links for 2007-11-14

• Understanding the Falling Dollar - Brad Setser - washingtonpost.com
• Facts and fallacies about US FDI in China - Vox EU
• China's October Inflation Matches Decade High of 6.5% - Bloomberg
• F.B.I. Says Guards Killed 14 Iraqis Without Cause - New York Times
• Subprime crisis: time for an inflation-targeting rethink? - Vox EU
• SpongeBob and the proper role of the State - Salon.com
• Yes, Virginia, the Fed Has an Inflation Target ... And It’s Missing It - WSJ

Comments

[anne]

Notice how little attention economists, or the American press, are paying to labor issues here or in Europe. Unions issues in America, especially, seem to be given little analytical attention.

[anne]

http://www.cbpp.org/11-14-07bud.htm

November 14, 2007

The President's Misleading Attack on Congress' Appropriations Plan: Charge of $205 Billion Spending Increase Is a Distortion
By Richard Kogan

In vetoing the appropriations bill funding the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, the President charged yesterday that Congress plans an irresponsible increase of $205 billion over the next five years in domestic discretionary spending (spending on domestic programs funded through the appropriations process) over the levels he proposed. This claim of a $205 billions increase is misleading in a number of respects.

Most of the difference between the President’s and Congress’s proposed funding levels reflects Congress’s rejection of his proposed cuts in domestic appropriations.

The President has proposed a $111 billion (or 4.8 percent) cut over five years, below the 2007 level adjusted for inflation, in domestic discretionary programs. Congress plans an increase of $62 billion (or 2.7 percent). The difference between the President and Congress thus is $173 billion — not $205 billion. The remaining “difference” reflects the White House’s use of a gimmick to make its own proposed level of discretionary spending appear $30 billion lower than it actually is.

The figures understate the President’s proposed cut and overstate Congress’s proposed increase because they do not adjust for population growth.

Many analysts have concluded — and President Bush himself argued when he ran for President in 2000 — that adjusting for both inflation and population growth is the most accurate way to measure increases or reductions in funding levels over time. Only by factoring in population growth can one measure changes over time in what a given funding level will purchase on a per-person basis.

If one adjusts for population growth as well as inflation, the President’s cut rises to $169 billion over five years, while Congress’ increase shrinks to zero. In other words, Congress’ budget plan would provide exactly what is required to maintain the 2007 funding levels for domestic appropriated programs, adjusted for inflation and increases in the U.S. population.

The only large increases in appropriated programs under Congress’s budget are in defense and international programs, not domestic programs, and reflect the President’s own funding requests.

Those increases, which total $252 billion (or 10.1 percent) over five years, are unrelated to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terror. That is, they do not count the $196 billion in additional funding the President has requested for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan....

[anne]

http://www.cbpp.org/11-14-07bud.htm

If one adjusts for population growth as well as inflation, the President’s cut rises to $169 billion over five years, while Congress’ increase shrinks to zero. In other words, Congress’ budget plan would provide exactly what is required to maintain the 2007 funding levels for domestic appropriated programs, adjusted for inflation and increases in the U.S. population.

The only large increases in appropriated programs under Congress’s budget are in defense and international programs, not domestic programs, and reflect the President’s own funding requests.

Those increases, which total $252 billion (or 10.1 percent) over five years, are unrelated to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terror. That is, they do not count the $196 billion in additional funding the President has requested for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan....

[anne]

As Paul Krugman has pointed out and I have repeatedly pointed out, George Bush is a profoundly conservative President who has prevented spending on domestic social benefit programs while vastly increasing military spending. Spending for social benefit programs has increased more slowly than the economy has grown since the initial Bush budget in 2002. We have in turn cut taxes repeatedly and raised spending on the military far faster than the economy could grow.

Guns has been replacing butter through this profoundly conservative Administration. President Bush is a definitive conservative.

[anne]

The President's plan in this budget is to slash domestic social benefit spending for the sake of vastly increased military spending both before and after accounting for spending on the tragedy of Iraq. This while continuing to cut taxes. This is definitive conservatism.

[anne]

http://www.epi.org/printer.cfm?id=2806&content_type=1&nice_name=webfeatures_snapshots_20071010

Though repeatedly researchers have pointed out that conservative Republican George Bush and the conservative Republican Congress insured that social benefit spending has grown more slowly than the economy, so that conservative ideals are completely adhered to, conservatives in turn simply deny this is so. No matter the evidence presented, as I have been asked for and provided evidence repestedly, conservatives simply deny what is true.

Nonetheless, no matter conservative deceit, social benefit spending has been completely "controlled" since George Bush became President, for the sake of military spending and tax cuts that will have to be paid for by middle class America in the midst of declining middle class benefits.

We will pay grievously for the choices conservatives have made for militarism and tax cuts at the expense of the needs of the middle class and poor. Conservatism is guns at the expense of butter.

[anne]

http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2007/11/12/story3.html?f=et162&b=1194843600^1548023&ana=e_vert

November 9, 2007

Thousands Balk at Health Law Sign-Up Mandate
By Mark Hollmer

With just seven weeks left until 2008, tens of thousands of Massachusetts residents -- up to 100,000 or more by some estimates -- have yet to sign up for insurance plans created as part of the state's historic health care reform law.

This has left insurers falling far short of expectations for signing up new customers, as countless people -- intentionally or otherwise -- come perilously close to risking fines and escalating penalties if they don't obtain insurance by the end of the year.

"I actually expected the market to be bigger early on," said Larry Croes, executive director of consumer and small-group sales for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts. "But we're kind of happy it didn't get overwhelming and didn't tax our infrastructure." ...

[Imagine my surprise.]

[anne]

Notice carefully the insanity:

http://boston.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2007/11/12/story3.html?f=et162&b=1194843600^1548023&ana=e_vert

"Just shy of 18,000 first-time customers -- many of whom haven't had insurance before -- have signed up for low-cost, high deductible plans offered either directly through the state or by insurers including BCBSMA, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Tufts Health Plan and Fallon Community Health Plan. These plans cost as little as $200 per month in monthly premiums and carry annual deductibles as high as $5,000, depending on age or plan purchase."

[anne]

So, for just $2,400 you can buy a health insurance policy with a $5,000 deductible in Massachusetts (be still my heart).

For a mere $7,400, you too can finally be insured in Massachusetts.

Why that means for a mere $14,800, you and your chosen spouse can be insured in sweet generous insuring Massachusetts.

Now, please tell me all about the horrible rotten awful scary killer free health care in France.

[anne]

The idea, then, in sweet Massachusetts is to spend only $2,400 for health insurance that will cost $7,400 before you get to use it. So, $14,800 for a couple to avoid those horrible awful dread Canadian waiting lines for free medical care.

Pity the poor dying Canadians.

Only in America.

[anne]

Notice that Massachusetts Blue Cross/Blue Shield is happy more people have not bought health insurance so as to avoid overwhelming or taxing the wonderful Blue Cross/Blue Shield infrastructure.

A Blue Cross/Blue Shield policy with a $400 deductible will cost precisely $7146.24 a year a person, with all sorts of co-pays to come. So, $7546.24 a year will get you too a flawed Massachusetts health insurance plan. *

* Free flue shot comes with that.

[anne]

Please notice, the choice is between a parody of health insurance for $7,400 a year or merely flawed insurance for $7,546, after deductibles.

So, for a couple that means either $14,800 for parody or $15,092 for flawed health insurance for a year.

All this while Republicans prevent health care for 3.8 million needy children for $7 billion a year while joyfully spending $200 billion on Iraq.

Get it? I get it.

[anne]

Please notice that Brad DeLong has picked up the story on Massachusetts health care, but I had been sent the story before I noticed DeLong's post. Otherwise, I would have given credit immediately. I have been worried about the Massachusetts plan, though hoping I would be wrong.

Himmelstein and Woolhandler have been the thinkers of most influence to me on this matter. I will read DeLong in a while.

[anne]

David Himmelstein has a medical practice with Steffie Woolhandler, and they began noticing in surprise veterans coming to them who lacked health insurance. From there the completed study of a few days ago on veterans and families lacking insurance.

Also, I am surprised at the finding of so high a number and portion of the homeless being veterans of service before Iraq or Afghanistan and wondering if there are subtle psychological disabilities that account for this.

[TigerPaw]

Just for comparison purposes for US readers ... here in BC Canada, medical insurance costs $52/month for a single person. Doesn't matter how often you go to the doctor, what's wrong with you, how you got that way or when. A lot of employers will often cover half of that. If you can prove financial difficulty there are reduced rates I believe and I think if you're destitute they'll even waive the fee completely.

[anne]

Tiger Paw:

"Just for comparison purposes for US readers ... here in BC Canada, medical insurance costs $52/month for a single person. Doesn't matter how often you go to the doctor, what's wrong with you, how you got that way or when. A lot of employers will often cover half of that."

Massachusetts medical insurance costs more than 10 times as much before deductible and co-pays.

Thanks to Tiger Paw.

[TigerPaw]

I should also mention that up here to the concept of "deductible and copay" for medical care we would say "huh?".

You pay your monthly fee and that's it for doctors and hospitals, be it for a broken finger, heart attack, or whatever. Prescriptions are the responsibility of the individual once you get out of the hospital, but there are even government programs to help with that for people of limited means, and a lot of employers provide some coverage for this too (employer coverage for drugs often does have a deductible involved).

Am I saying the system here is paradise? No, it has issues, but if you're of ordinary means, this is definitely the place to get sick (if there is any good place to get sick).

[anne]

Tiger Paw:

"Prescriptions are the responsibility of the individual once you get out of the hospital...."

As in other economies with a national health care program, prices for prescription drugs are negotiated by the health administration with companies.