The Catholic University of America

Category: Economy

Aug 31 2012

Romney and Ryan: Authors of Economic Fiction

During the Great Recession (December 2007 – June 2009), the economy shed about 7.4 million jobs. Sixty percent of these jobs, about 4.4 million, were lost by the time President Obama took office in January 2009 with the remainder disappearing over the next five months.  The Congressional Budget Office estimated that over the period 2009-2011, the GDP gap (the difference between actual GDP and potential GDP) would total almost $2.7 trillion in the absence of policy changes.  Because conventional expansionary monetary policy had seemed to run its course with interest rates already near the zero lower bound, many economists believed that fiscal stimulus was in order.  Such was the conclusion of administration economists and, as a result, President Obama proposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).  The size and composition of the stimulus funds were structured in large part to gain bipartisan support by seeking political approval from House and Senate Republicans.  Specifically, though the Chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, Christine Romer, advocated a stimulus plan of about $1.5 trillion, Lawrence Summers argued that a plan of such magnitude would be politically impossible to push through Congress and suggested the (eventually enacted) smaller figure of around $800 billion.  Additionally, political negotiations over the plan resulted in a substantial reallocation of stimulus funds from aid to state and local governments and infrastructure spending to individual tax cuts.  To those economists advocating fiscal stimulus, the ARRA was much too small and much too reliant on tax cuts rather than direct government spending for stimulus.  The irony of course is that the administration’s compromises garnered not one vote from House Republicans and only three votes from Senate Republicans.

Now aside from the likelihood that the ARRA was too small and ill-structured, did it have any positive impact on the economy and on jobs?  According to Romney and Ryan, the answer is a categorical “no”.  Indeed, Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum keep clamoring that not only did the President’s policy not work but it made things worse.

Please understand this.  These assertions are so much at odds with the preponderance of evidence that they can reasonably be considered as outright lies.  There have been some 14 analyses of the President’s stimulus plan, excluding the study conducted by the President’s own Council of Economic Advisors.  Eleven of these conclude that the stimulus worked, one concludes that it may or may not have worked, and the remaining two conclude that it did not work.  Of the two concluding that the stimulus did not work, one bases its conclusion on statistically insignificant results while the other’s results could also be interpreted as evidence that the stimulus was too small and should have been weighted more heavily towards direct government purchases. 

So what did some of the other studies conclude?  Zandi and Blinder (2010) state that “…the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unem¬ployment rate about 1½ percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls.” In a 2011 study, CBO economists Benjamin Page and Felix Reichling estimate that in 2010 the ARRA increased GDP between 1.5 and 4.2 percent, decreased the unemployment rate between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points, and increased FTE employment between 1.9 and 4.8 million jobs relative to what would have happened in its absence.  Wilson (2011) concludes that “…results indicate that ARRA spending had a positive and statistically significant impact on total nonfarm employment at the one-year mark after the legislation was enacted. It also had a positive and significant impact on employment in the subsectors of state and local government, construction, manufacturing and, depending on which measure of stimulus spending one uses, the education and health sectors.”  Finally, results from Chodorow-Reich, et al. (2011) provide evidence that “…the ARRA transfers to states had an economically large and statistically robust positive effect on employment” and suggest that “… a marginal $100,000 in Medicaid transfers resulted in 3.8 net job-years of total employment.”  Importantly, the authors emphasize that the “…effect is precisely estimated, and we can reject the null hypothesis that the spending had no effect on employment with a high degree of confidence.”

If you don’t want to bother with looking at studies, just look at the data.  Since the end of the recession (June 2009) almost 2.7 million jobs have been created.  Even if one (unjustifiably) assigns the blame for the jobs lost from March 2009 through June 2009 to President Obama, there’s still been a net gain of 316,000 jobs.  Now, should the recovery be proceeding at a more rapid pace?  Absolutely.  And it would be if (1) the ARRA had been larger are more targeted to direct government spending and aid to state and local governments and/or (2) had Congress enacted Obama’s second stimulus proposal the American Jobs Act. 

Romney and Ryan are peddling fiction about Obama’s fiscal stimulus plan and its impact on output, unemployment, and jobs.  As important, they are peddling fiction about their own budget plan.  Realistically, the numbers don’t add up.  To compensate for the revenue losses their proposed reductions in marginal tax rates would entail, they would have to eliminate or scale back substantially items like the home mortgage interest deduction, the deduction for charitable contributions, and the exclusion from income of employer sponsored health insurance.  That is not going to happen.  Nor is there any possibility of enacting $5 trillion worth of discretionary spending cuts over the next decade as Ryan proposed in his Path to Prosperity.  Look, according to the CBO, federal discretionary spending in 2011 was $1.277 trillion, comprised of $712 billion in defense spending and $565 billion in non-defense spending.  Given that defense spending in all likelihood will not bear the brunt of the cuts, to achieve the $5 trillion target would mean eliminating spending on non-defense related activities over the next ten years almost entirely!  Their’s is not, repeat, is not, a serious budget proposal.  It is fiction.

2 comments - Posted by Ernest Zampelli at 12:56 PM - Categories: Economy

Aug 25 2012

Paul Ryan’s Adam Smith Problem

With a hurricane bearing down in the direction of Miami, Republicans can at least be glad that they’ve already survived one, at least as measured in media coverage of Romney’s running mate pick.  In distracting from other things about the Republican presidential candidate—his reversals on many issues over the years, his undisclosed tax returns, his seemingly inscrutable character—the entry of the handsome, earnest young congressman from Wisconsin seems a success, at least in the short term.  The dominant narrative has been that Ryan is a man of substantial intellect and political courage, and possessed of a wizardly acumen for interpreting the entrails of the Federal budget.   Even the Romney campaign has played it this way, surprisingly oblivious to what it may suggest about the first man on the ticket.  

Major news outlets and partisan media have certainly run with this picture, right and left sometimes parroting each other with only slightly different inflections, at other moments more seriously if haphazardly drilling down into the famed (or notorious) Ryan plan, in order to get a better understanding of what the Republican ticket would promise in terms of economic policy.  Pre-Ryan, this was a fairly non-specific and nice-sounding set of platitudes from Romney about job creation, fixing the economy, believing in America, and so on—with promises of many brass tacks to come.  Journalists, TV news hosts and pundits alike have largely acted as if the Ryan pick marks, at long last, the arrival of the thus-far missing details.  A peculiar effect of this has been to deflect attention from the radically unphilosophical underpinnings of Ryan’s plan, so as to make it appear that those underpinnings were well-synthesized, and all that is left to do is debate the finer points.  Even a powerful critic like Paul Krugman, who dismisses Ryan as “unserious” when it comes to economics, pays the congressman’s plan a backhanded compliment by taking on its core prongs, giving them continued media presence. 

Debate over the details is inevitable, but what is more needed is a frank discussion of Ryan’s libertarian beliefs (and Romney’s likeminded alignment with them), whether they have any intellectual or moral integrity, and whether they will serve Americans well in the long run.  One would hope, in the name of fostering substantive political discourse, that President Obama will be able to steer some debate back to economic and political philosophy.  The best rhetorical move he and Joe Biden have been making on the campaign trail lately has been to call attention to the stark differences in the two candidates’ overarching political and economic “visions”.   But carrying this forward without it deteriorating into us-and-them reductionism may prove tricky.  Philosophy plays about as well on television as watching paint dry, and the imperative in the corporate media to hypersimplify, the better to maximize advertising revenue, is mighty.

None of this is to suggest that a philosophical veneer hasn't been given to the Republican economic position.  I mean here not the sophomoric varnish of Ayn Rand, but the citation of serious economic thinkers such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek .  Perhaps somewhat less often named, but nonetheless weighty among these, even a godfather figure to the rest, is Adam Smith. 

Here is Ryan, in the introduction to his "Roadmap for America’s Future: A Plan to Solve America’s Long Term Fiscal and Economic Crisis":

"The Founders enshrined in the U.S. Constitution the principles of a government drawing its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, of freedom, and of leaving future generations better off – the second and third of which are best captured by the phrase to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  The Founders also understood the importance and value of free enterprise. In addition to the Declaration of Independence, the year 1776 saw the publication of Adam Smith’s treatise The Wealth of Nations, which argued in part that the “system of natural liberty,” or free markets in commerce, would vastly increase national wealth. The Founders saw Smith not only as an economic thinker, but as a moral philosopher whose other great work was The Theory of Moral Sentiments. They were just as committed to an American economics of freedom as they were to American moral greatness."

It’s apt of Ryan to align Smith’s famous Wealth of Nations (WN) with the lesser-known Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS).  Smith thought of the works as thoroughly continuous; he thought TMS, first published in 1759, the more important and overarching work, and he made significant revisions to it in 1790 in part in the light WN, and in response to the excesses of a mercantilism that had gone from putting trade at the service of national policy to making national policy the servant of trade.  Ryan wants to pair Smith’s seminal work on capitalism with another important work by the same author on things moral as a combined endorsement of his plan.  He’s right, albeit likely more through convenient accident than intent, to imply that the old “Adam Smith Problem”—i.e., how to reconcile WN’s making self-interest the engine of societal benefits with TMS’s requirements for “fellow-feeling” and human sympathy as a basis for societal flourishing—is only a problem for uncareful readers. 

What’s missing from Ryan’s appropriation of Smith is any evidence that would show him to be a careful student of Smith.  For anyone who attentively reads these two treatises, as the Founders surely did, will know that Smith’s self-interest is not selfishness, and that moral sympathy with others is in one’s self-interest, as well as in the interest of societal flourishing.  Ryan’s glib summation of these works as an endorsement of his brand of libertarianism, as well as his wishful attempt to weld to it the idea that Smith thought such a program would be “moral” is so facile as to belie indeed any claim that might be made in favor of his intellectual seriousness.  He certainly could not have read Smith with any attention on either economics or morality.  It would be good if he and the backers of his budget plan did so.  Here are just of a few of the things they might be surprised to learn:

•They would learn, for instance, that although Smith generally uses the term “wealth” in our present-day understanding of the word, in the title of his famous treatise, Smith could not have meant just national treasure or personal riches.  His usage was meant to resonate with an older but not yet obsolete meaning: common well-being, or general good.  And such commonweal would not be measured in the success of the rich or how financially well-off the citizens could become.  Smith routinely says precisely the opposite.  Here’s just one such telling passage (pay special attention to the word “never”):

"Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged." (WN I.viii.36)

•They would learn that while Smith indeed linked markets and liberty, he would have been scathingly critical of a society such as ours where the relation between them has been exploited to generate gross inequity between rich and poor.  Indeed, Smith would have seen this gulf as a symptom of the absence of real liberty in that society, and anything but a sign of “moral greatness”:

"The whole of the advantages and disadvantages of the different employments of labour and stock must, in the same neighbourhood, be either perfectly equal or continually tending to equality. If in the same neighbourhood, there was any employment evidently either more or less advantageous than the rest, so many people would crowd into it in the one case, and so many would desert it in the other, that its advantages would soon return to the level of other employments. This at least would be the case in a society where things were left to follow their natural course, where there was perfect liberty, and where every man was perfectly free both to chuse what occupation he thought proper, and to change it as often as he thought proper. Every man's interest would prompt him to seek the advantageous, and to shun the disadvantageous employment." (WN I.x.i)

•They would learn that Smith was no adherent to the gospel of “success.”  For Smith, the measure of a person had nothing to do with one’s ability (or inability) to succeed as a self-reliant bootstrapper or economic winner.   Yes, he did recognize that humans seem inevitably to have a “natural” propensity  to admire “the rich and the great,” and that this can have some utility in maintaining “the distribution of ranks,” which can in turn foster social stability.  Yet he unequivocally saw this tendency as morally pernicious:  “This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and meand condition…is…the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments…. It is scarce agreeable to good morals, and even to good language, perhaps, to say, that mere wealth and greatness, abstracted from merit and virtue, deserve our respect” (TMS I.iii.3.1…4).  Instead, merit and virtue are wholly generated through our capacity for sympathy and “fellow-feeling” (one might call it friendship or even love)—with the acts of good done by others, with the gratitude felt by those who receive such benefits, as well as with the just resentment of those who are maliciously or thoughtlessly harmed by others. This sympathy is the foundation of the virtue of benevolence, which turns the hierarchy of individual success on its head:

"The wise and virtuous man is at all times willing that his own private interest should be sacrificed to the public interest of his own particular order or society. He is at all times willing, too, that the interest of this order or society should be sacrificed to the greater interest of the state or sovereignty, of which it is only a subordinate part. He should, therefore, be equally willing that all those inferior interests should be sacrificed to the greater interest of the universe, to the interest of that great society of all sensible and intelligent beings, of which God himself is the immediate administrator and director." (TMS VI.ii.46)

•They would learn that, for Smith, no nation that tolerates the exploitation and dehumanization of a substantial part of its working citizens—a great potential problem in industrialized society, he reckoned—can be considered civilized, much less moral, nor can it enjoy the benefits of “wealth.”  The antidote, some Republicans would be shocked to learn, is the very visible hand of government intervention:

"In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations; frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects too are, perhaps, always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding, or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him, not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country, he is altogether incapable of judging; and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war. The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind, and makes him regard with abhorrence the irregular, uncertain, and adventurous life of a soldier. It corrupts even the activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance, in any other employment than that to which he has been bred. His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expence of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it." (WN V.i.f.)

One could go on at great length citing Smith against the current Republican brand of prosperity-rhetoric, a quite unphilosophical mélange of libertarian anti-governmentalism, trickle-down wishful thinking, radical individualism, social Darwinism, and market idolatry that is quite far removed from the civilized and moral social system Smith envisioned.  Every serious contemporary Smith scholar has in one way and another demonstrated this—D.D. Raphael, Knud Haakonssen, Donald Winch, Nicholas Phillipson, Emma Rothschild, Jerry Muller, Charles Griswold, Jerry Evensky, Ryan Patrick Hanley--the list would be long.  All one has to do is read.  It should go without saying that one should start with Smith himself.  Were the Catholic Ryan to read Smith, he might be shocked to realize that Smith’s vision had more in common with Catholic Social Teaching—as in preferential option for the poor, or the market restraint advocated in Quadragesimo Anno and Centesimus Annus—than with the ultimate views of Hayek or Friedman.

A little-known fact about Smith is that he began his career in 1748 giving public lectures on rhetoric and belles-lettres at the University of Edinburgh, a humanistic undertaking he thought worthwhile enough to continue after he became Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Glasgow.  His views on communication are rich and insightful, providing valuable keys to how his later works should be read.  Like Friedrich Hayek, one of the godfathers of contemporary American libertarianism, Smith recognized that an economy is many ways an elaborate communication system.  Early in The Wealth of Nations he remarks that the division of labor most likely originates in our “faculties of reason and speech” (II.ii) , demurring, however, from further comment as outside his present subject.  But Smith did argue in his earlier Lectures on Jurisprudence, from which Wealth ultimately sprung, that the human propensity to engage in commerce (“trucking”) is fundamentally rhetorical:

"If we should enquire into the principle in the human mind on which this disposition of trucking is founded, it is clearly the naturall inclination every one has to persuade….Men always endeavour to persuade others to be of their opinion even when the matter is of no consequence to them. If one advances any thing concerning China or the more distant moon which contradicts what you imagine to be true, you immediately try to persuade him to alter his opinion. And in this manner every one is practising oratory on others thro the whole of his life.—You are uneasy whenever one differs from you, and you endeavour to persuade him to be of your mind; or if you do not it is a certain degree of self command, and to this every one is breeding thro their whole lives." (LJ(B))

Unlike Hayek, however, Smith was deeply concerned with the moral characteristics of communication in an economy and society.  Contrary to the behavioristic biases of Chicago-school economics, homo economicus reductivism—the idea that humans are best understood as rational optimizers of personal utility, at best mere relays of incentive and self-interest in a communication system—is quite at odds with the Smithian vision that emerges from The Wealth of Nations paired with The Theory of Moral Sentiments. This despite Chicago’s claim, like Ryan’s, to Smith as one of their own.  Homo rhetoricus comes much closer to Smith’s view of the human condition.  This presumes that we understand the art of rhetoric as Smith did: that it is a practice of effectively expressing sentiments deriving from sympathy, which is the ability to internalize the actual perspectives and judgments of the morally best models in the community as a restraint on behavior driven by selfish and individualistic desire.  Such a reality check against the convenient seductions of cherry-picked economic and moral philosophy would do Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and the Republican right some good.  And that would benefit everyone.

Posted by Stephen J. McKenna at 11:17 AM - Categories: Economy

Jul 27 2012

Some Interesting Facts About Marginal Tax Rates and Real GDP

"In 1947, the year I was born, unemployment was 3.9 percent. In 1968, when I turned 21, it was 3.6 percent. Let’s not forget all the periods in our recent history when our economy was humming along at high speed, creating the opportunities that made our country the most successful and powerful in the history of the world.”  (From:  Believe in America:  Mitt Romney’s Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth)

Here are some facts.  In 1947, the top income tax rate was about 86%; in 1968, it was 70%.  Below is a chart that depicts the year-to-year percentage changes in Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 1948 to 2011.  Over the 37 year period 1948-1984, the annual growth rate in real GDP was in excess of six percent eight times and over four percent 19 times.  Most of this occurred during time periods when marginal tax rates for the top income brackets were 70% or more.  Post-1984, annual growth rates in real GDP never even came close to six percent.  Over the 27 year period 1985-2011, real GDP grew by at least four percent only seven times, five of these coming during the Clinton years when top marginal rates stood at 39.6%.

Now I know very well that the relationship between marginal tax rates and economic growth is way more complicated than what I’ve described.  But really, it should be enough to cast substantial doubts about the dire predictions from the right that higher tax rates on the wealthy will engender some sort of economic Armageddon.

0 comments - Posted by Ernest Zampelli at 7:17 PM - Categories: Economy

Jul 17 2012

Pitiful Job Numbers—Oh, What a Surprise!

Anyone who is surprised by the dreary June jobs report released earlier this month hasn’t been paying attention to what is and is not going on with regards to economic policymaking.  No doubt we’ll hear from Romney, Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell about how this report, along with the last one, again shows that President Obama doesn’t know what it takes to create jobs, doesn’t know how the economy works, blah, blah, blah.  Of course, suffice it to say that these four musketeers, along with most other Congressional Republicans, are themselves economic illiterates whose stale and tired mantra of reduced government spending and reduced taxes would make things worse instead of better.  (And no, Romney’s business success doesn’t at all suggest any above average capability for managing a nation’s economy.)  Here’s what should be done.  Enact another round of short run stimulus, aimed at (1) stopping the hemorrhaging of jobs in the state and local government sector, primarily in education and public safety and (2) maintaining, improving, and modernizing the nation’s woeful infrastructure.  These are the most effective policies to increase aggregate demand and stimulate faster job growth.  Other things that might help, but not as much, are extending the payroll tax cut, the expensing of investment spending, and the extension of unemployment benefits. 

So who’s going to have the good sense to put together and propose something like this?  Uh, I don’t really, uh, oh?  Well gee whiz, President Obama did last September.  It was called the American Jobs Act and he’s urged Congress time and time again to pass it but to no avail.  Why?  Because according to the four musketeers and their compatriots, increased government spending is the problem not the solution;  fiscal austerity is the answer, not fiscal stimulus.  Read my lips.  They are wrong, wrong, wrong!!!  The economy is stumbling, interest rates are at or near zero, inflation is below target, and consumers are still deleveraging.  It’s the President who has it right—fiscal stimulus is what’s needed now, especially in light of the Fed’s timidity in pursuing more aggressive monetary policy.  Yes, there are structural problems.  Yes, there’s a long run deficit problem.  No, these are not reasons to reject another round of fiscal stimulus—that makes no sense!

What the President needs to do in response to the hammering he’s taking over the jobs numbers is to indict explicitly the Congressional Republicans’ refusal to take up and pass the jobs bill.  Their intransigence on this, as on the first stimulus package, is nonsensical and unconscionable.  They should be held accountable for it.

1 comments - Posted by Ernest Zampelli at 10:09 AM - Categories: Economy

May 29 2012

Government Programs to Assist the Poor and Paul Ryan’s Budget Proposal

In a recent interview for the Christian Broadcasting Network, Representative Paul Ryan argues that his budget proposal is entirely consistent with a primary tenet of Catholic social teaching—the preferential option for the poor. His argument rests on the Catholic notion of subsidiarity—that human problems should be addressed and solved at the lowest level of social organization possible—first the family, then the community, and then the state. In Ryan’s own words, "…the preferential option for the poor, which is one of the primary tenets of Catholic social teaching, means don’t keep people poor, don’t make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life. Help people get out of poverty out onto life of independence."

I will not offer any critique of Ryan’s use of the subsidiarity principle in defending his budget proposal and budget philosophy. Others much more qualified than I have already done so. What I would like to address is his view, one shared by many others, that government programs to assist the poor—welfare, food stamps, etc.—create an insidious dependency that, ironically, causes their poverty to persist. Of course, this view has its roots in the "culture of poverty" proponents of the late 1950s and 1960s. Prominent among these were Michael Harrington (The Other America, 1962), Oscar Lewis (La Vida, A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty: San Juan and New York, 1968), Walter Miller (Lower Class Society as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency, 1958), and Edward Banfield (The Unheavenly City, 1970). These scholars argued that low income was only one characteristic of the poor. Their other characteristics or deviances which included dependency, illegitimacy, and instability could not be eradicated by income support. Indeed, these deviances would be reinforced by such support. Here is what Martin Anderson wrote in his 1978 book Welfare: The Political Economy of Welfare Reform in the United States:

"In effect we have created a new caste of Americans—perhaps as much as one-tenth of this nation—a caste of people free of basic wants but almost totally dependent on the State, with little hope or prospects of breaking free."

Similarly, but with a greater flare for the dramatic, a 1982 op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal by George Gilder reads:

"In this heartbreaking harvest of liberal ‘compassion,’ all the necessary disciplines of upward mobility and small business activity have given way to the vandalism and chaos of gangs and drugs, illegitimacy, and prostitution. Thus poverty has been intensified and perpetuated by income redistribution."

The host of cuts in cash and in-kind transfers to the poor by the Reagan administration were justified on the basis of such pronouncements--that these programs reinforce low self-esteem and motivational deficits among the poor, feed the cycle of poverty, and transmits the legacy of poverty and dependency from parents to their children. Using anecdotal stories of welfare queens and three-generation welfare families, welfare was likened to a narcotic breeding long term dependency.

Here’s the crucial question: What does the preponderance of research on the incentive effects of welfare have to say about welfare dependency and the welfare trap? For the answer, I searched the scholarly literature over the last three decades.


0 comments - Posted by Ernest Zampelli at 3:33 PM - Categories: Economy

Mar 30 2012

The Mandate Debate

What some consider President Obama’s singular achievement, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and its individual mandate came under intense scrutiny this week at the Supreme Court hearings.  Unsurprisingly, much of the extreme skepticism came from the Court’s three conservative Justices—Roberts, Scalia, and Alito.  Though the fourth conservative, Justice Thomas, remained silent during the proceedings, it is almost certain that he too harbors serious misgivings regarding the constitutionality of the individual mandate.  The fundamental question that the Justices wanted answered was very simple:  What makes health insurance so different from a standard market commodity like broccoli or a Chevy Volt that the government has the right to compel individuals to purchase it?  Needless to say, they did not receive a satisfactory answer.


0 comments - Posted by Ernest Zampelli at 5:18 PM - Categories: Economy

Mar 23 2012

The Grand Oil Party

President Obama has been getting hammered by the G.O.P. and its presidential hopefuls regarding his Administration’s policies that are suffocating the development of domestic fossil fuel supplies, thereby increasing our dependence on foreign oil from unstable sources.  Let’s take a look at some data.  Here’s what’s been happening to crude oil production in the U.S. since the President took office.  It dropped precipitously around August/September of 2008.  Since then it’s been rising—OMG!! 

  1 comments - Posted by Ernest Zampelli at 5:19 PM - Categories: Economy