Showing posts with label subsidies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label subsidies. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Dr. Gruber, ACA architect, admits they lied—but for a good cause

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. [In other words they committed fraud.] Okay, so it’s written to do that.  In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass. It’s a second-best argument. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

Dr. Gruber: A lot of people weren’t stupid, many of the violations and problems were noted early on, but Obama controlled both houses of Congress, and even then it only passed by one vote.  Last Tuesday, many Democrats lost their jobs, thanks to your lies,  although to listen to the media and the president, they can’t figure out why.

American economic policy hides or obscures subsidies or costs—it’s not just the ACA

  • As Dr. Gruber points out, in ObamaCare the healthy cross-subsidize the sick. He does not point out that embedded within this the healthy subsidize the sick for the portion of their sickness related to unhealthy behaviors. A Congressional floor vote to defend such a value choice, if made transparent and explicit, would certainly fail.
  • ObamaCare also forces young people to subsidize older people by limiting the width of premium “rating bands” for insurance sold in the individual market. This was the result of closed-door lobbying by AARP. This one might pass Congress if voted upon explicitly, but the ACA’s architects hid it to avoid admitting that they were shafting young people.
  • Social Security conflates forced individual retirement saving, insurance programs, and massive cross-subsidies, in part to hide the latter.
  • So does Medicare. The biggest cross-subsidies are across birth year cohorts but there are plenty of others as well. Don’t get me started on trust fund accounting.
  • The employer-side half of FICA payroll taxes that finance most of Social Security and part of Medicare are often framed as if they “are paid by the employer” when their true economic burden is borne by the employee in the form of lower wages. If all FICA taxes were imposed on the employee-side they would be more transparent and less popular.
  • A minimum wage increase forces low-skilled unemployed workers to subsidize the wages of the low-skilled employed. Expanding the earned income tax credit is a more transparent way to help the low-skilled unemployed but it puts the costs on budget and in full view. The Left pushes to hide the costs and lies, claiming it’s a free lunch.
  • CAFE fuel economy requirements are less transparent than a gas tax that would achieve a similar goal. But gas tax increases are wildly unpopular while raising CAFE standards appear only to make things harder “on the auto companies.”
  • A global CO2 cap-and-trade system would have obscured the redistribution of global economic growth from developed economies to developing economies. An explicit and transparent carbon tax imposed only on developed economies would achieve a similar endpoint but would have made explicit this massive proposed global redistribution.
  • For years policymakers used Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to subsidize homeowners through hidden credit subsidies. The Left pushed this for low-income homebuyers through affordable housing goals, while elected officials across the political spectrum supported the same thing for all homebuyers through special advantages conferred by government on these two firms.

http://keithhennessey.com/2014/11/10/honesty-about-lying/

http://michellemalkin.com/?p=161169

http://economics.mit.edu/files/6829

http://economics.mit.edu/files/6829  In this 2011 NBER research article , Gruber states it is doubtful that health care costs can be controlled through Obamacare.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/10/video-obamacare-architect-brags-about-lack-of-transparency-in-law/

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Windmills and solar power

After 100 billion in subsidies, windmills and solar power combined amount to less than 4% of the energy we use. Both are so inefficient that they only exist because they get billions in subsidies from you. Fossil fuels get subsides too, but wind and solar get 100 times more. John Stossel

Photo: After 100 billion in subsidies, windmills and solar power combined amount to less than 4% of the energy we use. Both are so inefficient that they only exist because they get billions in subsidies from you. Fossil fuels get subsides too, but wind and solar get 100 times more. Get rid of them all! Chill Out! re-airs tonight at 10pm on Fox News.

 

“The Federal government has set an ambitious goal of '20% wind power by 2030,' and generous subsidies targeted at every segment of American society have been set in place.

State subsidies for wind power are equally generous and can often be combined with Federal programs resulting, in some instances, in government funding equivalent to 80% of a wind power system's total cost.

Subsidies range from Direct Federal Grants, ITC's (Investment Tax Credits) and PTC's (Production Tax Credits) to a myriad of State Grants, Rebates and Tax Credits available to all tax-payers, ranging from your family to Fortune 500 corporations.” http://www.massmegawatts.com/government-subsidies-finance.php

Solar Financing, Subsidies and Incentives

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/05/30/solar-power-subsidies-were-too-large-too-fast/

http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2013/11/14/solar-isnt-the-only-subsidized-energy-source/

“Subsidies go primarily to the rich. While subsidies allow owners to pay off the cost over time, up-front costs put solar panels out of reach for most people. Subsidies take money from working-class families and give it to people who can afford high, up-front capital costs.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2013/11/14/solar-subsidies-take-money-from-the-poor-to-help-the-rich/

Thursday, January 22, 2009

In the new era of hope and change

will liberals be more generous and sacrificial? I thought some of the campaign and inaugural remarks were insulting. I'm not ashamed of my country; I'm not looking forward to the government redistributing more of my income. But that seems to be the theme. Conservatives have always been more generous than liberals, so when I read this stuff "new era of responsibility," or "change has come to America," "expanding and improving volunteer opportunities," and "call upon all of our citizens to serve one another" I wonder if he missed d'Tocqueville in history class. I doubt that he has a clue what is going on beyond the beltway.
    In May of last year, the Gallup polling organization asked 1,200 American adults about their giving patterns. People who called themselves "conservative" or "very conservative" made up 42% of the population surveyed, but gave 56% of the total charitable donations. In contrast, "liberal" or "very liberal" respondents were 29% of those polled but gave just 7% of donations.

    These disparities were not due to differences in income. People who said they were "very conservative" gave 4.5% of their income to charity, on average; "conservatives" gave 3.6%; "moderates" gave 3%; "liberals" gave 1.5%; and "very liberal" folks gave 1.2%.
Full article by Arthur C. Brooks. We all saw the pittance that Joe Biden and Al Gore gave to charity, and the Obamas only stepped up to the collection plate when he started running for office. We've been tithing our income for over 30 years (yes, even when we were Democrats), and it's embarrassing that we give more than world leaders at a fraction of the income--not percentage, but actual dollars.

And the hype about how "finally" things are going to get done. Wow--has Oprah and her buddies in the media looked at how the Bush administration threw money at social problems? It was my main complaint about his years in office--he not only outspent the Democrats but there were fried chittlins and little oversight on everything being handed out, particularly to non-profits and faith-based groups, which only weakened them. If Barney Frank had help bringing down the housing industry, it was from all the grants given to ineffective groups that were profligate spenders bleating about the right of the low-income worker to an overpriced mortgage they couldn't afford. And now those same groups have their hands out asking for money to run foreclosure counseling programs.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Why George Bush isn't a fiscal conservative

The man spends like a Democrat. And they didn't even like him for it. A huge number of these were for poverty, environment, education, health, etc., indirectly and under the table adding thousands to the government payroll and subverting state and local control. That's why Obama's campaign of concern and caring for us po' folk who could barely walk and chew gum without the federal government's help was so odd. It can only grow, and yet more of what didn't work under a Republican will work under a Democrat?

From Chris Edwards, Cato at Liberty, Dec. 4, 2007.

This chart updates a longer article he published in October 2006. I noticed in that article one of the biggest new initiatives of the Bush Administration was $150,000,000 for "Healthy Marriage Promotion," which provided grants to states, non-profits, etc. to provide counseling, workshops and celebrations of events such as National Black Marriage Day.
    Healthy Marriage Grants will range from $250,000 to $5,000,000 depending on the scope of the project. Average award: $1,000,000. Responsible Fatherhood Grants will range from $200,000 to $2,000,000 depending on the scope of the project. Average award: $700,000. Tribal TANF Child Welfare Grants will range from $25,000 to $100,000. Average Award: $80,000.
Children raised by married parents have a very modest chance of growing up in poverty, whereas an unmarried mom almost guarantees it. However, I think this was an open invitation for misuse of the taxpayers money. The required audits will never try to judge how many teen minority fathers married the mothers of their children because they attended a workshop. Churches have been working on this problem for years even with middle class families, and losing ground. I don't think throwing $150 million at it will change much (unless they throw it at Hollywood or TV which seems a bigger influence than church or parents). As in all these subsidies, very little makes it to the problem, and most goes for overhead like salaries, rent, utilities, food, consultants, printing, publishing, research, etc. Here's an article in the Columbus Dispatch of how $500,000 that came to Ohio was spent.

Here's a list of the top 10% of CFDA searches. I've been writing a lot about the housing grants, so here's a few from that list. All would require partnering non-profits with with business or state agencies or alone.
  • 10.442 USDA Housing Application Packaging Grants
  • 10.410 USDA Very Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans
  • 14.313 HUD Dollar Home Sales
  • 14.247 HUD Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program
  • 14.235 HUD Supportive Housing Program
  • 97.048 DHS Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households
      in Presidential Declared Disaster Areas (must have been the mother of housing boondoggles: FY 07 $189,366,831--probably could have completely rebuilt NOLA with this grant--it's just one year figure)
  • 10.417 USDA Very Low-Income Housing Repair Loans and Grants
  • 14.311 HUD Single Family Property Disposition
  • 14.239 HUD Home Investment Partnerships Program
  • 14.149 HUD Rent Supplements_Rental Housing for Lower Income Families
  • 10.433 USDA Rural Housing Preservation Grants
  • 14.195 HUD Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program_Special Allocations
  • 15.633 DOI Landowner Incentive Program
  • 14.401 HUD Fair Housing Assistance Program_State and Local
  • 10.415 USDA Rural Rental Housing Loans
  • 14.901 HUD Healthy Homes Demonstration Grants
  • 10.427 USDA Rural Rental Assistance Payments
  • 14.871 HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
      This is an old one--originally authorized in 1937--FY 09 est $16,253,000,000--yes, that's 16 billion for 2 million families, and they only get part of the rent--wonder where the rest of it goes? That's some overhead!
  • 14.401 HUD Fair Housing Assistance Program_State and Local
  • 10.415 USDA Rural Rental Housing Loans
  • 14.181 HUD Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
  • 14.169 HUD Housing Counseling Assistance Program [FY 09 est $60,000,000]
  • 14.856 HUD Lower Income Housing Assistance Program_Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation
  • 10.411 USDA Rural Housing Site Loans and Self_Help Housing Land Development Loans
  • 14.157 HUD Supportive Housing for the Elderly
      [FY 09 est $791,303,000] Based on the numbers of units built in 2007 (3,857) I figure they cost about $195,000 each--not bad for single resident, low income.
  • 14.250 HUD Rural Housing and Economic Development [FY 08 $17,000,000 The only accomplishments listed were 854 jobs]
  • 81.042 DOE Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income Persons [FY 07 $204,356,661 this one is about $50,000,000 less in FY 09--must be that global warming benefit]
  • 93.568 HHS Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
  • 14.142 HUD Property Improvement Loan Insurance for Improving All Existing Structures and Building of New Nonresidential Structures
  • 14.110 HUD Manufactured Home Loan Insurance_Financing Purchase of Manufactured Homes as Principal Residences of Borrowers
  • Wednesday, January 30, 2008

    Entrepreneurship

    Next to diphtheria and ophthalmology, I think entrepreneurship is one of our most frequently misspelled words--I misspelled it about 5 times drafting this. Now this book will shatter a lot of myths, "The illusions of entrepreneurship," (by Scott Shane, Yale University Press). Reviewed in today's WSJ by Nick Schulz. My take aways (not quotes):
    In the U.S. each year more people start a business than get married or have children.

    A typical U.S. entrepreneur is a married white male in his 40s who attended but didn't complete college, and he lives in a city like DesMoines or Tampa, not in California or Michigan (where they chase people out with high taxes and regulations).

    The richer the country, the lower its rate of business starts.

    Entrepreneurs earn less than those who work for established businesses.

    Encouragement by the government to go in to business through the use of protectionist subsidies and tax breaks actually encourages people to enter highly competitive fields, making them more likely to fail.