Obamanomics

Clive Crook on Barack Obama's economics:

Fine words and the economic reality, by Clive Crook, Commenary, Financial Times: ...Barack Obama is for the first time the clear favourite to win the Democratic nomination. ... It is too soon to count Mrs Clinton out. She is nothing if not tenacious. But for the moment, she and her team are scrambling.

As I argued last week, this is good news for the Democrats. Mr Obama is so much the better candidate... But I made the case for Mr Obama in terms of vision, temperament and appeal to uncommitted voters, not policy – where his differences from Mrs Clinton are slight. A fair comment, lodged by many readers, is that, as president, he would be judged by results, not speeches. The greater his appeal at the start, the bigger the disillusionment to come. ...

My perspective as a pro-market egalitarian condemns me to be perpetually disappointed by politicians. Mr Obama may prove no exception. Last week, in a speech at a General Motors plant in Wisconsin, he unveiled an economic plan. It mainly gathered previously announced ideas, spun to appeal to the “working Americans” in Mrs Clinton’s base. Indeed, the Clinton campaign accused him of plagiarism. Costed (conservatively) at more than $140bn a year, it includes comprehensive reform of healthcare, subsidies for alternative energy, investment in infrastructure and tax cuts aimed at the low paid. Unwinding some of the Bush tax cuts, together with unspecified increases in other taxes on companies and the higher-paid, would pay for it all, he said.

The goals are worthy. The US healthcare system is long overdue for reform. The country’s infrastructure has suffered years of increasingly apparent neglect. The Bush administration’s tax cuts worsened inequality at a time when economic forces were already pushing strongly in that direction.

But..., Mr Obama’s proposal to restore top rates to the levels of the 1990s, and then lift the cap on social security taxes as well, constitutes a swingeing rise in the highest rates. Very high rates applied to a narrow base is bad tax policy. A more broadly based and (above all) far simpler tax system with a moderately progressive structure of rates is the way to combine increased revenues, a more equal distribution of post-tax incomes, and tolerably efficient incentives. No sign of this in Mr Obama’s proposals. It is also a great shame that Mr Obama, like Mrs Clinton, has adopted a populist stance on trade. He attacks her for having once supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, which he blames for “exporting jobs”.

Perhaps, for a Democrat, this position is a political necessity. It is a badge of economic ignorance, nonetheless.

Elsewhere, though, one sees flashes of an independent intelligence in Mr Obama’s economic pronouncements. He is no knee-jerk anti-capitalist: he lauds the “free market that has been the engine of America’s great progress”. He is cautious about mandates and other forms of dirigisme – which is why some party liberals still view him with suspicion.

Mr Obama is a paradox, as yet unresolved. His plan and his votes in the Senate show that he is a liberal, not a centrist. And he is no wavering or accidental liberal. His ideas are of a piece. He sees – or convinces people that he sees – a bigger picture. And yet this leftist visionary is pragmatic, non-ideological and accommodating of dissent. More than that, in fact, he seems keen to listen to and learn from those who disagree with him. What a strange and beguiling combination this is.

It makes him an electrifying candidate ... but also, to be sure, a gamble. If Mr Obama is elected, it might turn out that there is no “there” there. Indecision, drift and effete triangulation are one possibility. Equally disappointing would be if the office wore away the pragmatism and open-mindedness, to reveal an inner dogmatist. Perhaps, though, Mr Obama really can transcend Washington’s partisan paralysis and build support for one or two big important reforms – starting with healthcare. Voters (and commentators) have the better part of a year to decide whether this pushes the audacity of hope too far.

Yes, that is the question. There's a lot of focus on minor policy differences among the Democratic candidates, but for the most part the candidates ought to agree if they are representing the Party's interests on major issues (unless, of course, there is a big split in the Party on an issue). Sometimes those differences are important, but for me the main question in this election is which candidate will be most effective at getting policies in place should they be elected, and the degree of dedication they exhibit to the issues I care the most about.

Comments

[LJM]

Ability to get things done is very important. In that regard, experience counts a lot. It's good for voters to be pragmatic. We've had 7 years of a guy who said "trust me." No more sweet talk from a guy who would be great to hang out with. Like that famous line from Jerry McGuire made the point, "show us the money!"

[pgl]

I have to admit - I have no idea how the Clinton economic gameplan would differ at all from the Obama economic gameplan. Any clues from who each camp has picked as economic advisors?

[hari]

Since OB is not a policy wonk there's a big chance he'll need a lot of outsiders to carryout his vision of what he calls, "CHANGE". Could it be that finally a Kennedy joins as a cabinet member? What about Brezenzki? Will he just advise or takeover foreign policy machinery?

The danger with OB is that a lot of deliberations will be mandatory to make him familiar with not only substance of federal policy making system but its intrinsic substance.

And, it might take him +18mths to get fully in swing of things, me thinks!

[bill]

It's probably not fair to restore tax rates as high as they had been, and a suggestion that that will be done is likely more pandering than planning. Nevertheless, anything that can be done to reverse the absolutely terrible tax decisions by the Bush administration (terrible to the populace; delightful to the wealthy) is very desirable, and long overdue.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Both candidates are suddenly fond of showing up at General Motors plants and telling workers what they will do to save blue collar jobs.

Ironically, the same week General Motors has offered to buy out its entire experienced work force so they can be replaced with cheaper tier 2 workers.

PGL: I would expert Robert Rubin to be a major player in a Clinton administration, officially or unofficially. Don't know about the rest.

[david]

"It is a badge of economic ignorance, nonetheless."

The inane huffing and puffing of Clive Crook is so extraordinarily irritating. The FT seems to imagine a need for this kind of dimwitted pomposity as a counterbalance to good reporting.

What the hell does Clive Crook know about incentive structures? He's got all the incentives in the world to blow smoke up rich rears, in a tone that gives them the comfort of science -- the same incentives keep him dim.

[James Killus]

Very high rates applied to a narrow base is bad tax policy.

It's no worse a tax policy than having most of the country's income go to just a small class of individuals is good compensation policy.

If corporations were judged by the same standards as governments, "pro-market egalitarians" would be aghast. You have a small group of people setting the compensation policies for corporations, and that same small group of people happens to be the group that gets the lions' share of compensation. Furthermore, money paid to the corporate oligarchs is as much of a "dead weight cost" as anything done by governments, directly sucking capital out of the firms and further insulating the decision makers from the consequences of their decisions.

But those who are happy to prescribe economic policy for the country as a whole never choose to focus on the corporate economy and decision makers, except to hold that giving corporations more power must be good for the country ("What's good for General Motors..."). The current woes of the automobile industry can easily be traced to bad, put-it-off-till-later decisions of past and present managers, but they were and will continue to be well-rewarded for simply having been in the office when some money was being made.

If corporate managers had to bid for their jobs, with the jobs going to the qualified lowest bidders, what do you think the rate of compensation would drop to? And just how much effort would then be expended to shrink the pool of "qualified" candidates to try to maintain the privileges of the few?

[green apron monkey]

Does anybody know if either Hilary or Obama are really going to follow through on this reforming NAFTA business?

Is this serious or just pandering? Or perhaps serious pandering?

[Bruce Webb]

Obama hasn't come out with details about how a cap increase in FICA would work or where its incidence would hit which leads me to believe it would be along the lines of the cap increase in Obama advisor Liebman's LMS Social Security 'Reform' plan, which gradually raises the cap until it captures wages at the 90% level, which the authors of LMS claim was the traditional level.

What Obama fails to recognize (I hope) is that a cap increase is a trojan horse simply designed to protect top marginal rates on income. A cap increase would represent a 6.2% boost in your top rate, taking a lot of people in the 28% bracket to 34% and everyone in the 35% bracket to 41%, which is to say that for the professional class it would more than wipe out the Bush tax break, to then turn around and take the additional hit of restoring Clinton era tax rates sends the professional class and only the professional class back to effectively pre-Reagan rates.

Well that is not going to happen. Politically we can perhaps sustain a cap increase or letting the Bush top rates expire but I don't think we can get both. Given that returns on capital are not subject to FICA to start with a cap increase simply serves as a vaccination against allowing the Bush cuts to expire.

This is why I laugh at people who insist that a cap increase is somehow 'progressive'. It isn't, instead it just serves to shield the incomes of people who draw their wealth from returns on capital. People who ask why we shouldn't tax the upper 6.4% with a cap increase are asking the wrong question. A cap increase does not materially effect the top 5% and does not touch the top 1% at all. Instead it is a classic bait and switch designed to run up resentment against Social Security among that slice of the middle class who truth be told could get along fine without it and simultaneously buffer returns from capital from higher rates. They end up with a twofer, Social Security with a black eye and lower taxes. What a hoot!

I don't know what is more alarming, that Obama doesn't understand the cumulative effect of his cap increase and letting Bush rates expire on the professional class, or that he does and somehow imagines people will just happily get in line for a 10% tax increase on every wage dollar between $100k and $200k.

What would be the difference between the Obama economic plan and the Clinton economic plan? Well as far as I can tell the latter's plan doesn't have the effect of creating potentially fatal resentment of Social Security among the moderately successful wage earners as opposed to workers at large. (It is important to note that under LMS people earning over the cap get exactly zero additional benefit from Social Security even as their taxes go up sharply, it is all pain and no gain.)

(My opinion might be a little different if a cap increase actually did what it supposedly does, which is to increase Social Security solvency, but it doesn't even do that. It is not only terrible politics, it is really crappy policy as well.)

[2slugbaits]

"...for me the main question in this election is which candidate will be most effective at getting policies in place should they be elected, and the degree of dedication they exhibit to the issues I care the most about."

For me, this boils down to asking which candidate is most likely to have the longer coat tails in November.

I'm disappointed with pretty much all of the candidates when it comes to trade policies. Call me old fashioned, but I thought political debate was well served when Vice-President Al Gore debated Ross Perot on NAFTA. Now NAFTA is a dirty word in the Democratic Party....and in the GOP.

[acerimusdux]

In the previous post, Tyler Cowen claimed "voters seem to be making their judgment on the basis of image and style, not substance". But I think voters may be paying more attention to the issues than the media are. Clive Cook notes here that Obama "is cautious about mandates and other forms of dirigisme". I suspect this is one of the reasons he is running better in many of those red states. He has also articulated a significantly less hawkish and more pragmatic approach to foreign policy.

Politically, this all probably plays well with many independents and disenchanted Republicans who have lost faith in ambitious government (if they ever did have any). There remains support for a number of government initiatives, including some form of health care program. Obama's pragmatic approach seems to be to try to build on this by proving first that government can be effective again before imposing too many new mandates. Looking around the world at the other leading health systems, I suspect Obama is right there. Neither single payer nor universal mandates seem to be required to obtain near universal coverage or the highest levels of care. The best systems seem to be hybrid systems which have evolved over time.

On economic matters, Hillary is a bit more inclined to turn to mandates, from health care, to interest rate freezes, but doesn't seem any more inclined to commit funds. Both candidates have shown very little in the way of ambition to make significant changes in government spending. In some ways I think both have been a disappointment. When it comes to the budget, there really aren't that many significant differences with McCain. Everyone is running on fiscal discipline and tax cuts.

On infrastructure spending especially, I find it interesting that Mike Bloomberg, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Ed Rendell have gotten together to form a group, "Building America's Future" which is trumpeting the need for over $1.5 trillion in infrastructure investment. In other words, over twenty five times what Obama has in his plan over the next ten years ($60 billion). And as far as I can tell, neither Hillary Clinton or John McCain have plans to address this at all. So the supposed "mushy middle" bipartisan moderates are the only ones who will even talk about this issue in a meaningful way. And it's an issue that should matter to traditional New Deal Democrats.

[2slugbaits]

Bruce,

I don't think Obama has definitively said that he would raise the FICA cap. My understanding is that he has only said that it was something he would consider.

I wouldn't equate the LMS plan with Liebman's own personal plan. In their papers they have always made it pretty clear that they were presenting a compromise position of three different economists with three very different ideas. The LMS plan is a case of a committee written proposal.

[esb]

Should Barak cross the finish line (in November), prepare yourselves for an almost-unique event ... a publicly-broadcast economic conference to identify the problems and lay the groundwork for policy by bringing "the people" into the process (as observers).

Conceptually, call this the Clinton contribution to the Obama Administration.

Thanks for the concept, Bill.

[dirtyal]

Obama has a number of very attractive traits that attract this fairly economically conservative person:

1) He is probably the smartst person in the field. I would subjectively put him up against Bill and Hill any day. He may not be a crafty and he may not be as much of a gutter fighter, but he is not a dummy and he will learn which economists to listen to and why--very quickly.

2) He is a committed pragmatist. He may not want to be as centerist as he will end up being. But he is hemmed in both politically and economically and he will be pushed toward the center by all the forces.

3) He has a sense of fairness that none of the other candidates really have. He understands that the economically powerful have had their day and that it is up to him to bring things back to the point where the "common person" gets a reasonable shake against the special interest groups. Neither Clinton(s) or McCain are anywhere as believable in this category.

I am definitely a college grad/latte drinker, but my age puts me out of the Obama mainstream.

I voted for him in the primary and my wife and I gave him $150, which is more than we gave Kerry or anyone else.

[lerxst]

We've been highlighting some of the policy differences between the two at Economists for Obama

Here are posts on the differences with respect to:

retirement savings

trade

and fiscal stimulus

Honestly, what draws me most to Obama is the power of the bully pulpit to effectuate change. His campaign, (e.g. grassroots organizing) also serves as evidence of his extreme competence. He is also a deeply intelligent man who has a background that gives him a more well-rounded view of the world. Because of this background he is less guided by the mainstream "group think" that has led to Democratic acquiescence to the devastating policies in recent years

[anne]

Barack Obama will protect Social Security and Medicare, as the Democratic Congress is now doing and will continue to do if a majority, of that there is no doubt. A Democratic Presidency will not be followed by successful Republican Congressional attempts to undo what are civil rights, basic rights, there will only be an expansion of such rights as access to health care insurance is finally and properly extended.

[save_the_rustbelt]

I would guess that the economic results of either candidate will depend on having a comfortable majority in the House and Senate.

Without those majorities change could be very slow.

[Dickeylee]

Rustbelt, the Democratic majority in the House is not only safe, it might get to veto-proof levels. 27 Republicans have announced retirements -vs- only 5 Dems. That leaves the R's defending 22 more districts in a year where the D's have a 3/1 cash advantage. The 50 state plan by Dean is working perfectly. Those 27 retiree's can see the hand-writing on the wall

[Barkley Rosser]

Dickeylee,

More important than being veto proof in the House is being able to invoke cloture against filibusters in the Senate, which is not likely for the Dems after this coming election. That will necessarily put a crimp in doing anything too dramatic.

Bruce Webb,

[Bruce W. and I have an ongoing dialogue on social security]

I have just learned from a highly knowledgeable individual that in the current social security system, a rate cap increase would indeed entail an accompanying benefit increase, which might be a good thing, but also would not save much money. Of course it might be possible to specfically enact a rate cap lift without such benefit increases. I continue to agree with Bruce that doing nothing to or with social security is the best approach.

Regarding Hillary on this, I think I have a minor disagreement with Bruce W. She has announced that she will establish or support some kind of a "deficit commission," which Bruce thinks will leave social security alone. I fear not. This will be fodder for the sorts of folks like a certain B. who has in the past gone on at great length here and on Dean Baker's Beat the Press, arguing that the problem with social security is that it is contributing to the deficit, even when it is running a surplus on its funds. So, I suspect his mentality would be that of such a commission; it would view all programs as potentially able to help reduce the deficit, irrespective of the state of their own committed funds. So, the argument would be to have social security increase its surplus to help the deficit situation, and we know that there are only two ways to do that ultimately, neither of which is desirable.

[Lothar]

"He attacks her for having once supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, which he blames for “exporting jobs”.

Perhaps, for a Democrat, this position is a political necessity. It is a badge of economic ignorance, nonetheless."

BuT NAFTa DO export jobs! WhaT one good NafTA thing? PromisES all BrOked.

[calmo]

I hope you are right Dickylee, but zlugs has a different view and me too: the media will illustrate this once a Dem candidate emerges and if the economy continues to sink, so much more illustrative.
I'm with david ["The inane huffing and puffing of Clive Crook is so extraordinarily irritating. The FT seems to imagine a need for this kind of dimwitted pomposity as a counterbalance to good reporting.

What the hell does Clive Crook know about incentive structures? He's got all the incentives in the world to blow smoke up rich rears,"]
on this column from CC which begins Perhaps, for a Democrat, this position is a political necessity. It is a badge of economic ignorance, nonetheless.Seriously pulling the rug out from his own feet, I thought.
And more tidbits that CC was not having a good day of flashing intelligence:
Elsewhere, though, one sees flashes of an independent intelligence in Mr Obama’s economic pronouncements. Now if he were a member of this blogging community, he would know what a steady stream of independent intelligence was and could just defer to Webb on SS policy shifts and radiate with confidence...rather than...stink, like david says.
I thought this last note was worth repastin:
Voters (and commentators) have the better part of a year to decide whether this pushes the audacity of hope too far. because it (the audacity of hope) is in the hands of the MSM commentators...who aren't allowed to Burp or Guffaw before, during or after their paid political announcements.
Thanks James for that good thrashing of Crook as a specimen, "pro-market egalitarians" and the necessary, if unpalatable for CC & co, move to heist back...and tax from those pools which actually have money.

[Bruce Wilder]

lexrst: ". . . he is less guided by the mainstream "group think" that has led to Democratic acquiescence to the devastating policies in recent years . . ."

Quite a number have been saying for years that George W. Bush was the Worst Presidents Ever or a reasonable fascimile thereof. And, yet, the idea that we could do better is resisted mightily.

But, lexrst reminds us that Bush has not been a Worst President Ever in the glorious tradition of, say John Tyler or Andrew Johnson -- men reviled and isolated. Bush, even with a steady 30% approval rating, has managed to pull a large part of the political class and the punditocrisy into his reality distortion field.

The U.S. does need an inspirational leader so much as it needs a good psychotherapist. But, maybe Obama fits the bill.

[Bruce Webb]

2slug visit Obama's website and click on the Senior tab under Issues. Not a lot of ambiguity there, Obama's only positive proposal is a cap increase. And the notion that Liebman is sort of the reluctant one here is a little belied by the fact that not only is Liebman the lead author of the Liebman-MacGuineas- Samwick Non Partisan Social Security Reform Plan, it is hosted on his official harvard.edu website. At some point fingerprints turn into ownership and LMS has Liebman's fingerprints, handprints, footprints and lipprints all over the Plan, the notion that he is some sort of reluctant privatizer seems more of a convenient myth than anything.

[Lafayette]

The imbalance of Capital Investments

Article: My perspective as a pro-market egalitarian condemns me to be perpetually disappointed by politicians.

Yes, Mr. Crook, and it is just not an ordinary mistake. It is fundamental.

To believe that markets have a solution for absolutely all our needs all the time is deceptive childishness. The Free Market has its rules, Public Services have theirs. The basic rule of the former is Make Profit, the latter's is the Most Good for the Most People. These are very often incompatible goals.

We need both ... but not one to the everlasting exclusion of the other.

America is a nation gone awry, because it's forgot (somewhere along the way to a Growth Economy at Any Cost) that the Most People were not being necessarily served by a Market Economy that produced Economic Growth for the sake of growth alone. The distribution of economic wealth is not balanced nor equitable.

An analogy: The economy behaves like the fastest runner in a race that runs in a circle. The fastest feet win the race and the cup, but did they actually get anywhere? Perhaps faster, but further?

Two imperatives go hand in hand in a balanced society -- Social Capital Investments and Industrial/Capital Investments. We've focused far too much on the latter and insufficiently on the former.

Why not have Social Capital Productivity Measures to consider along side that of overall Economic Productivity? How about Objectives including such parameters as:
* Secondary school students that enter university, but at higher (not lower) SAT scores over a period of time,
* Fifty percent of secondary students that enter/complete some professional training,
* Fifty percent of secondary students who complete a two-year, four-year or six-year study program,
* Universal and Integral Health Care that accentuates Preventive Care (twice annual check-ups) and remedial programs to help with some maladies,
* Public Health care clinics within no more than an hour of 85% of the population.
* Integral Health Care insurance that addresses even Terminal Care.

Etc., etc., etc. We are creative enough to instate such Social Productivity Measures ... for as long as we had a Social Capital Investment Program that existed (to be measured).

I will remind you, Mr. Crook, that it is the imbalance of Industrial Capital investments vis-à-vis Social Capital Investments that has brought America into its present bind.

And, getting out of it will be no easy matter.

[Lafayette]

A Road Map, please

dirtyal: He may not be a crafty and he may not be as much of a gutter fighter

This above is gutter BS.

Has it ever occurred to you that politics is mostly gutter-fighting? When in the gutter, you play by gutter rules or the opposition will walk all over you.

And, the bit about Obama being smarter than Hillary; well, that just doesn't hold water. First of all, it is an unprovable sentiment and secondly it is irrelevant.

Ask yourself, rather, if Obama, as PotUS, can manage Washington politics by "reaching out" to all parties. Think long and hard at that particular Campaign Promise. Because its achievement is nothing short of miraculous. (Let's presume that Obama walks on water as well? Which should please you.)

He has a sense of fairness that none of the other candidates really have.

And, neither Hillary nor Edwards had this attribute? C'mon, get real. You've got blinders on.

Your points are irrelevant. It comes down to "Who can do the job"? Frankly, either can.

So, which one to chose? The one that answers best that above question? How?

That is just the problem. This campaign is constructed of sound bites intended to enthuse/captivate the masses. Its all froth and no substance. Because no one is showing us the devil in the details.

Look at each candidate's program -- both tantamount to Good Intentions, without any Value Added Plan of how to get where they think the country should be going.

Some call that plan a Road Map, because it contains a specific route and not just the four points of the compass.

[Prasad Rao]

I ain't sure if this is even the right place to suggest it, but what the hey, might as well. Whatever happened of the consumption tax that is supposed to be efficient, equitable and even environmentally sustainable. If candidates have a pro-active stance on efficeincy, equity and the environment, surely they could consider a consumption tax as part of their platform (party politics aside). Incidentally it goes well with a simplified tax regime as well (infact can replace it totally).

[wjd123]

lerxst,

Thanks for the "Economist for Obama" link. I was interested in finding out more about Clinton's and Obama's approaches to NAFTA. What I took away is that Obama wants to jawbone and Clinton wants to enforce. Put me in the Hillary Clinton camp.

Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers.

Clinton's October 8, 2007 economic policy press release says that she will do the following:

Appoint a trade enforcement officer within the office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and double the size of USTR’s enforcement unit....--Economist for Obama

[2slugbaits]

Bruce,

"2slug visit Obama's website and click on the Senior tab under Issues."

I have been to the website and the wording strikes me as conditional and it is very fuzzy. To begin with, it's directed at assuring seniors that their benefits won't be cut. That's the main target audience. It's also clearly conditional, with the magnitude of the solution being dependent upon the magnitude of the problem. He excludes raising retirement ages and he specically excludes privatizing Social Security. Those are the issues that people who click on that tab will most want to hear. If there is a problem, that only leaves three real choices: cut benefits, raise FICA taxes or raise the cap. His preference is to raise the cap. Nowhere does he say how high he would raise the cap. He obviously kicks the can down the road when it comes to the specifics...as he should. He also fudges on exactly when the Social Security solvency becomes an immediate enough problem such that a President has to make a decision. He just says he wants to ensure solvency for current and future generations, but he doesn't say how many generations. If you're a twentysomething Obama suppporter you might be interested in the solvency of SS in the year 2050.

As to the LMS report. I cannot devine Liebman's own personal preference except to note that in the LMS paper they claim raising the cap to 90% of earnings at a rate of 1 percentage point per year was a compromise position. But also note that in footnote 5 they suggest a couple of variations on this that all three economists felt comfortable with. Still, equating the LMS report with Liebman's report with Obama's position seems like a bit of a stretch to me. A more likely explanation is that Obama hasn't thought a lot about Social Security solvency and he just picked one off the shelf from someone that headed up Bill Clinton's Social Security reform agenda. In any event, all of this is predicated on when a President has to address the Social Security issue. Today it's a small problem so I suspect it will get a commensurate amount of attention unless labor productivity continues to nosedive. In that case even the high cost option begins to look OBE.

[Lafayette]

Excellent article by a Yale Professor proposing a Health Care solution for America, that is ostensibly different from the present Dem candidates.

It is, unfortunately, overly verbose and without a Summary, i.e., too many words to convey an idea that is not all that complex. If you tire at long documents, scroll down to the essence in the heading that begins "How Health Care for America would provide ...'

Look for it, here.

[Lafayette]

PR: Incidentally it goes well with a simplified tax regime as well (infact can replace it totally).

I don't see where you found this notion.

The European Value-Added-Tax on all consumption works in conjunction with both Income Tax and the other sources of state revenues (customs taxes, stamp taxes, etc.)

The VAT in Europe accounts for more than 60% of all state revenues and, yes, it is a regressive tax in that the rich and the poor both pay the same rate -- but as a percentage of income, the rates are very different.

But, the tax also assures the state revenues employed for Public Services. Europeans accept this tax, which is typically more than twice that of the American state sales tax.

Income Taxes in Europe are manipulated such that larger families have more exclusions. In fact, there are so many exclusions that only one person in two pays any real Income Tax.

But, this is also due to the fact that, as the tax categories are arranged, the lower levels benefit from an already smaller tax bite, which is then further reduced by exclusions for large families. In fact, most of the French earn a salary that falls within the lower income bracket and is lightly taxed. But, everyone pays the VAT and it is an easy tax to collect.

A consumption tax in America could effectively reduce the need for income tax revenues, but that would not solve the problem of Income Inequality.

[dirtyal]

Hey Laf: Well, you may be right. But if the world is the way you describe it, the best we can ever do is about what we had in the 90's. There were some good things and some bad things about the 90's, but it was pretty far from the ideal.

What I hear you saying is that it's all we can expect from politicians. If we get another Clinton in the Whitehouse, we will still have interest groups, the worst health care system in the first world, an ever less efficient educational system, an unfair tax system, and a congress that can't really do very much.

In short, we will have about what we do now with a more liberal and more intelligent group of new rascals replacing the old rascals. It would be a step in the right direction, but change? No way!

Maybe you are right and we are letting the ideal become an enemy of the practical.

I was out at coffee last night with my wife, her sister and her sister's partner. We were talking about the various strengths and weaknesses of Barak and Hillary. It was 3-1 in favour of Barak.

But in the spirit of a fair discussion, I had to admit that if there were a really severe economic crisis, it would not be bad to have Hill and Bill in the Whitehouse. Certainly better than any of the right wingnuts available.

Maybe what I said is BS, although I stand by it. But I think that what you are saying is that what we have is the best we can get.

Parliamentary system anyone?

[billyblog]

Let's see if we can arbitrate an exegetical dispute between Bruce Webb and 2slugbaits, and in the process perhaps cast a bit of light on the substance of one of the important policies of our redoubtable candidate for the presidency of the United States.

In response to Bruce Webb's incisive (my opinion) account of Obama's stance on Social Security:

2slugbaits originally said:

I don't think Obama has definitively said that he would raise the FICA cap. My understanding is that he has only said that it was something he would consider.

Bruce Webb responded:

"2slug visit Obama's website and click on the Senior tab under Issues. Not a lot of ambiguity there, Obama's only positive proposal is a cap increase."

And 2slugbaits countered by saying:

"I have been to the [Obama] website and the wording strikes me as conditional and it is very fuzzy."

OK, here is the complete text of what Obama says about Social Security at his website:

Under the issue heading "Seniors & Social Security" there is initially a quote from an October 27, 2007 Obama speech:

"We… have an obligation to protect Social Security and ensure that it's a safety net the American people can count on today, tomorrow and forever. Social Security is the cornerstone of the social compact in this country… Coming together to meet this challenge won't be easy… It will take restoring a sense of shared purpose in Washington and across this country. But if you put your trust in me — if you give me 'your hand and your heart' — then that's exactly what I intend to do as your next President."

— Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 27, 2007

Followed by two paragraphs under the heading "Protect Social Security":

"Obama is committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. Obama will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And he does not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.

"Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security [emphasis added] and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century."

So now you can choose between:

Webb: "Not a lot of ambiguity there, Obama's only positive proposal is a cap increase."

and

2slug: "… the wording strikes me as conditional and it is very fuzzy."

Hmm. One is led to ask, on what sound hermeneutical basis does 2slug want to claim that the apparently categorical statement "Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security" – with nary an "if" in sight – should strike anyone, other than himself perhaps, as a "conditional," while we should all be assured, as 2slug himself seems most assured, that "He [Obama] excludes [categorically] raising retirement ages and he specically [sic] excludes privatizing Social Security"?

I mean, what seems good for the categorical goose of not raising the retirement age and excluding privatizing Social Security certainly would seem to be good for the gander of increasing the cap.

Or are we dealing with something that only a Talmudic scholar could sort out?

And as I said in an earlier attempted post which seems somehow not to have made it into the thread, and I offer in slightly revised for here:

Of course this would not be the first time Obama, with the help of his spinmeisters, has tried to spin his way out of something he has said in one of his "definitive" policy statements when it has come under close scrutiny. Consider his back-filling on "penalties" and "automatic enrollment" for his healthcare plan.

Nothing wrong with constructively changing your position, of course. I suppose our main hope if Obama is elected president should be that he do a lot of this.

By the way, in the spirit of no contribution, however small, is unappreciated, I would note that the "next half century" gets us to 2059. Since the most recent CBO estimate for solvency issues for Social Security is 2046 – or at least this is what Bruce Webb reported in a recent post, though I have not been able to track it down myself yet – President Obama will apparently bend every effort to get us 13 more years. Somehow this does not seem congruent with all the hope and vision he has been preaching. But, again, we'll take 13 more years and a little less talk about the system being "in crisis" any day.

[Bruce Webb]

Shoot I had my post mostly done and saw billyblog had covered it.

You can believe that the hiring of Jeffrey Liebman is disconnected from Liebman's signature Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick Non-Partisan Social Security Reform Plan which in turn has no relation to Obama presenting a cap increase (an integral part of LMS) as part of his solution when in fact a cap increase does nothing for Social Security solvency under its current financing scheme. I mean it could all be just a big coincidence and maybe Obama really just is bone ignorant about the actual structure of the Trust Fund and its relation to current FICA income. But honestly I give Obama a little more credit than that. I mean either the guy is the genius former editor of the Harvard Law Review or he is a lame-o who picked his economic team from a used staff roster of the Clinton Administration. I simply don't believe his economic team came into being by accident.

When Obama chose as his chief economic advisor a University of Chicago guy with open preferences for market solutions over government action I assume that he had done his homework. He wanted Austan Goolsbee, he got Austan Goolsbee, and I have a right to belief he is taking economic advice from his economic advisor.

When Obama chose as his health care guy David Cutler, another believer that market solutions are always better than government mandates, and went on the attack against mandates I have the right to assume that he is not committed to true universal single payer coverage.

When Obama hires the author of a prominent Social Security 'Reform' plan and starts espousing an element of that plan that makes zero sense in the context of Social Security as it is currently formulated but is key to advisor Leibman's 2005 plan, I think it is fair to believe that Obama took the time to read what is only a 9 page plan and is implicitly endorsing it.

I may be wrong on all three points but all I am offered in return is faith based assurances as with Anne's "Obama will protect Social Security". Well frankly I am not assured. You can argue with a straight face that the LMS plan 'protects Social Security', you can even argue that just because it has PRAs (Personal Retirement Accounts) at its core that it is really not 'privatization' at all. Which is what worries me. When I see a solid definition of what Obama means by 'protect' and 'privatization' and assurances that he won't enact the horribly worker unfair LMS plan or anything like it, then maybe I will stop grumbling. But I am not seeing that or anything like it.

[Bruce Webb]

I have just learned from a highly knowledgeable individual that in the current social security system, a rate cap increase would indeed entail an accompanying benefit increase, which might be a good thing, but also would not save much money. Of course it might be possible to specfically enact a rate cap lift without such benefit increases. I continue to agree with Bruce that doing nothing to or with social security is the best approach. Barkley thanks for the last sentence, but the first is kind of a non-sequitor. Since future benefits are currently set to rise with real wages and not with Social Security income per se I don't see how a cap increase automatically translates into benefit increases. What it would do is to time shift the date of depletion and shortfall, a cap increase improving both the paper position of the Trust Fund by pushing depletion out and also pushing shortfall out and minimizing needed transfers from the General Fund to repay the money they borrowed. Whether this is inherently a good thing is in the eye of the beholder, personally I believe the Trust Fund should be paid down an intended as the demographic bulge of the Boomers is accommodated.

Moreover the key is your second portion of the sentence. The LMS Plan is very specific in insisting that people whose taxes are raised by a cap increase will NOT get on commensurate increase in benefits, that money just goes into the general pool. Higher income people do get a better outcome from LMS than lower income people do, but for anyone who spends a good part of his work life making above the current cap schedule you could never catch up to losing that 6.2% off the top.

[Bruce Webb]

I have just learned from a highly knowledgeable individual that in the current social security system, a rate cap increase would indeed entail an accompanying benefit increase, which might be a good thing, but also would not save much money. Of course it might be possible to specfically enact a rate cap lift without such benefit increases. I continue to agree with Bruce that doing nothing to or with social security is the best approach. Barkley thanks for the last sentence, but the first is kind of a non-sequitor. Since future benefits are currently set to rise with real wages and not with Social Security income per se I don't see how a cap increase automatically translates into benefit increases. What it would do is to time shift the date of depletion and shortfall, a cap increase improving both the paper position of the Trust Fund by pushing depletion out and also pushing shortfall out and minimizing needed transfers from the General Fund to repay the money they borrowed. Whether this is inherently a good thing is in the eye of the beholder, personally I believe the Trust Fund should be paid down an intended as the demographic bulge of the Boomers is accommodated.

Moreover the key is your second portion of the sentence. The LMS Plan is very specific in insisting that people whose taxes are raised by a cap increase will NOT get on commensurate increase in benefits, that money just goes into the general pool. Higher income people do get a better outcome from LMS than lower income people do, but for anyone who spends a good part of his work life making above the current cap schedule you could never catch up to losing that 6.2% off the top.

[LJM]

I'm not assured either, Bruce Webb.

And for the NAFTA guy who posted, actually those involved with NAFTA at the time say that Hillary was against it. Believe it or not, she is actually to the left of Bill in a number of areas. Bill has stated that if she can improve on things he started in his administration or get things done he could not, that's ok with him in terms of his legacy.

[Barkley Rosser]

Bruce Webb,

The deal is that benefits are tied to taxation. If you have been paying more, you get more, and so forth, although obviously this can be undone.

I think you make too much of Liebman implying LMS. Why not just take what they say in the website as what they mean? Goolsbee is University of Chicago, but he is also on record as supporting higher taxes on the wealthy. The "rate cap increase alone" proposal would be consistent with his views of things. As I have stated previously, my main problem with this is not the proposal itself, but the fact that it would entail almost for sure negotiations with Republicans, which would open the door to something more like LMS. But then, I think Hillary has the same problem with her bipartisan commission proposals. Again, I would prefer them both to just defend the system as it is.

billyblog,

Nothing needs to be done. I reproduce below a table cooked up by me with the assistance of Bruce Webb. IC is intermediate cost projection, which everyone hears about; LC is low cost projection, which never gets talked about in the media, but under which the Social Security system never runs a deficit. As you can see for the ten years in question, 6 out of the 10 years, reality beat the LC projection and was below the IC only in the recession year of 2001. Final figures for 2007 show the balances being above IC but below LC. The table shows annualized GDP growth rates.

Year IC projection LC projection Actual real GDP growth
1997 2.5% 3.2% 3.8%
1998 2.5% 3.1% 3.9%
1999 2.6% 3.4% 4.0%
2000 3.5% 3.9% 5.1%
2001 3.1% 3.5% 1.0%
2002 0.7% 1.6% 2.4%
2003 2.9% 3.8% 3.1%
2004 4.4% 4.9% 4.4%
2005 3.6% 3.9% 3.6%
2006 3.4% 3.8% 4.7%

[2slugbaits]

Barkley, Bruce and billyblog,

Real GDP is an important number if you're looking at Social Security as a relative economic burden; but it is irrelevant if you're trying to project the long run solvency of Social Security. Social Security is funded by the FICA tax, which is a capped tax on labor income. Unless you are prepared to believe that a 1 percent increase in GDP directly and EXACTLY translates into a 1% increase in FICA taxable labor income, then there really isn't much point in using real GDP to project FICA receipts. And if you believe that a 1 percent increase in GDP directly translates into a 1% increase in FICA taxable income, then you shouldn't be arguing that low and middle income earners are falling behind. You can make one of the two arguments, but not both.

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/bad-health-care-omens/

February 18, 2008

Bad Health Care Omens
By Paul Krugman

This * is disturbing:

"Mike Lux, a veteran of the Clinton health care wars, pointed out today that Obama is using as a surrogate on health care Bush Dog Democrat Jim Cooper. Cooper spent a good amount of time in 1993-1994 working to undermine Clinton's health care plan by offering more insurance friendly proposals with former Senator and current lobbyist John Breaux."

This fits in with my sense, based on everything we've seen in this campaign, that Obama just isn't all that committed to health care reform. If he does make it to the White House, I hope he proves me wrong. But as I've written before, from my perspective it looks as if a dream is dying.

* http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4009

[anne]

I am not pleased, not pleased at all.

The problem is not Paul Krugman, the problem is Bartack Obama convincing me that universal health care really is an objective. Similarly, possibly I am giving too much credit to Obama on protecting Social Security. Advisers make a difference, and Jeffrey Liebman wishes to slash and bash Social Security and advising Obama.

I am told personally the opposite, and fancy lunches are always enticing, but I do know how to read and think and I am not pleased.

[anne]

Hillary Clinton continually bothers me on foreign policy, while Obama needs to reassure me on domestic policy, selfishly speaking. Clinton also is running a campaign of excuses which I find less appealing all the time, while Obama is running a splendid campaign. I want more policy clarity from Obama, finally.

[anne]

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/02/commitment-to-h.html

February 18, 2008

"Commitment" to Health Care Reform
By Brad DeLong

I think Paul Krugman simply has this completely wrong....

What Mike Lux, "veteran of the Clinton health care wars," knows--but is very careful not to tell you--is that in 1993-1994 health care reform needed 60 votes in the Senate in order to defeat a Dole-led filibuster, and that Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) was vote 55. "[Undermining] Clinton's health care plan by... [working] with former Senator and current lobbyist John Breaux" translates as "working on bills that might actually pass the senate."

Mike Lux knows this. He just hopes that his readers don't.

[anne]

Ah, so what we have here is political deception the fooled Paul Krugman but which Brad DeLong has straightened out. Why the deception, then?

[anne]

Mike Lux then is obviously trying to undermine Barack Obama. I need to learn how to read political self-serving better. I get it though.

[billyblog]

Does anyone know where the machinery for either the Trustees or the CBO model for the Social Security Trust fund is available? Other than in those two offices? I mean, can anyone, with the appropriate "union card" of course, get under the hood of these two models and do his own runs and architectural tinkering?

I think it is implicit in what Bruce and Barkley have been saying about maybe slowing down a bit, but one of the problems in the Social Security situation is that there may be a bit too much overconfidence out there among wannabe presidential advisors who are itching to get in there and apply their "silver bullet" solution du jour to "solving the Social Security solvency crisis."

I get especially nervous when the overconfidence might be coming from some of the University of Chicago crowd.

And there really is a somewhat generalized "silver bullet" pattern in Obama's approach to governing. Some examples:

* Get on a plane and go charm the bad guys out of their evil ways. Shock and awe 'em with your charisma.

* Put everybody on C-Span to solve our problems about healthcare.

* An if you build it they will come approach to universal health care. Hmm, maybe some penalties, hmm, maybe automatic enrollments, hmm, maybe ….

* Raise the cap on taxed income in Social Security and watch the solvency "crisis" melt away.

It is, of course, common for the inexperienced to underestimate the friction-rich nature of the problems they might have to deal with – as all of us who figured out how to be good parents after the kids left home – finally – can testify.

Obama is arguably even greener than George W. Bush was. That he is also not meaner – not by a long shot -- is a major source of consolation. But I am not sure how much more on the job training the country can support.

[calmo]

So kind, billyblog.
O'Neill was a case of one of the trainers leaving --throwing up his hands with such a difficult student?...or something more entangled, more insidious?
Could be the heavy hand of vested interests behind the inexperienced "charismatic" and "green" occupant of the office.
The advisers should tell us something about these candidates, yes?

[Lafayette]

Aren't we surprised

dirtyal: If we get another Clinton in the Whitehouse, we will still have interest groups, the worst health care system in the first world, an ever less efficient educational system, an unfair tax system, and a congress that can't really do very much.

This sort of linear projection from a Bill Clinton to a Hillary Clinton is ... uh, stupid.

Each presidency has its own particular set of circumstances and each PotUS is their own person. We should know that by now ... we thought Bush the Younger would be a presidency like Bush the Elder?

Aren't we surprised ....

[Lafayette]

Ya gotta have the right stuff

bb: It is, of course, common for the inexperienced to underestimate the friction-rich nature of the problems they might have to deal with

This is the self-deception in which the young and inexperienced indulge themselves. Quick, simple fixes to intractable problems are sometimes proffered with a naiveness that is shocking.

One must assume they actually believe their crap whilst campaigning. Then, when the "buck stops here" in the Oval Office, they fudge and squirm, compromising Left and Right to deliver something that has no resemblance to the campaign promises. Neither are there any apologies.

Politics is the art of compromise, unless you are a dictator. Whatever you say on the campaign trail will have little resemblance to what you have to do to get your program through Congress. Our nation was constructed inthat manner to avoid the concentration of power at the top. (Our forefathers had King George of England primarily in mind when designing the balance of power in a fledgling democracy.)

Thankfully, Obama has no specifics in his program. This will give him larger Squirm-room as PotUS. In fact, his election proves once again how one can flimflam a population without the slightest bit of substance ... and still get elected PotUS.

Our lead-head of a PotUS has already proven that simple election tactic. When Hillary says that she has "experience", she is thinking perhaps about her Health Care plan that was shredded by the American Medical Association and its K-street attack dogs. She's been there, she knows what can happen. Let's presume she'll be prepared next time around. One learns the ropes in politics.

Obama is a sprinter who wants to be the first black in the White House. He should wait his turn. If McCain is too old, Obama is certainly too young.

Maybe what is propelling both Barak and Hillary is that they want to grab the Prize that has been denied their race or their sex. Frankly, though just, such motivation is simply NOT good enough.

Ya gotta have the right stuff to be PotUS, that is, to be good at presiding a nation. Lead-head proved that point as well.

Can we afford that mistake yet again?

[hari]

@Lafayette -

I'm sure America can afford to dealy the Day of Reckoning -the decline and fall of the Great Satan (using Gibson's rendition of Roman Empire). This convenient for the ruling class because they're only concerned about their own livelihood, right now!

The nation, damn it, once we get power we shall look after its interest too.

[hari]

@Lafayette -

I'm sure America can afford to dealy the Day of Reckoning -the decline and fall of the Great Satan (using Gibson's rendition of Roman Empire). This convenient for the ruling class because they're only concerned about their own livelihood, right now!

The nation, damn it, once we get power we shall look after its interest too.

[Gerard MacDonell]

Obama's nativism on trade is very disappointing and does imply incompetence. But we have had a few decades of liberals playing fair on trade, hoping the right would play fair too. The right has not. They started a class war, which has led to this. Liberals need to win, even if doing so creates some of those welfare triangles. Who cares? There are now much bigger fish to fry.

[Bruce Webb]

Does anyone know where the machinery for either the Trustees or the CBO model for the Social Security Trust fund is available? Other than in those two offices? I mean, can anyone, with the appropriate "union card" of course, get under the hood of these two models and do his own runs and architectural tinkering? Well the Trustees include a lot of data in the release of the Trustees' Reports with all reports back to 1942 available in one format or another plus they publish their Actuarial Studies and notes http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/pubs.html. While it would be a lot of work you can get under the hood to some degree and see where they have been. But there is not a lot of transparency about their process for projections going forward. Starting in 2003 they introduced a series of Stochastic Projections in the Reports that ostensibly validate Intermediate Cost but which actually don't test the assumptions directly, certainly they never acknowledge that on balance their models have been too pessimistic. That is it doesn't matter have much confidence you have in your probability model if it has failed much more often than not and often enough at or beyond the confidence interval.

My working theory is simple, in fact it is so simple it really can't be true, but then again it works and has survived three years of tests. Whether by design or simply by coincidence the Low Cost alternative, ostensibly the top end of a range of possible outcomes, has for eleven Report years returned the same result: a fully funded Social Security system with no changes in benefits or retirement along with a flat trust fund ratio through the 75 year actuarial window. Operationally it has served as the answer to the following question: 'What set of economic and demographic assumptions would deliver 100% of scheduled benefits through the long term actuarial period (75 years)?" Well one answer to that is 'Low Cost'. It is of course not the only possible answer to the question, other combinations of economic and demographic outcomes might do the same thing, but it is an answer.

Now Intermediate Cost is a little more conceptually troubled because it is constrained by Low Cost. If your best guess is that your median projection meets or beats Low Cost then 'Crisis' is officially over. Which means that Intermediate Cost has to come in below. Close examination of the changes in future assumptions from Report Year to Report Year starting with Clinton era Reports convinced me, and at least of couple of people who checked my work, that Intermediate Cost medium to long term assumptions were deliberately being adjusted to keep Intermediate Cost plausibly below Low Cost. How this could actually be done given a staff of career professionals in the Office of the Chief Actuary, as well as in those agencies who use similar data sets is what makes my simple theory probably not true, then again under motivated changes in out year projections did occur particularly in the 2001-2003 Reports. Moreover the assumptions used by OMB are somewhat different, there is a certain amount of the Left Hand not talking to the Right Hand, to what degree this is deliberate is more a matter of evaluating your particular paranoia level. Bush Administration data handling policy at all levels and across all agencies justifies a certain amount of paranoia, there are documented cases of political appointees modifying scientific work at NASA, NIH and Interior, so it is not crazy to say that Bush people would manipulate the economic data if they could. Then again some really big left economists have told me that given what and who they know that in this case it is impossible. Well okay, but the numbers fall out where they do, I just point them out.

Under this theory you don't need to get under the hood, instead you simply have two dueling models to be evaluated against your best short term and medium term conclusions about economic and demographic changes over the next five, ten and twenty year periods. Which means approaching them like you were a bond trader. As such in most of the last decade the Low Cost 'Bond' has been a better performer than the Intermediate Cost 'Bond'. The 2007 versions look to have split the difference while the 2008 versions have yet to be put up for 'bid'.

Recent news reporting has shown that the outlook for fertility and immigration are brighter than Intermediate Cost projections, on the other hand the current weak patch in the economy is shaping up to have 2008 actually underperform IC projections so I am genuinely uncertain about what the 2008 Report will show. I simply don't believe that taken as a whole that the economy will look so much more bleak over the next thirty years than it did over the last thirty, I firmly believe that outcomes closer to Low Cost are far more likely, but ultimately the only test of future numbers series is the future. To some degree it really doesn't matter how IC and LC numbers were derived, they are what they are and subject to test year in and year out. Which is all I have been doing since 1997.

[dirtyal]

Laf: So what you seem to be saying is that it's alright for you to be cynical, as evidenced in your first posting, but it's not OK for me to by cynical? Is that it?

We can just wait and see. If Barak gets in, we can see if we get positive change. If Hillary gets in, we can see if we have more of the same.

I will remember to check back with you in, say, five years or so.

[Lafayette]

Cynical = distrusting or disparaging the motives of others

Ironic = happening in the opposite way to what is expected

There's a difference. Was I being cynical or ironic? Were you?

Neither really matter in debate, though both are employed. What matters is personal invective, aka ad hominem , because it is offensive. That's a real No-No ... IMHO. (And, no, I am not accusing you of invective.)

PS: I am not the policeman around here, Mark Thoma is. I am expressing my opinion. (So, don't get too bent out of shape. ;^) Frankly, the debate would go nowhere if we all thought alike and indulged uniquely in innocent chit-chat.

[dirtyal]

Thanks Laf: I think we were both being a little bit cynical, but all in the spirity of a good clean exchange of points of view.

I hope we will both be doing this occasionally five years from now and that both remember enough about this exchnge to revisit.

Pretty tall order, no?

[Lafayette]

da: Pretty tall order, no?

Yes, given my experience with such forums.

Enjoy it while you can ...