CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research

Multimedia

En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs Beat the Press

Beat the Press

 facebook_logo  Subscribe by E-mail  


Washington Post Misrepresents Issues in Obamacare Supreme Court Case Print
Saturday, 08 November 2014 08:21

The Washington Post fundamentally misrepresented the issues in a front page piece on the decision by the Supreme Court to hear a case contesting whether people in the federal exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) qualify for subsidies. The case stems from awkward wording in one part of the law that describes subsidies going to people in the exchanges created by the states. The opponents of the law argue this means that people enrolled in the exchanges created by the federal government are not eligible for subsidies.

While the piece points out that supporters say that the subsidies are an essential part of the ACA, it should have also pointed out that other parts of the law are clearly written as though subsidies would be paid out to be people in the exchanges created by the federal government. Their point is that when the law is read as a whole there is no ambiguity that subsidies are supposed to go to people in the federal exchanges.

In this respect it is also worth noting that when the Congressional Budget Office and other independent observers tried to project the cost of the ACA they all assumed that people in the federal exchanges would be getting subsidies. It seems that no one had any confusion about the intent of the law in this respect.

The Post should have clearly presented the legal argument of the supporters of the ACA.

 
Will Ending Tipping Increase Saving? Print
Friday, 07 November 2014 05:49

Catherine Rampell has a nice piece in the Post outlining some of the problems with having workers rely on tips for much of their pay. She comments in passing that because people may underestimate the cost of eating at restaurants they may eat out more often, which would provide a boost to the economy by creating more demand.

If this was really true, then the saving cultists who want people to save more money should all be pushing for an end to tipping. (In an economy where we are faced with inadequate demand, which is certainly true today, less demand would slow growth.) As a practical matter, if people spent less on restaurants it would probably mean for the most part that they spent more on something else, but if this line can get the saving gang to oppose tipping, it's fine by me. 

 
More Editorializing About the Budget in the NYT's News Section Print
Thursday, 06 November 2014 15:03

The NYT is pushing so hard for budget cuts that it is prepared to ignore journalistic standards to make its case. An article about the possibilities for collaboration between President Obama and the Republican Congress included a number of assertions that were just opinion or inventions.

The piece begins by telling readers:

"After years of clashes and a grudging truce, fiscal and economic policy was brought back to center stage by the wave of Republican electoral victories on Tuesday, with both President Obama and the new congressional leadership expressing hope that deals can be reached to simplify the tax code, promote trade and eliminate the budget deficit."

It's not clear where President Obama said that he wanted to "eliminate the budget deficit." He didn't say anything like this in his press conference. Since this would imply throwing millions of people out of work and slowing growth (sorry folks, elections can't change the laws of economics any more than they can change the law of gravity), it's not clear why he would want to eliminate the budget deficit.

When the piece reported that the Republican leadership is:

"considering turning to a parliamentary procedure called reconciliation to cut costs of entitlement programs like Medicare,"

it would have been useful to remind readers that Medicare costs have already fallen sharply relative to recent projections. In fact, the current projections for costs are far below the targets of deficit cutters from earlier in the decade.

The piece also later told readers:

"Fiscal rectitude and tax overhaul are matters that unite all wings of the Republican coalition, from the Tea Party right to the Big Business center. They also have strong adherents among good-government advocates in the Democratic Party’s center left."

It apparently is defining "fiscal rectitude" as throwing people out of work and slower economic growth. This is a NYT definition, not the standard usage of the term.

In the same vein, at one point it tells readers that the national debt, "continues to grow though the annual deficit has receded," implying that this is for some reason a problem. (It isn't for any economic reason.)

This is not the only place where the piece invents its own language. It refers to the trade deals currently being negotiated, the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Pact and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as "free trade" agreements.  These are not free trade agreements. A major goal of these deals is to increase the strength of patent and copyright protection, especially on prescription drugs. This is 180 degrees at odds with free trade. The paper could increase accuracy and save space by omitting the word "free."

 

Thanks to Robert Salzberg for calling this piece to my attention.

 

Note: Typos corrected, thanks folks.

 

 

 
Minimum Wage Tracks Productivity: Fair Deal on the Minimum Wage Print
Thursday, 06 November 2014 07:34

Charles Lane expresses his pain at the fact that the minimum wage remains hugely popular with large segments of the population. He tells readers:

"It works as a tax on business, whose benefits often accrue to middle-class teenagers, and whose costs — fewer jobs and higher prices — are partly borne by needier intended beneficiaries."

Imagine that, a policy that might have some consequences we don't like -- sort of like any policy that actually exists in the real world. Thankfully, unlike the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which gains enormous popularity among conservatives when the minimum wage is discussed, the minimum wage doesn't lower the wages of large groups of workers and act as a subsidy to low wage employers. And, the EITC also must be paid for, and the usual way we pay for government spending is through taxes. So the EITC also works like a tax, since it will be paid for with taxes. Such is life.(Btw, as folks familiar with the research know, the jobs consequences are minimal and mostly mean people spending more time between jobs since there is high turnover in these jobs.)

Anyhow, Lane wants politicians to stop raising the minimum wage so he proposes indexing it to the rate of inflation. The idea of indexation is good, but Lane has the wrong target. Back in the good old days, when we had 4.0 percent growth and 3.0 percent unemployment, the minimum wage rose in step with productivity. If it had continued to rise in step with productivity since its peak level in 1968 it would be more than $17 an hour today.

Raising the minimum wage in step with productivity makes good economic sense. After all, why shouldn't workers at the bottom of income distribution share in the gains of economic growth. The alternative is an ever-growing gap between minimum wage workers and everyone else. That may be Charles Lane's dream, but that probably is not the world envisioned by most supporters of the minimum wage.

 
Dana Milbank Doesn't Remember the 2006 Election Print
Thursday, 06 November 2014 05:44

It's too bad that the Post's political columnist Dana Milbank does not have a very good memory. He devoted his column to complaining that President Obama didn't offer any change in course yesterday, unlike President Bush after the Republicans lost Congress in 2006. Milbank points out that Obama offered no changes in policy or even in the structure of his cabinet, unlike Bush who dumped Donald Rumsfeld as Defense secretary. 

There is an obvious difference between 2006 and 2014. It was clear in 2006 that the war in Iraq was the main issue contributing to the Republican defeat. Therefore it was reasonable for Bush to offer some change in this policy. What issue would Milbank highlight as causing the Democrats' defeat in 2014 that would warrant a change in course?

Should Obama abandon the push for a higher minimum wage, even though initiatives on this issue won overwhelmingly even in red states? Should he propose repeal of the Affordable Care Act, a position that even Republicans have abandoned? Should he do another push for cuts to Medicare and Social Security, in spite of the fact that most of the Democrats who had pushed cuts got handed their heads on Tuesday? How about getting into a full-fledged land war against ISIS? Perhaps a quarantine on health care workers across the country just in case one of them treated someone with Ebola?

The reality is that the Republicans didn't win by pushing any issues that appeal in a big way to the public, therefore there is nothing that Obama could take away from their victory to bring his administration more in line with public opinion. Certainly if he could advance policies that would do more to bring the economy to full employment and to reverse the upward redistribution of income over the last three decades it would likely garner popular support. However this would almost certainly mean working against the Republicans elected this week rather than with them.

 

 
"Trade" Deals Have Little to Do With Trade Print
Wednesday, 05 November 2014 16:27

The folks at the NYT apparently haven't been reading much about the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Pact (TTIP) or the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), including what appears in the pages of the NYT. If they had done their homework, the paper wouldn't be telling readers:

"This is one area [trade] where the Obama administration and Republicans should be able to find common ground. Republicans are enthusiastic advocates of increased trade, and the president is eager to get the added authority to negotiate new trade deals and win approval of a trade agreement with nations on the Pacific Rim.

"The main obstacle could be Democrats, many of whom are skeptical of trade deals that officials warn could cost American jobs. But a significant segment of Democrats back trade expansion, and a deal could probably be found if congressional Republicans and the White House both press for it."

In fact, the TTIP and TPP (the two main deals currently being negotiated) will do almost nothing to increase trade and quite possibly could reduce it. As Paul Krugman (an economist and columnist for the New York Times) has pointed out, these deals do very little to reduce formal trade barriers, since these are already very low.

Both deals are primarily about imposing a business-friendly regulatory structure on the signatories to the agreements. One aspect of this regulatory structure is creating a quasi-judiciary system, investor-state dispute settlement councils, which would operate outside the existing legal structure of the countries in the agreements. The agreements, which are being negotiated in secrecy, also will have provisions on the environment, health and safety regulation, and copyright and patent protection. All of these provisions will supersede existing domestic law and regulation.

The increases in patent and copyright protection in these deals (yes, that is "protection" as in the opposite of free trade) will raise the price of prescription drugs and other items. These higher prices will reduce purchasing power and slow growth. They will likely lower, not raise, the amount of trade. This means that if Republicans are actually enthusiastic about increased trade, they probably would oppose both the TPP and TTIP.

On a different topic, in discussing Republican plans to change the Affordable Care Act, the piece told readers:

"At the same time, a bipartisan group of lawmakers has also called for returning the health law’s definition of full-time work to 40 hours from 30, arguing that the lower limit is forcing too many people out of work because of employers’ efforts to comply with the law."

It is worth noting that there is zero evidence for this assertion. The provision described here requires that firms with more than fifty employees either provide insurance for their workers or pay a fine. For a worker to be covered by this provision, they have to be employed for more than 30 hours per week. There is no evidence that firms that don't provide insurance and employ more than 50 people have reduced hiring relative to other firms.

Also, this provision has been suspended so that it actually has not taken effect yet. In the first half of 2013, when employers would have thought the provision applied, since it had not yet been suspended, they did not expand the share of the workforce working just under 30 hours to avoid having to pay the penalty. There was a very modest increase in the share of the workforce working 25-29 hours, but this was due to a reduction in the share working fewer hours.

In short, the claim that the ACA has cost jobs is just something Republican politicians say, like evolution may not be true, it is not a claim that bears a relationship to the real world. The NYT should have clarified this point for its readers.

 
If Shareholders Stopped Letting CEOs Rip Them Off It Would Reduce Inequality Print
Wednesday, 05 November 2014 05:45

Eduardo Porter has an interesting discussion of inequality, based in large part on the views of M.I.T. Professor Robert Solow. Solow views it as unlikely that it will be possible politically any time soon to have tax and transfer policies that do much to lesson inequality. However he does hold out the hope that changes in corporate practices could lessen before tax inequality.

This is an extremely important point. There is considerable research showing that CEOs and other top management essentially ripoff shareholders, taking advantage of their insider power to give themselves pay that has little to do with their productivity, measured as the return they give to shareholders. (Lucian Bebchuk has a good summary of the issues.) If shareholders can better gain control of their companies, they might cut pay by 50 percent or more, bringing CEO pay in the United States in line with pay in other wealthy countries.

Since CEOs are among the very top earners in the U.S. economy, reductions in their pay will have a substantial impact on wage inequality. In addition, there is likely to be a spillover effect. If the CEOs of major companies earned $3-4 million, instead of $10-$20 million, then the pay of top management in places like universities, non-profit hospitals, and private charities might be similarly reduced. The lower pay of top executives in these institutions would also free up money for higher pay for those at the middle and bottom of the wage ladder.

The key to reducing CEO pay is to create a well-working system of corporate governance where shareholders can actually impose a check on top management. This is a soluble problem, as demonstrated by the fact that other countries have been able to rein in CEO pay.

 
Ending Experience Rating for Small Business is a Big Deal Print
Wednesday, 05 November 2014 05:32

The NYT had a piece discussing the extent to which small businesses are continuing to offer health care insurance to their workers through the exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Incredibly, the article never mentioned the prohibition on experience rating.

While many states had regulations that limited experience rating, prior to the ACA many small firms would see huge increases in premiums if one of their employees developed a serious illness. The ACA requires that insurers can only adjust rates in accordance with the age composition of the workforce, they cannot charge higher rates to a company because one or more of its employees has a serious illness. This will make insurance considerably more affordable for many businesses.

It would not be surprising if the ACA did cause fewer small businesses to offer insurance. The main purpose of the ACA was to create a well-working individual insurance market so that people who did not have insurance through an employer would be able to get affordable insurance through the exchanges. Insofar as the ACA succeeds, there is less reason for a small business to go through the effort of arranging its own insurance. This is not obviously a bad thing, since employers are not necessarily well-positioned to determine the best insurance for their workers.  

 
Washington Post Pushes for Government Guaranteed Subprime Mortgage Backed Securities Print
Sunday, 02 November 2014 08:35

Yes, that seems to be its fondest dream for the outcome of Tuesday's election. The bulk of its lead editorial touting the prospects for bipartisanship is focused on pushing the Johnson-Crapo bill, a measure that would replace Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a system whereby the government guarantees 90 percent of the value of privately issued mortgage backed securities (MBS). This means that Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and other folks who might issue MBS could now tell their customers that even in a worst case scenario they couldn't lose more than 10 percent of the value of their securities.

Fans of the market should be asking two questions here. What problem is this intended to solve? And why do private issuers need a government guarantee?

The answer to question one seems to be that the Washington Post doesn't like public companies (Fannie and Freddie) issuing mortgage backed securities. It gives us no reason why it doesn't like them. After all, the worst garbage mortgages of the housing bubble days were securitized by private issuers, not Fannie and Freddie.

And everyone agrees that it will be more costly to have private issuers replace Fannie and Freddie, with the range of estimates being that the Crapo-Johnson system will add 0.5-2.0 percentage points to mortgage interest rates. That is the cost of the additional risk, bureaucracy, and profits for the financial sector. So other than raising the cost of mortgage finance and increasing the profits of the financial industry, it is difficult to see what is supposed to be accomplished by this "reform."

This takes us directly to the second point. If we want the market to handle mortgage finance, why do we need a government guarantee. The Wall Street boys had no problem selling their garbage all around the world when it carried no guarantee whatsoever. Do we think that they will have higher quality MBS now that they can tell customers that the government is capping their losses at 10 percent even if the thing is total garbage.

It doesn't help matters that not a single bank executive went to jail or was even prosecuted for lying about the quality of the mortgages in the subprime MBS they threw together in the housing bubble days. If we believe in market incentives, why would we think they would act differently in the future? In other words, they gets lots of money for lying and no risk for getting caught.

Those who hope that the regulators will ensure the quality of MBS need look no further than the requirement that securitizers maintain a 5 percent stake in mortgages that have less than a 20 percent down payment. This requirement would have simply raised the cost of these mortgages to customers who are at a much higher risk of default. (Homebuyers with low down payments could also purchase mortgage insurance. This would add roughly the same cost to the mortgage interest rate as replacing Fannie and Freddie with the Johnson-Crapo privatized system.) However due to the pressure of the banking industry and some housing groups, this down payment requirement was eliminated.

In normal non-bubble times, the default rate for mortgages with down payments of 20 percent or more is less than 2 percent. By contrast, according to the advocates of the elimination of down payment requirements, the default rate for those putting less than 10 percent down is 10 percent, more than five times as high.

Read more...

 

 
"Secular Stagnation" Is Progress, Now Can We Talk About the Trade Deficit? Print
Saturday, 01 November 2014 07:40

Matt O'Brien has a nice piece presenting charts from Larry Summers (yes, the rest of us had made this point long ago) showing that estimates of potential GDP have dropped as the economy has remained weak since 2007. The point is that a temporary downturn can have lasting economic consequences. Unemployed workers lose skills and can become permanently unemployed. And, by having a long period of weak investment, the economy's capacity will be expanding less rapidly than would otherwise be the case. As the piece notes, this means that current obsession with deficits is not just lowering output and raising unemployment in the present, it is likely to have a lasting impact on the economy.

It is great to see people like Larry Summers openly pushing the idea that the economy can face serious demand problems. This view was routinely ridiculed by mainstream economists all through the 1990s and the last decade, so it is nice to see them change their minds. Summers has even gone the extra mile of noting that lack of demand is not just a problem in the current downturn but one that has been present since the 1990s. This shows the potential for learning among mainstream economists.

However there is still one additional step that they must take to get the full picture. As every intro textbook tells us, Y = C+I+G+(X-M). That means the level of demand in the economy is equal to the sum of consumption, investment, government spending, and net exports. This is an accounting identity -- it is true by definition. It cannot be wrong, if you don't like it then it's your problem.

The significance of this simple identity is that net exports have been a large negative since the late 1990s. Back in the early post-war years we typically had trade surpluses. We began to run modest trade deficits in the 1970s due to the OPEC price increases. The trade deficit rose sharply in the 1980s following a run-up in the dollar, but then fell back to around 1.0 percent of GDP following the Plaza Accord, which brought down the value of the dollar against the currencies of our major trading partners.

The deficit stayed close to 1.0 percent of GDP until 1997. That was when the East Asian financial crisis hit. The harsh terms imposed on the countries of the region by the United States and the I.M.F. required them to massively increase their exports. This led them to sharply reduce the value of their currency against the dollar. Furthermore, to avoid ever being in the same situation as the East Asian countries, most countries in the developing world followed the same course. They lowered the value of their currency so that they could increase their exports and accumulate massive amounts of dollars to hold as reserves.

Read more...

 

 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 5 of 403

CEPR.net
Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613

About Beat the Press

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is the author of several books, his latest being The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive. Read more about Dean.

Archives