Category Archives: American Society

Mandatory Sentences.

Posted on by
Reply

 

As someone who reads a lot of undergraduate writing, I’m all in favor of mandatory sentences.  Also, mandatory knowing the differences between the possessive and the plural.  Still, that’s not what most people mean.

What most people mean by “mandatory sentences” is an artifact of the violent and politically-polarized 1970s.[1]  Plagued with violence and the early stages of the now-failed “war on drugs,” Americans supported the passage of laws that took sentencing out of the hands of “bleeding heart liberal” judges.  The first of these appeared in liberal Republican Nelson Rockefeller’s 1973 drug laws in New York state.  Although the laws were passed as a response to a heroin epidemic, anyone arrested in possession of 4 ounces of “narcotics” got 15 years in prison.  Other states followed suit, but the federal government held back.  Then, in 1982, Boston Celtics first-round pick Len Bias dropped dead of a coke overdose before he could play a single game.[2]  House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill (D-Massachusetts) immediately pushed for and won a new federal law that mandated at least five years imprisonment for anyone found in possession of 5 grams of “crack” cocaine.[3]  Anyone convicted of involvement in a “continuing criminal enterprise” (i.e. a drug gang) caught a 20 year bit.

As a result, from the 1970s to today, America has gone from having 600,000 people in prison to having 2.4 million people in prison.  This is, purportedly, the highest per-capita imprisonment rate in the world.  Of those 2.4 million people in prison, 1.3 million are there for non-violent, drug-related crimes.  This costs taxpayers a lot of money: $80 billion a year.

The thing is, most (50+ percent) of the people involved in the drug trade are black.  Really?  Well, not necessarily.  Blacks are four times as likely as are whites to be arrested for possession of marijuana, and they usually catch a 20 percent longer sentence than do whites for the same charge.  That leaves the whole issue of white boys who deal drugs, but don’t get caught, or who get caught and are allowed to plead down.  Not that this happens in every case.[4]

How does imprisonment affect political participation?  About 7.7 percent of the adult African-American population is barred from voting because of having been convicted of a felony.[5]  If African-Americans constitute about 13.0-14.0 percent of the population, then the dis-franchised probably constitute about 1 percent of total potential voters.  That could be enough to swing a tight election.

[1] “Rethinking mandatory sentencing,” The Week, 20 September 2013, p. 11.

[2] The Boston Globe lobbied for Boston to be granted a supplemental draft pick because Bias had never been able to play for the Celtics.  The NBA wasn’t having it.

[3] See: Governor Earl Warren and Japanese  internment.

[4] http://www.phillymag.com/articles/fall-main-line-drug-ring-high-hopes/

[5] “Noted,” The Week, 18 October 2013, p. 16.

Annals of the Great Recession XIII.

Posted on by
Reply

A couple of polls from back in late 2015 may give some indication of fundamental beliefs that will play out in the general election in November 2016.

Back in September 2015, almost half (49 percent) of Americans saw the free-market as the best escalator out of poverty, while a mere 18 percent disagreed.[1]  That still leaves a disturbing 33 percent “not sure.”  Similarly, when asked if the American economic system gave everyone an equal chance to succeed, 52 percent said that it did, while 45 percent said that it did not.[2]  This second report is bizarre.  Do most Americans really believe that the children of upper middle class suburban whites have an equal chance to succeed as a fifteen year-old black girl living with her mother or grandmother in North Philadelphia?  Perhaps it depends on the meaning of “success.”  No two people have an equal chance to end up in the same place, but perhaps they have an equal chance to improve on their starting position.  Perhaps it reflects a belief that people don’t have an equal chance, but that if you admit that there is a problem, then the Democrats or Republicans will come up with some new scheme that doesn’t work any better than the previous ones.  In any event, faith in capitalism has been undermined—by capitalists.

Just under half saw the economy as good, but a plurality saw it as stagnating.  That is, the country had recovered from the “Great Recession,” but it wasn’t moving forward to new heights.  Why was it stagnating?  Not for the reasons that Bernie Sanders might think.  On the issue of government regulation’s impact on the economy, 54 percent said that it posed a more urgent danger than did economic inequality, while 38 percent said that too little regulation posed a more urgent problem.  Republicans and a majority of Independents believed that the Republicans would do a better job managing the economy and creating jobs.[3]  This in the wake of the financial crisis, the “Great Recession,” and Republican opposition to a big stimulus bill!  How is this possible?  Well, perhaps things like the roll-out of Healthcare,gov have made lots of people go “even those idiot Republicans would be better than these clowns.”  Democrats and a minority of Independents beg to differ.  On the question of priorities, the vast majority (61 percent) saw unemployment as a greater problem than inequality (12 percent).[4]  Since the “Great Recession,” Democratic politicians and their favorite economists have been talking about the injustices and economic problems created by income inequality.  Broadly, Americans weren’t buying it.  Get the economy growing again and the inequality stuff will go away.

Wall Street’s reputation hadn’t recovered from the financial crisis.  A large majority (61 percent) expressed Not Much (29 percent) or No (32 percent) confidence in Wall Street bankers and brokers.  Almost a third (31 percent) expressed only Some confidence.  Related to this lack of confidence in Wall Street itself, a majority (58 percent) expressed Not Much (34 percent) or No (24 percent) confidence in the ability of the federal government to regulate financial institutions.  Again, almost a third (31 percent) expressed only Some confidence.  Perhaps this is one source of the distrust and unpopularity of Hillary Clinton?  We know that the Republicans are sold to the big money, but it’s disconcerting to see the guardian of Main Street “walking hand in hand with the one I love.”[5]

[1] Tim Montgomerie, “A Fading Faith in Capitalism,” WSJ, 7-8 November 2015.

[2] Andrew Ross Sorkin and Megan Thee-Brenan, “Many Feel American Dream Is Out of Reach, Poll Shows,” NYT, 11 December 2015.

[3] Then how come Romney didn’t win?  Because, although a very nice and accomplished man, he was an incredible bust as a national level politician?

[4] Montgomerie, “A Fading Faith.”

[5] See—if you can bear it– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVpqtsy1o_4

Is Donald Trump a fascist? If so, is that a bad thing?

Posted on by
Reply

According to Robert Kagan in the Washington Post, Donald Trump constitutes a “singular threat to our democracy.”[1]  Trump’s chief pull on his supporters “is an attitude, an aura of crude strength and machismo, a boasting disrespect for the niceties of the democratic culture that he claims, and his followers believe, has produced national weakness and incompetence.”  He “provoke[s] and play[s] on feelings of resentment and disdain, intermingled with bits of fear, hatred and anger [directed against] Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees…His program,…consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.”

According to Kagan, Trump has aroused the “mobocracy” dreaded by the “Founders.”  Alexander Hamilton feared that “the unleashing of popular passions would lead not to greater democracy but to the arrival of a tyrant, riding to power on the shoulders of the people.”  “[I]n other democratic and quasi-democratic countries over the past century, [this] has generally been called “fascism.”  “Fascist movements had no coherent ideology,… fascism was not about policies but about the strongman, the leader (Il Duce, Der Führer), in whom could be entrusted the fate of the nation.”  “[If Trump] wins the election, his legions will likely comprise a majority of the nation.”  “This is how fascism comes to America, not with jackboots and salutes (although there have been salutes, and a whiff of violence) but with a television huckster, a phony billionaire, a textbook egomaniac “tapping into” popular resentments and insecurities, and with an entire national political party — out of ambition or blind party loyalty, or simply out of fear — falling into line behind him.”

Well, no.  “Fascism” and “national socialism” (another term that Kagan throws around in a devil-may-care fashion) were born of grave social and economic crises ineffectually faced by liberal[2] governments between the two world wars.  The fascist movements adopted an emphatically anti-democratic stance.  They commonly resorted to “exemplary” violence.[3]  They sought to commandeer elections to create an obstructionist group in the legislature so as to paralyze democratic politics.

None of this is true of Donald Trump.  He has never proclaimed his opposition to democracy.  The Trumpsters have engaged in minor violence on rare occasions and usually only when provoked by leftists trying to prevent Trump from speaking.  Trump has no party.

Undoubtedly, the established parties have been put through the wringer in the past decade.  The Republican Party has been battered by the Tea Party movement and now by the Trump insurgency.  The Democrats saw their settled succession overthrown by Barack Obama and now tested by Bernie Sanders.  American voters aren’t just falling into line.  The question of what is behind these movements is enormously important.

I’m not planning on voting for Trump, although his opponents may yet talk me into it.[4]

[1] See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/2016/05/17/c4e32c58-1c47-11e6-8c7b-6931e66333e7_story.html

[2] Small “l” liberal: representative governments; an executive that can be evicted from office when it loses the support of the majority in the legislature; checks and balances; bills of civil rights and the rule of law; more or less free and fair elections.  The New Deal’s reliance on Southern white voters doesn’t disqualify it.  I suppose.

[3] Tying a Socialist mayor to a tree in the town square, then pouring castor oil down his throat, or kicking a newspaper editor to death in front of his wife and children for example.

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiM9L49j7HY

Really? Really?

Posted on by
Reply

Security lines at American airports have grown longer, delays have increased[1], and it looks to get worse as the summer travel season occurs.[2]  Why did things get worse?  Is there anything that can be done about the problem?  Are there any larger lessons to be derived from this unpleasant experience?

Since 2011, the number of air travelers has increased by 12 percent, while the number of screeners has declined by 12 percent (5,702).  More travelers x fewer screeners = longer lines at airports.  OK, that’s simple.              Congress hastily appropriated $34 million to hire 768 new screeners.[3]  Part of the decrease in the number of screeners comes from the “promotion” of the cream of screeners into a behavior detection unit.  Loosely modeled on Israeli airline security, the group has been of doubtful utility.  More importantly, people don’t like working as TSA screeners: they lose about 35 percent of their workforce every year because they quit.[4]  You think it’s boring standing in lines, taking off your belt, shoes, under-wire bra to pander to the latest case of the vapors?  Try sitting for eight hours staring at a little screen at something not produced for X-tube.

Recently, the Inspector General of the TSA humiliated the agency by releasing a report that showed that TSA screeners had missed a bunch of potential security threats.  The TSA responded by enforcing strict fulfillment of regulations.[5]  These same regulations apply to private screeners employed in many airports, so going private will not solver anything.

Senators Edward Markey and Richard Blumenthal, Democrats both, have suggested that the problem created by the publicly-owned federal bureaucracy could be partially addressed by penalizing the privately-owned airlines.  They want the airlines to end the charge for checked baggage to speed up processing of carry-on baggage.

Jeh Johnson, the head of the Department of Homeless Security, announced that the Department would increase the hours of overtime that it would pay,[6]  hire more screeners, and increase the use of bomb-sniffing dogs.[7]  Even so, airline travel in Summer 2016 is going to be even more awful than usual.

This “minor”—I’m not flying anywhere this summer, so it’s minor—catastrophe engages several issues.  First, private industry failed on 9/11, so the government substituted a federal agency that isn’t any better.  The TSA doesn’t track industry trends or communicate with the airlines in order to facilitate travel?  If Yes, why didn’t they respond in a timely fashion?  If No, why is that?  Second, labor unions employ “work to rule” as a non-strike slow-down technique in bargaining.  Here it is being employed by a federal agency against its critics. Without anyone being fired.  Third, this is how Bernie Sanders wants the whole American economy to run.

[1] At Chicago’s O’Hare airport, 6,800 Eastern Airlines passengers missed their flights in March 2016, including 450 passengers in one day.

[2] Ron Nixon, “Behind the Backups at Airport Security,” NYT, 19 May 2016, .

[3] That averages out to a unit cost of $44,200 each.  Presumably, this includes federal benefits.  So, what do you think, about $33-35,000 in base pay, plus about a quarter in benefits?  Sounds about right for former high school custodians.

[4] “Anger mounts at TSA over airport security chaos,” The Week, 27 May 2016, p. 5.

[5] So travelers are being punished for the failings of the TSA?

[6] So the number of tired, bored people looking for threats on your flight will increase.

[7] You ever wonder if terrorist scientists are working on dog-sniffing bombs?  “He, King, whadda ya smell?  BOOM!”  Anyway, the Brussels airport bombing shows that bombs in the lobby can also be highly effective.  What caused the greater uproar, the Brussels bombings or the loss of the Egyptian airliner?

It ain’t necessarily so 4.

Posted on by
Reply

“There are more than 1,000 fatal shootings by police in the US each year, and those killed are disproportionately African-American.”  http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36339286

 

What does “disproportionately” mean?

In 2015, police officers shot to death 662 whites and Hispanics and 258 blacks.[1]  Thus, with 14 percent of the American population, blacks accounted for 28 percent of deaths at the hands of police.  Leaving aside the small number of Asian-American deaths at the hands of the police, whites and Hispanics accounted for about 85 percent of the population and 72 percent of the deaths at the hands of the police.  So, yes, obviously blacks are over-represented among those killed by police.

However, the police are not the only danger faced by blacks.  In 2014, there were 6,095 black homicide deaths.  There were 5,397 white and Hispanic homicide deaths.  That is a total of 11,492 homicide deaths.  Black homicide deaths amounted to 53 percent of the total, while blacks amount to 14 percent of the population.

The 662 whites and Hispanic shot to death by police in 2015 amounted to approximately 12 percent of all white and Hispanic homicides.  The 258 blacks shot to death by police in 2015 amounted to approximately 4 percent of all black homicides.  In comparison to the over-all danger of a violent death, black homicide victims were: a) less likely to die at the hands of the police than were white or Hispanic homicide victims; and b) less likely to die from a police shooting than from a non-police shooting.  According to one study of New York City by a University of Pennsylvania criminologist, black officers at a shooting were 3.3 times more likely than were other officers to fire their weapon.  Perhaps they’re less worried about being called racists for smoking somebody who gestured at them with a weapon?

According to the EffaBeeEye, between 2005 and 2015, 40 percent of cop-killers were black, while about 14 percent of the population is black.  Blacks kill cops at 2.5 times the rate at which cops kill blacks.

The homicide rate in the United States is 3.8 per 100,000 people.  The homicide rate in Venezuela is 53.7 per 100,000.  The homicide rate in Honduras is 90.4 per 100,000.[2]  The homicide rate in the West Garfield Park neighborhood of Chicago is 116.7 per 100,000.  By late April 2016 more than 1,000 people had been killed in Chicago.  If this death toll stays on that track there will be at least 3,000 homicides in the city by Christmas 2016.  Most of the deaths are attributed to gang-related shootings.[3]  There were 2,996 dead in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The reality—and the glaring tragedy utterly ignored by white America—is that many blacks live in a cauldron of violence.  According to the US Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2009, in 75 counties, blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders, and 45 percent of assaults.  Blacks made up 15 percent of the population in those counties.  America remains a deeply segregated society, so these are a pretty good measure of the victimization rates among blacks.

What caused this disaster?  The war on drugs?  The unintended consequences of anti-poverty programs?  White flight from big cities to escape turmoil and violence—and integration?  How many of our problems run back to the Sixties and Seventies?  When America was “great.”

[1] Heather MacDonald, “The Myths of Black Lives Matter,” WSJ, 12 February 2016.

[2] “Noted,” The Week, 23 October 2015, p. 16.

[3] “Noted,” The Week, 6 May 2016, p. 16.

Expect the Unexpected.

Posted on by
Reply

Change and innovation lead to un-foreseen effects.  Caller ID allows people to tell whether they are being called by someone they know or by some unknown person.  If the call comes at the dinner-hour, it’s 99.9 percent sure to be somebody trying to raise money for the local fire department or somebody conducting a survey.  In either case, most people don’t want to talk to the caller.  In 1997, the response rate to telephone surveys was a measly 36 percent (unless you count “Go to Hell!” as a response).  By 2014 it had fallen to 9 percent.[1]  How exactly is anyone supposed to measure public opinion if the public won’t give it?  Hard for politicians to pander to the voters if they don’t know what the voters want to hear.  Maybe they’re stuck pandering to the donors?  We could end up back in the land of “Dewey Beats Truman!”

“Baby Boomers” are entering the “golden years.”  One natural response to having the kids out of the house is “downsizing” to a smaller home or an apartment.  Lots of older people with—comparatively—lots of money are entering the market for smaller homes and apartments.  This pushes up the price of what used to be “starter homes” (now to be re-labeled “finisher homes”?) and the rent for apartments.  Between 1995 and 2005, the average share of income devoted to rent was 24 percent.  By Summer 2015, it had risen to 30.2 percent.[2]  This is likely to make things more difficult for younger people with—comparatively—less money.[3]

The “fracking revolution” has brought down energy prices.  (By August 2015, they were at a six-year low.)  The fall in energy prices has damped down inflation.  Low inflation means that—for the third time since 2010—Social Security recipients will see no increase in their benefits.  On the other hand, Medicare premiums are not linked to the inflation rate.  So these will rise in 2016.[4]  The disposable income of retirees is likely to shrink.

When energy (if not yet the climate) became a grave concern back in the 1970s, a sustained drive got underway to make all sorts of things more energy efficient.  Today, American houses are 31 percent more energy efficient than they were forty years ago.  On the other hand, American homes are 57 percent larger than they were forty years ago.  In the 1970s the average American home was about 1,300 square feet.  In 2012 the average American home was 1,864 square feet.  The most recently built homes are averaging 2,657 square feet.  This cancels out the gains in efficiency.[5]  Several puzzles arise.  Where does the extra space go?  Garages?  Bigger bedrooms for the kids?  A bathroom every ten feet?  Why are homes larger when families are smaller?  What is it like to live in one of these homes?  Do family-members retreat into their own space and close the door?  Is the same thing true of the improved gas mileage of cars?  Is efficiency improved, but we drive more?

The current, much-discussed surge in opiod addiction has led to a surge in deaths from drug overdoses.  That, in turn, has led to a rise in the number of organ donors.  They now provide better than ten percent of all organ donations, up from about 3 percent in 2006.[6]  So, higher death rates for some mean longer lives for others.

After the San Bernardino terrorist attack liberals characterized the attack as a “mass shooting” and called for tighter gun controls. Unlicensed gun-dealers, a common “bete noire” of gun control advocates, came in for special presidential attention.  Gun sales zoomed upward.  In December 2015, Americans bought 3.3 million guns.  All of these sales have been from licensed gun-dealers because the government background check system has been swamped.  Attorney General Loretta Lynch has asked for the hiring of 430 additional people just to process the background checks of Americans complying with the existing gun laws.[7]

The Americans with Disabilities Act bars discrimination against people with disabilities.  Some of this is left open to interpretation by government officials.  As a result, the state of Iowa will issue gun permits to blind people.[8]

Should these random reports make people cautious in regarding business plans, campaign platforms (“The New” Anything), or succeeding at their New Year’s Resolutions?  Just asking.

[1] “The bottom line,” The Week, 5 September 2014, p. 32.

[2] “Noted,” The Week, 28 August, 2015, p. 14.

[3] “The bottom line,” The Week, 15 October 2015, p. 36.

[4] “The bottom line,” The Week, 30 October 2015, p. 36.

[5] “The bottom line,” The Week, 20 November 2015, p. 32; “Noted,” The Week, 27 November 2015, p. 16.  .

[6] “Noted,” The Week, 20 May 2016, p. 18.

[7] “Noted,” The Week, 5 February 2016, p.8.

[8] “Noted,” The Week, 20 September 2013, p. 16.

Single Payer.

Posted on by
1

The great achievement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been to extend medical insurance to a large share of the previously uninsured.  The great failing of the ACA has been to fail to address the comparatively high cost of medical care in the United States.

Many foreign countries have single-payer systems.  They also pay a much smaller share of GDP for medical care.  The real issue here is that single-payer countries pay doctors and other medical care or service providers a lot less than does the United States.[1]  American physicians, nurses, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies all make more than do their European or Japanese equivalents.  For example, British general practitioners make between $81,000 and $122,000 a year, while the average GP in America makes $208,000 a year.  Similarly, the pay differentials between GPs and specialists are much greater in the United States than elsewhere.  Then, some kinds of care are less available or unavailable elsewhere.  (For example, apparently European doctors don’t believe in allergies or depression.  Or try getting a single-patient room in a European hospital.)  One recent estimate holds that a single-payer system in the United States could bargain-down prices for prescription drugs to about 25 percent below the level that Medicare currently pays, which is lower than what the private system pays.  That suggests the scale of pharmaceutical company profits in America compared to other countries.  To get the cost of American medicine down to Western European or Japanese levels, the incomes of these people would have to be compressed.

One economic argument against the Sanders plan is that he proposes to extend coverage beyond the core insurance provided by the Affordable Care Act to include dental care and long-term nursing care.  These would run-up the over-all cost of the program.  At the same time, Sanders would do away with premiums and out-of-pocket costs.  A huge cost increase.

However, the “real” economic argument against the Sanders plan is that it would require a massive tax increase to pay for government-provided universal health care.  This is a misleading argument.  Americans already pay for medical care through premiums, out-of-pocket costs, and lower wages in exchange for health insurance.  They already pay for dental care and for long-term nursing care.  They just do it as private individuals.  (Employer-provided insurance is just an employment benefit that should be taxed like other forms of income.)

The Sanders plan would eliminate private health insurance companies; it would force down the incomes of hospitals and drug manufacturers; it would compress the incomes of doctors and nurses.  None of these institutions or individuals is much inclined to give up the current income structure.  There would be enormous push-back.  Along these lines, Paul Krugman has argued that the U.S. should not try for a single-payer system.  A Medicare-for-all system would require tax increases on the middle class, rather than just on the wealthy.  People with employer-provided health-care would be forced into an inferior system, to their distress.  Republicans would never go for it.  So it is politically impossible.[2]  However, that’s a political argument against the Sanders plan.  It isn’t an economic argument.

There is a lot to be said for this argument from a political realist perspective. Real power doesn’t just reside on Wall Street.  It also resides in suits, white coats over scrubs, and in flowery smocks and Crocs.  Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to bell the cat.  Bernie Sanders’s pull with young people means that the issue isn’t going away when he does.

[1] Margot Sanger-Katz, “Why a Single-Payer Plan Would Still Be Really Costly,” NYT, 17 May 2016.

[2] “Single-payer health care is a pipe dream,” The Week, 29 January 2016, p. 12.

It ain’t necessarily so 3.

Posted on by
Reply

Poverty-induced hunger used to be a grave problem in America.  Michael Harrington’s The Other America: Poverty in the United States (1962) documented hunger among America’s large population of poor people, as well as many other ills.  One response appeared in the Food Stamp Act (1964).  Over the last fifty year, this program has greatly reduced hunger among poor Americans.  Today, less than 1 percent of households worry about having enough to eat or go without adequate food on a daily basis.  It is a remarkable success story about government’s ability to solve problems.

However, bureaucracies and advocacy groups foster mission-creep.  Backed by advocacy groups created at an earlier time, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has moved from reducing widespread real hunger to grappling with “food insecurity” and poor diet choices.

The USDA asserts that 14 percent of households are “food insecure” and another 5.6 percent had “very low food security.”  Not so fast, say critics.  It has been demonstrated for several decades now that average intakes of nutrients are similar for children living in poverty and children not living in poverty, and between black and white.[1]   The real problem is obesity, not “food insecurity.”  Currently, 38 percent of all Americans are obese, 42 percent of Hispanic-Americans, and 48 percent of African-Americans are obese.[2]

Similarly, “food desert” became a term much in vogue five years ago.[3]  According to the USDA, in urban areas it is a place where at least 33 percent of the population lives at least a mile from a supermarket and at least 20 percent live below the poverty line.  In rural areas, the distance to qualify is ten miles.  This isn’t just a convenience issue in the eyes of the Obama Administration.  It is also a health issue.  Lack of access to fresh foods drives people to rely on processed foods and fast foods.  A steady diet of Big Macs and soda leads to obesity, with a host of medical complications.

Not so fast, say critics.  First of all, 93 percent of the people who live in these supposed “food deserts” have access to a car.  In addition, in cities there is public transportation.  Saying a grocery store is a mile or more away is meaningless.

Second, there are five fast-food outlets for every supermarket for a reason.  That reason is market demand.  Many people prefer fast foods and processed foods to fresh foods even when they have a choice.  Fast foods cost less than do fresh foods.  Fast foods are full of fat, salt, and sugar, so they taste better than do fresh foods.  Fast foods and a lot of the stuff sold in convenience stores don’t require any higher-order cooking skills than the ability to work a microwave.

Well, is there a way to stop people from doing what they want, when what they want is bad for them?  It’s difficult.  In 2010, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to have soda dropped from the “foods” eligible for purchase with food stamps.  Advocay groups and minority communities pushed back.  The USDA rejected Bloomberg’s idea.  Los Angeles gave it a try by using zoning laws to restrict the number of fast-food outlets in poorer parts of the city.  The question is whether the restrictions have just displaced fast-food consumers from their home “food desert” to some other area where no such restriction apply or if they have just led to longer lines at existing fast-food outlets.

Sometimes solving one problem can lead to other problems, even imaginary ones.

[1] Robert Paarlberg, “Obesity: The New Hunger,” WSJ, 11 May 2016.

[2] Paarlberg, “Obesity.”

[3] “America’s ‘food deserts’,” The Week, 19-26 August 2011, p. 11.

It ain’t necessarily so 2.

Posted on by
Reply

The current presidential candidates are selling snake oil when it comes to the economy.[1]

“The economy is rigged”—Bernie Sanders, with Hillary Clinton yapping along behind.  The economy is “rigged” only in the sense that economic change has assigned a lot of value to skills and education, and virtually no value to just showing up.  In a period of economic transformation, a modern economy shifts resources from low-productivity sectors to higher-productivity sectors.  All those in the skilled and educated sectors profit, while those in the less-educated and less-skilled sectors lose.  That isn’t the same as saying—as Sanders and Clinton imply—that a cabal of Wall Street bankers are making all the decisions for the nation at large.

“We don’t make things anymore”—Donald Trump.  In fact, it depends on what the meaning of “we” is.  On the one hand, the total value of goods manufactured in the United States is at its highest level, almost 50 percent higher than in the late 1990s.[2]  On the other hand, employment in manufacturing has declined by 29 percent over the same period.  Under the pressure of foreign competition, productivity in manufacturing has increased through new technological innovations.  Indeed, in the many days ago, it was the competition from highly productive American manufacturing that forced adaptation on foreign countries.

“I do not believe in unfettered free trade”—Bernie Sanders.  The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have been condemned for exporting jobs to developing countries.  In fact, most academic economists—highly astute people on the left—believe that the evidence shows that free trade has been good for the United States.  It has destroyed some jobs, but it has created many others.  Job loss at big, old-fashioned firms is easier for the media to document than is job-creation at many small firms.

“I want to make sure the wealthy pay their fair share, which they have not been doing”—Hillary Clinton.[3]  While exceptions exist, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that the fabled top “one percent” of earners pays at a rate of 33 percent, while the middle three-fifths of earners pay at an average rate of 13 percent.[4]

“The Laffer curve.  HA!”—me.  Republicans promise that big tax cuts will lead to robust economic growth.  The Mellon Plan of the 1920s and JFK’s tax cut of 1963 seem to bear out this claim.  However, the Reagan and Bush II tax cuts did not stimulate much economic growth.[5]  Still, tax cuts leading to growth has become a Republican mantra.  Actually, the amount of growth from tax cuts is very uncertain.  What is certain is the impact of further tax cuts on the deficit.  Tax cuts will produce bigger deficits.  According to one estimate, Donald Trump’s tax plan would reduce federal income by 29 percent.

What Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton are trying to say is that Americans have become uncomfortable with adapting to change and competition.  That is easy to understand.  From 1945 to the 1970s, the American economy led the world.  Americans got used to high incomes from less work.  Then, the rest of the world caught up.  Sometimes this came in the form of better quality goods; sometimes in the form of lower prices.  Now it’s up to us to learn how to compete again.

[1] Gregory Mankiw, “The Economy Is Rigged, And Other Campaign Myths,” NYT, 8 May 2016.

[2] That is, during the now longed-for “golden years” of the Clinton administration.

[3] Asked to define “fair” taxes on the upper 40 percent of earners, my beloved sister-in-law says, “well, more.”

[4] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/

[5] To be fair, the Reagan administration also had to wring-out a lot of inflation by slamming the brakes on money creation.  This led to high interest rates, slow growth, and high unemployment.

It ain’t necessarily so 1.

Posted on by
Reply

In 2002, a campaign finance law outlawed political spending by either unions or corporations during the last sixty days before an election.[1]  In 2010, the Supreme Court overturned this law in its “Citizens United” decision.  This led to widespread outrage among Democrats, who portrayed the decision as allowing millionaires and billionaires to buy all the political power they wanted.  Certainly, it looked like the Koch Brothers wanted to buy the 2016 election if it was for sale: they announced plans to spend almost $900 million in support of favored candidates.   That is as much as either of the two major parties.

Recent presidential elections haven’t done much to support this theory.  In the 2012 election Mitt Romney got beat by Barack Obama.  So far in the 2016 presidential primaries, Jeb Bush piled up a war-chest of $100 million, then got run off the road.  Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Rodham Clinton have raised $362 million; the last six Republican candidates raised $286 million.  Sanders, with $182 million, and Clinton, with $180 million, far out stripped Ted Cruz, with $78.2 million.  As for Donald Trump, he has raised about $50 million.[2]  Current guestimations are that Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and the White House.

Democrats fume that the rich still control everything because of their influence behind the scenes and because their ads resonate with idiots.  Even if the Democrats do win the White House on occasion, they can’t get anything done because of the obstruction by the Congressional toadies of the rich.   Journalist Jane Mayer has done much to highlight the influence—real or imagined–of the Koch brothers.[3]  It’s difficult to know exactly how much influence the Kochs have had.  Much of their money has gone to shaping the intellectual debate on the role of government.  Thus, they have donated to libertarian-leaning think-tanks and universities.[4]  A lot of it has gone to support right-wing challengers to mainstream Republicans in primaries.  This, it is said, compels mainstream Republicans to veer right to fend off challengers.

This argument works on the unspoken assumption that Republican voters themselves have moved farther right even as mainstream Republican politicians remained more centrist until challenged in a primary election.  Why might Republican voters have come to believe in a smaller government?  At the risk of forcing square pegs into round holes, consider a couple of statistics.  First, 22.4 percent of workers now need a government license to get and keep their jobs.  Nearly 20 percent of those in non-medical fields needed such a license.[5]  Second, on average, people spend 35 hours a year filling out government forms of one kind or another.[6]  However, adults fill out forms for their children and often for their own elderly parents.  For these people—who are of voting age—the real amount of time spent filling out forms might be double or triple the average.  So, a work-week or two out of their lives each year.  Perhaps this is part of what has shifted some voters to the right?

[1] “Citizens United: Has big money lost its power?” The Week, 29 January 2016, p. 17.

[2] http://elections.uscommonsense.org/

[3] Jane Mayer, Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right (New York: Doubleday, 2016).

[4] Recently, the editorial pages of the New York Times have witnessed much hand-wringing over the absence of conservative voices in academia.  This is attributed to an apparent liberal bias in hiring.  The effect, however, is to provide the Democratic Party with an army of spokesmen for the pro-government argument.  On the other hand, much of the funding for these spokesmen is traceable.  Much of it comes from taxes and tuition paid by people who are not on the left.

[5] “The bottom line,” The Week, 6 May 2016, p. 36.

[6] “Noted,” The Week, 6 May 2016, p. 16.