Unintended Health Insurance Consequences

WASHINGTON (AP):

Some major health insurance companies will no longer issue certain types of policies for children, an unintended consequence of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law, state officials said Friday.

[ . . . ]

The major types of coverage for children - employer plans and government programs - are not be affected by the disruption. But a subset of policies - those that cover children as individuals - may run into problems. Even so, insurers are not canceling children's coverage already issued, but refusing to write new policies.

The administration reacted sharply to the pullback. "We're disappointed that a small number of insurance companies are taking this unwarranted and unnecessary step," said Jessica Santillo, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services department.

Yesterday it was unintended consequences of "financial reform."

I wonder how people in the administration know these actions by insurance companies are "unwarranted and unnecessary?" It seems to me they must lack the knowledge these businesses need in their efforts to make a profit, and thus a living for many people, by supplying others with health insurance. The "health care reform" statute seems to attempt to force insurance businesses to structure risk pools in specific ways that would not otherwise have been chosen by these businesses. It seems to me one likely result of such government actions will be that at least some insurance businesses find that it is better to stop insuring than to try to earn a living insuring and following the government's new statute.

Economists on Government & This Recession

JOHN B. TAYLOR:

Some argue that we need more deficit spending—another stimulus package—to boost the economy. I agree that the economy needs a boost, but not in the form of increased deficit spending. In my view, the economy is being held back by high deficit spending and related policy uncertainties. The large deficits are causing the federal debt to explode, raising concerns about how it will be financed.

VERNON L. SMITH:

So what has been the government’s response in the current crisis? Besides spending stimulus, it was tax incentives for new home buyers and cash for clunkers if you bought a new car. All three are programs for borrowing output, homes and cars from future production and sales. Using subsidies to pump up home sales beyond what people could afford was the problem that led to the crisis. Now the problem is touted as the solution.

Liability For An Uncertain Future?

WALL STREET JOURNAL:

The nation's three dominant credit-ratings providers have made an urgent new request of their clients: Please don't use our credit ratings.

The odd plea is emerging as the first consequence of the financial overhaul that is to be signed into law by President Obama on Wednesday. And it already is creating havoc in the bond markets, parts of which are shutting down in response to the request.

Standard & Poor's, Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings are all refusing to allow their ratings to be used in documentation for new bond sales, each said in statements in recent days. Each says it fears being exposed to new legal liability created by the landmark Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

The new law will make ratings firms liable for the quality of their ratings decisions, effective immediately. The companies say that, until they get a better understanding of their legal exposure, they are refusing to let bond issuers use their ratings.

[ . . . ]

Once the bill is signed into law, advice by the services will be considered "expert" if used in formal documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That definition would make them legally liable for their work, meaning that it will be easier to sue an firm if a bond doesn't perform up to the stated rating.

That is a change from the current law, which considers ratings merely an opinion, protected like any other media such as a newspaper.

Perhaps this is a nice illustration of the unintended consequences of actions taken by government, in this case Congress and the President. I assume Congress and the President did not intend for providers of bond credit-ratings to respond to their legislation by deciding to no longer be providers of bond credit-ratings.

On the other hand, perhaps Congress and the President did intend for this result. Who will provide bond credit-ratings if private businesses won't? I guess government could.

I also wonder why it is thought to be a good idea to say a provider of credit-ratings has liability for actions taken by others who consult these ratings. It seems to me that trying to create such liability amounts to saying the providers of credit-ratings should be liable for an uncertain future. The future is inherently uncertain, and while credit-ratings may provide some information about the risk involved in certain kinds of actions taken today, it seems to me foolish to believe that credit-ratings accurately predict the uncertain risk, much less remove the risk.

Tax Cuts For The Most Fortunate

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner:

We believe it is appropriate to let those tax cuts that go to the most fortunate expire

Most fortunate?

So, I wonder how these guys think a person gets income? To use a phrase like "most fortunate" suggests to me that they don't think income is earned, because if it is earned then large income may go to those who work hardest and that have the greatest abilities in producing goods and services for others.

I wonder how these guys think a person gains wealth? It seems to me wealth is chosen. In order to have wealth, I think a person has to choose to save something out of current income by not spending everything that he or she earns. I don't think the bottom line is that a person is fortunate to have wealth. It seems to me a person is wise to try to choose wealth by not consuming all that he or she earns.

Tax Increases & The Economy

Ever wonder about the idea that tax increases can be bad for the economy? Well the TAXPROF BLOG points out that apparently the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers has just published research which "indicates that tax increases are highly contractionary":

Christina D. Romer (Chair, Council of Economic Advisers) & David H. Romer (UC-Berkeley, Department of Economics) have published The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on a New Measure of Fiscal Shocks, 100 Am. Econ. Rev. 763 (2010). Here is the abstract:

This paper investigates the impact of tax changes on economic activity. We use the narrative record, such as presidential speeches and Congressional reports, to identify the size, timing, and principal motivation for all major postwar tax policy actions. This analysis allows us to separate legislated changes into those taken for reasons related to prospective economic conditions and those taken for more exogenous reasons. The behavior of output following these more exogenous changes indicates that tax increases are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes.

Since the lead author is an adviser to the President, I'm wondering why the President, and members of Congress as well, are interested, especially in a period of recession and high unemployment, in letting tax cuts during the Bush Presidency expire. Hmmm. . . .tax increases "are highly contactionary." Maybe these elected representatives think the Romers aren't very good economic researchers? Maybe these elected representatives think there is good reason to believe things will be different this time around? Maybe these elected representatives have other goals than seeing the economy pull out of this recession?

Congress Created Them All

DON BOUDREAUX in a letter to the Washington Post:

You’re right to worry that Uncle Sam responded to the public’s anxiety about terrorism by creating an overgrown intelligence bureaucracy with bloated budgets that strain our wallets and arbitrary powers that mock the Constitution as they threaten our freedoms . . . Will bureaucrats in, say, the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection spend taxpayer funds more wisely than do bureaucrats in the NSA? Is the power to command people to purchase health insurance, or the power to prohibit consenting adults from buying and selling certain kinds of financial instruments, really so mild and beneficial that we should calmly welcome the exercise of these powers while we simultaneously quake with fear at the exercise of “intelligence” powers?

July 4, 1776

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

. . . And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Federal Taxes on the Rich & the Poor

Average Federal Tax Rate by Income Quintile, 1979-2007

From the CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE:

The pattern of average tax rates has varied over time. The lowest three income quintiles have seen steady declines in their average rate. The tax rate on the fourth quintile was flat over most of this period, before declining in the early part of this decade. The tax rate on the top quintile has fluctuated more, with periods of increases and decreases.

By the way, since this information comes from the CBO, we should assume that every member of Congress has this information available to him or her, or at least to staff members. So, the next time a member of Congress in on a soapbox opining about taxes on the rich and the poor, you will be able to judge the veracity of the assertions.

Independence Day?

CHIDEM KURDAS:

Our government has managed to create endless opportunities, but not for ordinary people—only for political operators and influence peddlers, with the Obama Administration pushing some 4,500 pages of medical and financial regulation just in its first 18 months.

Something to celebrate this Independence Day, eh?

What Do Inequality Data Mean?

Steven Horwitz has an interesting post on inequality data. Here is the way he understands what the data means:

Carroll uses a nice analogy from Schumpeter that I'd never heard before: the distribution of income is like a hotel with some really fancy rooms on the top floors and some very basic ones on the bottom. All the rooms are always full, but who occupies which rooms changes from year to year.

If one wants to stretch the analogy a bit more, it's also the case that each year brings a new upgrade to every room. What constitutes a "basic" room gets slightly more luxurious each year as standards of living rise, and the same is true on other floors. It might be the case that the upgrades to the top floor rooms are proportionally greater than those to the basic and middle floor rooms, but given that the occupants of the rooms switch around from year to year, those greater improvements at the top are still consistent with improvements in the absolute standard of living for many.

And to take the analogy even further: if we account for immigration and other new entrants to the labor force, it's as if the hotel keeps adding rooms/floors on each year at the lower/basic level, enabling everyone else to potentially keep moving up (assuming that some occupants die or leave the country!).

I've often noted in my courses that aggregate data hide a large amount of important information. In the case of the static aggregate income distribution data, we cannot see what happens over time and within each income quintile.

It seems that many people assume a person who is in the lowest income quintile in any year will also be in the lowest income quintile 5 years and 10 years later. It also seems many assume that a person in the top income quintile in one year will still be in that top income quintile 5 years and 10 years later. If you check out Mr. Horwitz's post you can learn that such conclusions are not well-founded. For example:

Of those taxpayer households in the lowest quintile of income in 1999, 57.5% had moved up at least one quintile by 2007 and over 30% jumped two quintiles or more.

Of those in the top 1% in 1999, only 44.6% were still there in 2007.

Oil Spills & Executive Powers

I recently commented on the following taken from a speech by President Obama:

"Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent third party.

I asked if such actions as these promised by the President fall within existing statutes and also the responsibilities of the courts? The point of the earlier comment was different than this. So, I want to explain my concerns about what the President said in his speech.

In order to determine who has a legitimate claim for damages against BP, and in order to determine the amount of such damages, I think it is the case that the President, or an independent third party picked by the President, will have to make decisions and take actions that are supposed to, constitutionally, be within the Judicial power of government.

Shouldn't it be a significant concern to ask, and answer, whether or not the President has exceeded his constitutionally granted Executive power to inform the CEO of BP that he must set aside $20 billion? If a President can decide what a legitimate claim is against BP, and if a President can decide how much compensation must be paid by BP, then what is the difference between the Judicial branch and the Executive branch of government?

Oil Spills, Oil Producers & Governments, Part 2

We might find another illustration of how earlier, and not easily seen, federal government actions could be involved in the BP Gulf Oil spill by wondering about something the President said in his recent OVAL OFFICE SPEECH:

Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company's recklessness. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent third party.

I don't understand this idea that the President will tell BP it has a liability for this accident, and further that the President is going to require BP to create an escrow account to be administered by an "independent third party." Don't such actions fall within existing statutes and responsibilities of the courts?

My first thought is to wonder about why the President would think actions such as these are appropriate and necessary. I have assumed all along that BP is liable for the damages caused by the oil spilled because of an accident involved with it's production of oil. I certainly expect that if I caused oil to be spilled on my neighbor's property, that I would be fully liable for the damages my actions caused to my neighbor. So, I assume BP understands already that it is liable for the damages.

This also leads me to wonder about why the President has been spending so much time and effort in his public speeches insisting that BP is going to be made to pay for the environmental harm it has caused. Once again, I assume that in the same way that I know I would be made to pay for harm I cause to others, BP knows it will have to pay for the harm it's actions have caused others.

But, now I think that perhaps I should start to by a bit more of my normal, cynical and dismal economist self. Do I smell a rat?

Perhaps I do. THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990 "imposes liability for removal costs and damages resulting from an incident in which oil is discharged into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic zone." Yep, just what I assumed to be true. But, the Act also limits liability:

Liability is limited by specific dollar amounts, which vary depending on the type of vessel or facility involved. These limits do not apply in the case of gross negligence or willful misconduct or the violation of an applicable federal safety, construction, or operating regulation or for failure to cooperate in certain specified ways.

Oh my, perhaps BP believed it would not be fully liable for the damages caused by an accident that resulted a spill such as is occurring in the Gulf. Can you imagine, Congress created a statute in 1990 (and some President must have signed it) that both made it clear that BP was liable for damage caused by this accident, and at the same time the statute told BP (and all other oil producers in the Gulf) that it's liability was limited, that it would not be fully liable.

Well, you can see the incentives partial liability creates for BP and every other oil producer in the Gulf. At the margin, this limited liability statute should result in BP being at least a little less cautious in it's operations than it would otherwise be. Same incentive and response by all the Gulf oil producers as well. In other words, by limiting liability with this statute Congress and the President did two things: (1) Incentives to produce oil in the Gulf were increased, and (2) the probability of an accident occurring in the Gulf was increased.

Now we come to the second sentence in the limited liability quotation above. I suspect members of Congress also understood the incentives they would create by limiting liability. So, of course, Congress also writes laws that allow for the Executive Branch to regulate how BP, and the other oil producers in the Gulf, go about the business of producing oil from Gulf waters. Do you remember hearing reports after the accident, and before the Oval Office speech, that BP had requested that the government agency overseeing its operations modify several permits in the last day or two before the accident? I'm guessing this indicates that the government regulatory agency was at least supposed to be closely involved in making sure BP's actions met with all the things government thought BP was supposed to be doing.

I think this is another illustration of government's involvement in the actions of people and businesses in the economy that we cannot easily see. It is my view that government should not limit liability, and that especially in the case of deep water oil production government's role should be to strictly enforce full liability.

And, because government regulatory actions are involved in oil production in the Gulf, my default position has to be that government has some part to share in this accident, unless it can be shown that BP violated permits and regulations that if followed would have prevented this specific accident from happening.

Finally, returning to the President's statement quoted above, I think there are some additional serious issues to bring up. I will do that with another post in the future.

Enough Money?

TOM SOWELL on politicians and enough money:

"One of the many shallow statements that sound good-- if you don't stop and think about it-- is that 'at some point, you have made enough money.'

The key word in this statement, made by President Barack Obama recently, is "you." There is nothing wrong with my deciding how much money is enough for me or your deciding how much money is enough for you, but when politicians think that they should be deciding how much money is enough for other people, that is starting down a very slippery slope.

Politicians with the power to determine each citizen's income are no longer public servants. They are public masters."

You should read the whole piece.

Oil Spills, Oil Producers & Governments

The accident in the gulf is a pretty ugly sight. I'm sure there is no person alive who actually likes the accident and the aftermath, which of course continues.

Today you can read news reports of our political leaders holding hearings to point fingers and hold the culprit's feet to the fire. And, of course, you may have read or heard the President castigating the oil producers and promising to kick the appropriate butts.

You can also read reports that assert British Petroleum made numerous bad decisions that led to the accident, and which were made in an effort to save some costs and improve profits. Even if there is some truth to such allegations, there may be more involved in terms of the incentives and the tradeoffs than meets the eye.

I make this last assertion myself because I'm come to believe government policy is almost always involved, and it is almost always well hidden from us, unless we are able to spend much time reading statutes, regulations, and executive orders.

STEVEN HORWITZ has written about just one example related to this accident:

"The Jones Act is actually section 27 of the MMA and requires 'that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.' This, of course, includes the Gulf of Mexico. Thus any attempt to move equipment from one U.S. port to another for the purpose of either stopping or cleaning up the Deepwater Horizon leak must involve U.S. ships, fully constructed in the U.S., etc..

Of course in a world of globalized trade few such ships exist. In fact, a number of foreign-constructed or crewed ships are in U.S ports at the moment and could easily transport oil sucking equipment or more booms to the Gulf, but the Jones Act prevents them from doing so. Like the school buses that sat in a parking lot while folks were stranded during Hurricane Katrina, those non-U.S. ships and their equipment are sitting idle while an environmental disaster unfolds."

Professor Horwitz mentions the buses and Katrina because he wants to point out that the Jones Act was apparently waived two days after the hurricane. I haven't read the Jones Act, so I am not aware of whether the Act itself includes conditions by which it might be waived. Perhaps it does. Or, perhaps Congress must act to repeal the Act, something suggested by Professor Horwitz, and something I agree would be a good idea. In any case, Professor Horwitz does point out that apparently the President does not agree that Act should be waived or repealed since he writes: "Meanwhile, President Obama and others continue to insist that such a blanket waiver is 'not needed at this time.'"

So, who might benefit from not waiving or repealing the Jones Act? My guess would be some union or unions, and that is the view of Professor Horwitz as well. If this seems plausible, then it should also seem plausible to you that the President is making political calculations when he decides to trade off this against that. Not too surprising to me, and not really unlike the tradeoffs some assert BP made and should not have made.

It seems to me there are other aspects of this accident and the aftermath that involve government policies, regulations, and actions that are hidden from our easy view. I'm always suspicious this might be the case when our elected leaders in Washington rush to microphones and hearings to point fingers. I will try to add at least one or two additional illustrations in the next day or two.

Taxing Incomes & Estates

Ludwig von Mises:

If the present American methods of taxing incomes and estates had been adopted fifty years ago, most of those new things which no American would like to do without today would not have been developed at all or, if they had, would have been inaccessible to the greater part of the nation. (Theory and History, p. 238)

Economics: The Primary Civic Duty

In Human Action Ludwig von Mises writes:

". . . As conditions are today, nothing can be more important to every intelligent man than economics. His own fate and that of his progeny is at stake.

Very few are capable of contributing any consequential idea to the body of economic thought. But all reasonable men are called upon to familiarize themselves with the teachings of economics. This is, in our age, the primary civic duty.

Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that economics cannot remain an esoteric branch of knowledge accessible only to small groups of scholars and specialists. Economics deals with society's fundamental problems; it concerns everyone and belongs to all. It is the main and proper study of every citizen." (p. 875)

Of course, this is a pretty easy thing for an economist to believe. I wonder how many others, economists and non-economists, agree with Mises?

Big Brother Is Green?

Washington Examiner:

"Alexandria residents soon will have to pay for larger home recycling bins featuring built-in monitoring devices.

The City Council added a mandatory $9 charge to its residents' annual waste collection fee.

That cash -- roughly $180,000 collected from 19,000 residents-- will pay for new larger recycling carts equipped with computer microchips, which will allow the city to keep tabs on its bins and track resident participation in the city's recycling program.

'If you know who's participating in the programs, you can focus your education and outreach to those who are not participating,' said Stacy Herring, Alexandria's recycling coordinator."

I suppose this is just like our parents when we were kids -- our paternal governors are just making sure we take out the trash, eh?

Constitution & The Supreme Court

Senator Hatch offers some thoughts about how the Constitution is supposed to constrain all 3 branches of government, even the Supreme Court.

Federal Spending 2020

The Congressional Budget Office makes this projection. The CBO is projecting then, that in 2020 the federal government will be spending 47 cents of every dollar it spends on social security, medicare, and medicaid combined.

From a constitutional perspective, isn't this rather remarkable? After all, Congress is supposed to have only those powers explicitly enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, and not one of these three programs is thus enumerated.

With respect to social security, the projection is that in 2020 22 cents of every dollar the national government spends will involve the redistribution of income from those who are working in 2020 to people who are among the retired.

I think we can consider social security, medicare, and medicaid as redistribution programs. If so, then this projection is that about 1/2 of every government dollar spent in 2020 will involve redistribution. Again, constitutionally remarkable since the Constitution seems to me to have created a limited government, mostly a "protective state" government, not a "redistributive state" government.

My son is not yet old enough to vote, but he will be in 2020. He may or may not be paying income taxes to the federal government then, both because he may be in college instead of the workforce and because a large percentage of people pay no taxes to the federal government today (I expect the same in the future). But, if he is paying income taxes then, note that 14 cents of every dollar spent by the national government will amount to him being required to make payments for loans taken out by others now and in the past. Assuming he is working, then 22 cents on the dollar will represent taking money from his paycheck to give to people who are retired and no longer a member of the workforce. Perhaps we can toss medicare and medicaid in with respect to these sorts of considerations as well. In any case, his income and productive abilities in the year 2020 as well as the years beyond have already been encumbered by federal government policies and programs, and he cannot yet vote.

As Hayek wrote, it seems to me the case that "the basic principles on which this civilization was built have been falling into increasing disregard and oblivion." The government I know today, and the government projected in the CBO's picture, seems impossibly different from the government I read about in the words of the Constitution.

Profit & Loss

Ludwig von Mises:

“Profit is the difference between the higher value of the good obtained and the lower value of the good sacrificed for its obtainment. If the action, due to bungling, error, and unanticipated change in conditions, or to other circumstances, results in obtaining something to which the actor attaches a lower value than to the price paid, the action generates a loss. Since action invariably aims to substitute a state of affairs which the actor considers as more satisfactory for a state which he considers less satisfactory, action always aims at profit and never at loss. This is valid not only for the actions of individuals in a market economy but no less for the actions of the economic director of a socialist society.” (Theory and History, p. 210)

Here is President Obama commenting on profits for Wall Street businesses.



It seems to me that the best way to think about "profit" is the way Mises explains, and of course this view of profit does not support the President's view. It is always a time to profit, or to make profit, and never a welcome time when loss is made instead.

The President seems to believe that in a time of recession businesses should not be earning profits. The implication of this is that instead, in a time of recession, businesses should earning losses, because profit and loss are terms that characterize the opposite results of human actions. But this is a perverse view isn't it? After all, businesses can only earn profits if their efforts to produce and sell goods and services sufficiently predict consumer desires in the future.

Mises's view of profit and loss is also informative about the President's actions in encouraging us to believe that now is not the time for Wall Street businesses to earn profits. The President's actions in politics can either serve to gain a state of affairs he regards as more satisfactory (profit) or a state of affairs he regards as less satisfactory (loss). Thus the President is acting as though he believes he will personally profit by castigating the efforts made by others to profit themselves by supplying consumers with goods and services they want. Oh, and incidentally, when consumers are able to buy goods and services they want, the consumers gain profit for themselves as well.

In the freedom of voluntary market exchange, the actions of businesses and consumers to profit themselves is positive sum. It is indeed possible for buyers and sellers to choose well their personal courses of action in face of an uncertain future, and both buyers and sellers can profit from exchange.

The President seems to see the situation as zero sum. He seems to be suggesting that profits for Wall Street businesses necessarily mean losses for consumers. But, while a business or a consumer need not choose well and thus profit from their choices, on the whole the realm of free and voluntary exchange is positive sum. It is in the President's world, the world of politics in which the struggle between competitors is over which will win the opportunity to determine the way that force will be used in the lives of others, that we should be prepared to expect to find a zero sum (even a negative sum) world. So, it seems, the President is apparently thinking that he will personally profit by encouraging his listeners to believe that they will also profit if there is greater reliance of the zero sum realm of politics instead of the positive sum realm of market exchange.

I'm pretty sure the view the President encourages will not profit me, but I also fear that because of the nature of politics it may well profit him.