We enthusiastically support John McCain's economic plan. It is a comprehensive, pro-growth, reform agenda. The reform focuses on the real economic problems Americans face today and will face in the future. And it builds on the core economic principles that have made America great.
His plan would control government spending by vetoing every bill with earmarks, implementing a constitutionally valid line-item veto, pausing non-military discretionary government spending programs for one year to stop their explosive growth and place accountability on federal government agencies.
His plan would keep taxes from rising, because higher tax rates are exactly the wrong policy to restore economic growth, especially at this time.
Read on.
Posted in 2008 | Economics | John McCain — Comments (54)/ Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:08am on Mar. 6, 2008 Heading into the 2008 election and beyond, the GOP must lead on health care
By Jeff Emanuel
If the Republican Party is to repair and reclaim its tarnished brand as the party of individual rights and responsibility, of limited government, and of real solutions for the American people, one issue on which the GOP must lead is health care.
The mantra of “50 million (and growing) uninsured Americans,” has become part of every Democrat politician's standard rhetoric. The Left, and many members of the media, are treating so-called "universal health coverage" as though it is (a) the correct solution to the U.S.’s health care woes, (b) a foregone conclusion, and (c) simply a matter of timing an detail at this point. Further, several polls show that a significant portion of the American population views the current health care situation both as an important issue, and as one which should be further intervened in, and regulated by, government.
This trend toward support of the Democrat platform on health care means that Republicans must eschew sitting idly by in favor of coming up with coherent, workable response to the Left on health care -- lest, through their inaction, they allow the party of government intervention to permanently own the issue.
Read on.
Posted in Economics | Health care | Nanny-Statism | Policy | Republicans | strategery — Comments (63) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 12:47pm on Mar. 3, 2008 If you're in the oil business and your name isn't Hugo Chavez, then the Democrat Congress just raised your taxes...
...and encouraged more "outsourcing," to boot. Well done, all.
By Jeff Emanuel
At the end of last week, the House passed an energy bill that stripped $18 billion in tax credits for research and exploration from five “major integrated oil companies” (Exxon, Chevron, BP, Shell and ConocoPhillips).
Believe it or not, that’s the good news.
Given that, I’ll bet you’re wondering what the bad news must be. Well, it’s simply this: Citgo, which receives all of its oil from Venezuela’s state oil firm and its dictatorial leader, Hugo Chavez, was exempted from the tax hike. Under HR 5351, Citgo gets to keep the 6% tax deduction for domestic manufacturing that its fellow Big Oils lose because – get this -- it doesn't drill for its own oil, and it gets its oil from outside the United States.
Economically speaking, this bill will – as any high school Economics student (well, at a private school, anyway) could tell you – have an expressly negative effect on America’s fuel industry – and on its economy as a whole. In the war to “end America’s dependence on foreign oil” that the Democrats continually claim to be fighting, they’ve given some major points to the other side here.
Follow me below the fold, if you will.
Posted in Backfiring Democrat legislation | Economics | Energy | Paying at the Pump | Pro-Communist Democrats — Comments (20)/ Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:19pm on Feb. 17, 2008 Democrat Reps. Shays, Langevin come up with a *brand new* idea -- and it's as brilliant as it ever was
By Jeff Emanuel
Reps. Chris "Has Rafael Palmieri gotten his 300th hit yet?" Shays (Rumored to be "R"-CT) and Jim "I'm such a nobody that not even I've heard of me before" Langevin (D-RI) announced their new plan to solve America's health care problems last week. They're billing their new legislation, called the "American Health Benefits Program," as "the first bipartisan universal health care plan to originate in the U.S. House of Representatives."
Claiming that their plan (which won't be available to the public until later today or tomorrow at earliest) will "cure the health care system," Shays and Langevin want to play up "managed competition" and "shared responsibility" -- awesome, brand new ideas that mean "government control of the market" and "doctors need to take less and do more while taxpayers pay more for their countrymen's health care" -- to make health care "efficient and affordable."
Oh, and they would create yet another government bureaucracy, the Health Benefits Administration, to oversee this program, and to implement and enforce provider rate controls. But hey, don't let a couple simple little things like those turn you off; there's so much more to love about this plan!
Read on.
Posted in Economics | Government-run health care | Health care | Policy | RINOs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:54am on Feb. 16, 2008 Re: Re: Bloomberg
By Jeff Emanuel
Dan, I agree that a one-time three-figure rebate isn't going to do a whole lot of anything to "stimulate" the economy. My point, though, related to Bloomberg's use of language, and what that reflects about his views of people's natural inability to make decisions for themselves.
Posted at 1:20pm on Feb. 15, 2008 Clinton favors employing wage theft to enforce "universal, voluntary" health care program
Even at this age, mutual exclusivity seems to be an ungraspable concept
By Jeff Emanuel
Update: The plot thickens, as the indispensible Grace-Marie Turner reminds us:
Hillary Clinton criticized an individual mandate in 1994, saying, "The individual mandate...makes it very difficult to determine and monitor who is in the system and who is out. It would require tracking individuals as they move in and out of jobs, as they move in and out of the insurance market. It would require, in our view, the IRS to engage in an enormous administrative oversight of our health care system."
***
Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has made “health care for all Americans” a major plank in her policy platform since the beginning of her run for President last year – though, as those who are familiar with the junior Senator from New York and former First Lady’s history will recall, radical changes to America’s health care system have been a cause dear to Mrs. Clinton’s heart for the better part of the last two decades at least.
The program Mrs. Clinton is currently touting as her solution to the problems in America’s health care system – particularly its high number of uninsured citizens – is officially called the “American Health Choices Plan,” though it is less-than-affectionately referred to by some as “HillaryCare II” in reference to her failed attempt to push a government health care system on the nation during the first years of her husband’s presidency.
Under this program, the government alone, with no input from the free market, is responsible for the regulation and management of health care. Oxymoronically, the plan whose formal title includes the term “choice” is built around what is known as an “individual mandate” – a government requirement that all Americans, regardless of income or choice, possess at least a (government-established) minimal level of health insurance.
Read on.
Posted in 2008 | Economics | Government-run health care | Health care | Hillary! | oxymorons | Policy — Comments (21)/ Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:41pm on Feb. 14, 2008 San Francisco health care tax appealed to Supreme Court
There are a whole lot of Democrat-led cities and states watching this case very, very closely
By Jeff Emanuel
An association of restaurant operators in San Francisco has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule a decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowing the city’s health insurance employer mandate law to go into effect. It will be best for all of San Francisco if the Court sides with the association on this one.
The association is seeking reinstatement of a federal judge’s ruling that the city’s Health Care Security Ordinance conflicts with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a longstanding federal law addressing government regulation of employee benefits.
Read on.
Posted in California | Economics | Government-run health care | Health care | Policy | San Francisco | scotus — Comments (7)/ Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:18am on Jan. 8, 2008 San Francisco “play or pay” health care mandate will negatively affect economy, health coverage for residents
By Jeff Emanuel
The day after Christmas, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White ruled that San Francisco’s attempt to expand its public health care initiative violated a federal law regarding government regulation of employee benefit plans. Judge White’s ruling halted the implementation of a mandate, scheduled to go into effect on New Year’s Day, that would have required employers to offer their employees health coverage or pay to support “Healthy San Francisco,” the city’s health care program.
The mandate struck down by Judge would have required every business in the city with between 20 and 99 workers to spend $1.17 per employee per hour for health care benefits, and those with more than 100 to spend $1.76 per hour, either on their own plans or in payments to the city.
Read on for more.
Posted in California | Economics | Government-run health care | Health care | Policy | San Francisco | taxes — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 7:23pm on Jan. 6, 2008 Michigan government’s attempt to micromanage health insurance market will hurt quality and limit consumer choice
By Jeff Emanuel
In late 2007, after a single perfunctory committee meeting, the Michigan House of Representatives passed a series of four bills which, if approved by the Senate and signed into law by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, will have a very negative effect on the health insurance market in the state.
House Bills (HBs) 5282 through 5285 regulate in insurance market in several ways, including by implementing mandates on how private insurance companies allocate the money they earn in policyholder premiums. Should these bills be passed, private health insurance carriers will be required by law to spend no less than 70% of premium income on health benefits. If a smaller percentage is used to fund health care for policyholders, state law would require carriers to issue refunds to their customers of such an amount as t o reduce the amount of capital use on anything other than health care to 30% of premium income or less.
Read on to see why this is such a bad idea -- and what else these bills would do.
Posted in Economics | Government-run health care | Health care | Michigan | Policy — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:29pm on Dec. 30, 2007 In Praise Of Mickey D's
By Pejman Yousefzadeh
George Will's commentary on McDonald's is as economically and sociologically fascinating as it is gastronomically interesting. I used to consider McDonald's fare a guilty pleasure. Nowadays, I still consider it a pleasure, only without the guilt. Read the whole thing.
(Thank to Don Boudreaux for the link.)
Posted at 6:18pm on Dec. 28, 2007 Re: California and Taxes
By Jeff Emanuel
Neil, while I think it's great that a full 5% fewer Californians think that higher taxes are necessary to balance the state's budget, I'm more struck by the fact that 48% of the state still thinks that taxes should be raised.
That, combined with another recent Field Poll -- the one which the Governor's new $14,000,000,000.00 health insurance plan, funded by tax hikes, receiving overwhelming support including from 52% of Republicans -- shows me that California, its citizens, and its current $14 billion of debt still don't really have a clue about taxes, economics, or the reality of actually having to *pay* for what you want to get.
Posted at 7:25pm on Dec. 26, 2007 Re: MittCare
By Jeff Emanuel
Neil, while part of what you say is correct, I still view being asked to choose between the two -- universal health care and a statewide insurance mandate -- as a presentation of false alternatives. Despite the fact that more and more states are clearly demonstrating their desire to regulate and subsidize larger swaths of the health insurance and care industries, the fact that doing so is the wrong move (for many reasons) remains the same.
Allow me to address your points on Massachusetts.
What Massachusetts residents now need from here is greater competition in the medical insurance and care markets, as well as the ability to buy insurance intended only to cover major events, in order to stop the inflation that's hurting people.
Unfortunately, a government mandate like the one currently in place will only serve to inhibit that development. In the simplest of economic terms, Massachusetts has created an inelastic demand for health insurance services -- every citizen must purchase it. Inelasticity of demand creates extreme pricing elasticity; in other words, if every single person must purchase a product, then there is no market factor (other than salary limits) keeping the price of that product or service at or below any level -- insurance providers can charge whatever amount they collectively choose to charge for their service, and are protected by the fact that citizens must purchase it, no matter what that price may be.
The fact that government will subsidize the citizenry in its fulfillment of the purchasing mandate (like in Massachusetts) simply means that insurance providers have more incentive to charge even higher rates, as providers are no longer limited to charging less than their customers' salaries will allow them to pay for. Instead, what they cannot get from customers themselves they can recoup from government, which, of course, has much deeper pockets than the citizenry. This combination of factors can easily reduce competition and cause runaway price increases (the "inflation that's hurting people" you mentioned above), as there is little incentive to make the service more affordable for anybody.
Further, in an inelastic market, there is little incentive to improve quality; after all, the product must be purchased regardless of its quality level, and in a single state like Massachusetts, there are not enough separate providers competing against each other to significantly affect the quality and pricing market in a positive way.
Posted at 7:12pm on Dec. 9, 2007 Of Pictures And A Number Of Words Greater Than 999 But Less Than 1,001
By Pejman Yousefzadeh
