The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid is a trademark of Donald L. Luskin

Media Infiltrations:

Republicans and the Populist Temptation
Wall Street Journal
February 9, 2010
Why Taxing Stock Trades Is a Really Bad Idea
Wall Street Journal
January 6, 2010

Krugman Truth Squad logo, courtesy Tom Miller, Atomic Art:

Peter Sellers and Peter Bull in ''Dr. Strangelove'' Columbia Pictures, 1964 -- Click to order!

"What has been your worst blogging experience?
Donald Luskin."
-- Brad DeLong

"That's a guy who actually stalks me on the Web and once stalked me personally."
-- Paul Krugman

"I'm saying this...guy's a jerk."
-- Charlie Gasparino

What I'm reading:
The Happy Body
Aniela and Jerzy Gregorek

What I'm listening to:
Langley Schools Music Project

What I'm watching:
Star Trek

What I'm playing:
Speed Racer

Order these from
at Amazon's normal low prices...
and a fraction of your order goes
to help support this site.

Thanks to Irwin Chusid, public editor.

Copyright 2002 thru 2009
Donald L. Luskin
All rights reserved.
"The Conspiracy to
Keep You Poor and Stupid"
and "Krugman Truth Squad"
are trademarks of
Donald L. Luskin

Logo by Tommy Carnase 1995

"The road is cleared," said Galt.
"We are going back to the world."
He raised his hand
and over the desolate earth
he traced in space
the sign of the dollar.

From Atlas Shrugged
by Ayn Rand

From each as they choose,
to each as they are chosen.

From Anarchy, State and Utopia
by Robert Nozick

"there is some shit I will not eat"

From i sing of olaf glad and big
by e. e. cummings

In Association with

Powered by Blogger Pro™

Chronicle of the Conspiracy
Join us as we discover, document, expose and challenge the bad people, the bad institutions and the bad ideas that stand in the way of wealth creation -- and show you how to fight back!

Saturday, December 11, 2004

HERE'S THE BEEF    Reader Jill Olson has it right, when she says "You know things are going pretty good in this country (though it's the last thing they would admit) if the New York Times can waste a whole editorial on this":
Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

Dan Aykroyd once played a toy manufacturer on "Saturday Night Live" who sold children perilous products like bags of glass. If he branched into fast food, Mr. Aykroyd's character would probably have come up with Hardee's new Monster Thickburger, an artery-clogging mountain of Angus beef slabs, bacon, American cheese and mayonnaise on a buttered sesame-seed bun. It weighs in at 1,420 calories and 107 grams of fat - quite possibly one of the most lethal pieces of food out there.

I wonder if Hardee's would consider a libel suit against the Times for characterizing its product as "lethal"?

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:11 PM | link  

KRUGMAN SPIDERHOLE WATCH 7    Supposed conservative Joe Scarborough caves, and praises Paul Krugman's analysis of reforming Social Security with private accounts that could invest in the stock market. Is this idiot more dangerous on TV or in Congress? Nobody can say.
P.P.S. Here's something you don't hear me say every day. Read Paul Krugman's column on this subject today. He comes to the same conclusion that I do: Congress will borrow $2 trillion today to privatize Social Security and then borrow trillions more to cover American's poor investments in the future. Here's the link to his column.
Who is that American he is talking about, I wonder?

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:36 AM | link  

Friday, December 10, 2004

KRUGMAN SPIDERHOLE WATCH 6    Ever wonder how college professors pick textbooks? It ain't rocket science, apparently. Here's an email I got from Worth, the publishers of Paul Krugman's new economics textbook Microeconomics. It seems that the "adoption decision" is influenced by lottery prizes associated with filling out surveys with respect to the "adoption decision" itself.
If you responded to my email and provided feedback for ranking factors that affect your adoption decision, I just wanted to let you know how much we at Worth Publishers appreciate it. Thank you so much for your comments, time and expertise.

I also wanted to announce the winner of the drawing. Congratulations to Gail Hoyt from the University of Kentucky!! Professor Hoyt is the lucky recipient of the $200 gift certificate to! Enjoy your holiday spending professor!

Thanks again to all of those who participated.


Charlie Van Wagner
Acquisitions Editor, Economics
Worth Publishers
Righty-o. One has to hope that Professor Gail Hoyt's students will "enjoy" Krugman's textbook as much as she will "enjoy" her "holiday spending."

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 7:14 PM | link  

Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free.
Click here to sign up!
If you're reading this column, you're probably an investor in the stock market. That makes you a member of the approximately 60% of American households that own stocks, either directly or indirectly. That also makes you part of what President Bush likes to call the "ownership society."

But what about the other 40% of households that don't own stocks? How can we talk about an "ownership society" — or for that matter, how can we talk about equal opportunity — when almost half of our families are excluded from owning a stake in American enterprise?

These fundamental questions of fairness and opportunity are motivating the movement to transform the Social Security system into a program of private investment accounts, in which every working American can choose to invest in the stock market. Last year, President Bush told me that private accounts for Social Security would be his single highest economic priority in his second term. Based on the amount of political buzz it has gotten since the election, I really think it's going to happen.

Yes, it seems "radical" to think about tinkering with Social Security. Plenty of people depend on it, and it's the largest single program of the federal government. But remember, once upon a time it was even more "radical" to think about instituting Social Security in the first place.

Most people don't realize this, but the idea of Social Security in the United States began in the early 20th century as part of a resurgence of evangelical Christianity. The Social Gospel movement believed that sin was the product of poverty in the new industrial era. Its leaders, such as Walter Rauschenbusch, preached that it was the duty of the government to pave the way for "God's kingdom on Earth" by reining in the power of industry and redistributing wealth to all.

Most of the aims of the Social Gospel movement have been achieved through the secular state. Today we have everything the Social Gospelers advocated — Social Security, an income tax and government regulation of industry. I don't know about the status of sin, but we've come pretty close to eradicating poverty. Consider this: we define "poverty" so lavishly today that, in 1900, 90% of Americans lived below what we now call "the poverty line."

So now, 100 years after the Social Gospel movement, it's time to be "radical" again. And it's no surprise to see evangelical Christians leading the charge in "radical" ideas, just as they did 100 years ago. But now, instead of thinking of Social Security as a way to eradicate poverty, it's time to think of it as a way to distribute economic growth and opportunity more equally.

Today's Social Security system is, in many ways, manifestly unfair to the Americans most in need of opportunity. For one thing, by imposing a 12% tax on payrolls — half paid directly by workers, and half paid indirectly by employers — Social Security soaks up any capacity to save that lower-earning workers might have. If you're earning minimum wage, and more than 6% of your take-home pay gets sucked up by Social Security taxes, how much do you have left over to invest in the stock market — or even a bank account? The answer is: none.

Another problem is that Social Security is structured to provide the lowest benefits to the very people who probably need those benefits the most. Census data show that, on average, poor people live shorter lives than rich people, and that African-Americans have shorter lives than whites. Since you get Social Security benefits for as long as you live, that means that the poor and African-Americans effectively get fewer benefits, on average.

And perhaps most fundamentally, Social Security is unfair because it makes America's poorest citizens dependent on the whim of Congress for their retirement incomes. You don't have any property rights in your Social Security benefits — you don't "own" them. So if some future Congress decides to cut your benefits, there's nothing you can do about that. Can't happen, you say? Think again — it already has. Congress has already voted to raise the retirement age at which you can start receiving benefits.

A system of private accounts would change all that. Think of what it could mean if you could divert some or all of your payroll taxes into a personal account that you own and control. You would own your account, and no one could take it away from you. It would be yours as long as you live, and when you die you could bequeath it to your family. You could decide how to invest it — including the stock market, where you could get some real long-term growth potential.

For most of the readers of this column, much of this doesn't matter. You're already invested in the stock market. You already control your own destiny. But think of people less well-off than you. For them, Social Security private accounts would be the only way they can get a seat at the table of American opportunity.

I know all the objections — there are plenty of them. But they can all easily be refuted.

Some people worry that diverting money from today's system into private accounts would damage the system's solvency. Not true. The system is already in trouble, with future liabilities that outweigh assets and scheduled revenues by trillions of dollars. Without raising taxes or cutting benefits, the best hope is to get people to remove themselves as future liabilities of the system by choosing private accounts instead. The more people who have private accounts, the stronger the system becomes.

And some people worry that inexperienced investors would throw away their retirement security by making poor stock market investments (like betting it all on Enron). Well, with opportunity comes risk. But at the same time, it's simple enough to put boundaries on how people could invest their private accounts. The government could establish maximum levels to be invested in stocks, and require that stock investments be in the form of massively diversified and low-cost index funds.

It all sounds incredible. We've lived with Social Security as it is for so long, it's hard to imagine it changing so fundamentally. But mark my words, it's going to happen. And when it does, America will be a better place.

And by the way, in case this hasn't occurred to you, the stock market would suddenly become a pretty exciting place, too. Now that's a "radical" thought.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:52 PM | link  

A MAP TO THE FARM YOU CAN BUY IN THE SKY    I guess this has been around for a while, and I can't testify as to the validity of the science here, but this is a pretty cool photograph.

Here's the story:

Through the viewfinder of his camera, Ensign John Gay could see the fighter plane drop from the sky heading toward the port side of the aircraft carrier Constellation. At 1,000 feet, the pilot drops the F/A-18C Hornet to increase his speed to 750 mph, vapor flickering off the curved surfaces of the plane. In the precise moment a cloud in the shape of a farm-fresh egg forms around the Hornet 200 yards from the carrier, its engines rippling the Pacific Ocean just 75 feet below, Gay hears an explosion and snaps his camera shutter once.

"I clicked the same time I heard the boom, and I knew I had it", Gay said.

What he had was a technically meticulous depiction of the sound barrier being broken July 7, 1999, somewhere on the Pacific between Hawaii and Japan. Sports Illustrated, Brills Content, and Life ran the photo. The photo recently took first prize in the science and technology division in the World Press Photo 2000 contest, which drew more than 42,000 entries worldwide.

"All of a sudden, in the last few days, I've been getting calls from everywhere about it again. It's kind of neat," he said, in a telephone interview from his station in Virginia Beach, VA.

A naval veteran of 12 years, Gay, 38, manages a crew of eight assigned to take intelligence photographs from the high-tech belly of an F-14 Tomcat, the fastest fighter in the U.S. Navy. In July, Gay had been part of a Joint Task Force Exercise as the Constellation made its way to Japan. Gay selected his Nikon 90 S, one of the five 35 mm cameras he owns. He set his 80-300 mm zoom lens on 300 mm, set his shutter speed at 1/1000 of a second with an aperture setting of F5.6.

"I put it on full manual, focus and exposure," Gay said. "I tell young photographers who are into automatic everything, you aren't going to get that shot on auto. The plane is too fast. The camera can't keep up."

At sea level a plane must exceed 741 mph to break the sound barrier, or the speed at which sound travels. The change in pressure as the plane outruns all of the pressure and sound waves in front of it is heard on the ground as an explosion or sonic boom. The pressure change condenses the water in the air as the jet passes these waves. Altitude, wind speed, humidity, the shape and trajectory of the plane all of these affect the breaking of this barrier. The slightest drag or atmospheric pull on the plane shatters the vapor oval like fireworks as the plane passes through.

He said everything on July 7 was perfect. "You see this vapor flicker around the plane that gets bigger and bigger. You get this loud boom, and it's instantaneous. The vapor cloud is there, and then it's not there. It's the coolest thing you have ever seen."

Thanks to reader Duncan King for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:53 AM | link  

THE VIPER PIT OF ACADEME    Is a noisy minority of Harvard Law School professors ostracizing their new colleague Jack L. Goldsmith because he is associated with legal advice to the CIA that could be seen as "justifying torture," or is it because he was a member of the Bush administration's Department of Justice?
Elizabeth Bartholet ’62, the Wasserstein professor of public interest law, was quoted yesterday in The Boston Globe saying that "the faculty was seriously at fault for not inquiring more deeply, prior to making this appointment, into any role Jack Goldsmith may have played in providing legal advice facilitating and justifying torture."...

The Globe reported that Henry J. Steiner '51, director of the Law School’s Human Rights Program, opposed Goldsmith’s appointment. But Steiner told The Crimson yesterday that he would not divulge his vote on the appointment. "I view the faculty meetings as confidential," Steiner said.

Bartholet told The Crimson yesterday that she would not comment for an article on Goldsmith, nor would she confirm the quotes attributed to her in The Globe.

Several professors said they were appalled by the ad hominem attacks on their colleague in the press.

"We should oppose one another’s arguments with arguments of our own, rather than with smears," said Richard D. Parker, who is the Williams professor of criminal justice

The small faction of faculty members who blasted Goldsmith in the Globe article "are going way over the top," said Charles Fried, the Beneficial professor of law. "It does not hurt Goldsmith, but it hurts them."

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:01 AM | link  

LAST WORD ON THE SO-CALLED TRUST FUND    Reader Jim Glass has just started his own blog -- and it's well worth a visit. Here's an extraordinarily valuable post on a paper by Kent Smetters of the Wharton School and NBER, putting to rest once and for all the matter of whether the Social Security trust fund represents real savings or not. Glass sums it up in one shocking sentence: "..the value of the accumulated Social Security surplus, represented by the Social Security trust fund, on national savings, is negative." Read the whole thing.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:57 AM | link  

THE DIVERSITY CARD    Reader Scott Butler has a simple but compelling argument for Social Security reform through private accounts:
The government, as a trustee of the Social Security scheme, is acting in the capacity of a fiduciary. A fiduciary, as you know, in the eyes of the law, must exercise extraordinary care when caring for the assets held in trust. This means exercising due care in selection of investments and proper diversification (not just US government bonds).

Additionally, consider the requirement for arms-length transactions. A fiduciary that offered themselves a loan out of the trust (as the government has done) would be dragged through the streets and burned. Can you imagine if Ken Lay had done that? Yet our government does it every day! It's long past the time to reform this government mandated Ponzi scheme!

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:54 AM | link  

Thursday, December 09, 2004


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:28 PM | link  

NEW MINORITY RIGHTS FOR DEMOCRATS    How do you suppose senators of opposing parties divvy up the vast resources required to support the vast committee staffs maintained separately by both parties? According to The Hill, "Don Ritchie, associate Senate historian, said that between the mid-1970s and 2001, the majority party controlled two-thirds of committee resources." Now that they are in a distinct minority, though, that's no longer good enough for Democrats. "The Republicans want control over two-thirds of each committee’s resources, but Democrats have called that unacceptable. They want a 50-50 split in the 109th Congress or, at worst, a division reflecting the 55-44 GOP advantage... Frist said of his proposed two-thirds-to-one-third split, 'That’s the way it’s always been. That’s the way it’s been with a 55-seat majority.'... Democrats instituted the 66-33-percent division of resources favoring the majority party, Lott said. That was in place during the many, many years of Democratic tyranny,' he added."

Thanks to reader Jill Olson for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 10:30 PM | link  

WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE TAKE THE MONEY AWAY FROM THESE GUYS?    I mean, really -- before they hurt themselves. First we learned that Al Gore was going to become an investment manager. Then that Rudy Giuliani was going to open a boutique investment bank. Now it turns out that Senate majority leader Bill Frist has been investing his campaign war chest in the stock market -- and he's lost so much of it that he can't repay some loans coming due.

Update... Reader Jason Nordwick adds: "How sad an indictment when your elected officials cannot even cheat properly. My confidence in politicians has been shot."

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:28 AM | link  

GOOFUS AND GALLANT    Okay, war is hell:
U.S. special operations forces accused of abusing prisoners in Iraq warned defense intelligence personnel not to talk about the alleged mistreatment they saw, according to a government memo to a top adviser of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

In the memo written June 25 after the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal had gone public, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency complained about the harassment of DIA personnel, including one case where special forces confiscated photos of a prisoner they punched.

And then there's this:
A massive airdrop of paper birds intended to promote peace failed to halt violence in Thailand's restive south, with a spate of new attacks Monday that targeted soldiers and local officials.

The bombings, shootings and arson attacks came hours after Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra said Sunday's airdrop of nearly 100 million Japanese-style origami cranes over the predominantly Muslim region had achieved an "enormous, positive psychological effect" toward peace.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:29 AM | link  

LIBERTARIAN PARADOX    Milton Friedman notes sagely in today's Wall Street Journal that the rise of the post-war regulatory state coincided, ironically, with an intellectual trend in favor of smaller government. Institutional momentum, it seems, creates some strange paradoxes:
After World War II, opinion was socialist while practice was free market; currently, opinion is free market while practice is heavily socialist. We have largely won the battle of ideas (though no such battle is ever won permanently); we have succeeded in stalling the progress of socialism, but we have not succeeded in reversing its course. We are still far from bringing practice into conformity with opinion. That is the overriding non-defense task for the second Bush term -- as President Bush clearly recognizes.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:21 AM | link  

WHY DID THE AL SHARPTON CROSS THE ROAD FOR JOHN KERRY?    He got paid for it. Thanks to reader Perry Eidelbus for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:15 AM | link  

THE RANK ORDER OF SCUM    Everyone thinks reporters are scum. But everyone also thinks that politicians and businessmen are even worse scum. That's why scummy reporters can make careers out of inventing exaggerated negative stories about politicians and businessmen. According to Editor and Publisher:
Once again, newspaper reporters score poorly in the annual Gallup Poll, released today, on "honesty and ethical standards" in various professions, as judged by the American public. They rank even lower than bankers, auto mechanics, elected officials, and nursing-home operators.

To put this in perspective: Newspaper reporters are even less respected than their TV counterparts.

Somehow, however, they top lawyers, car salesmen, and ad directors. And they also edge business executives and congressmen.

Nurses top the list as most honest and ethical.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:05 AM | link  

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

KRUGMAN HOLDS BACK THE SOCIAL SECURITY TIDE (KRUGMAN SPIDERHOLE WATCH 5)    Here's a fearless prediction: President Bush's vision of Social Security reform with private investment accounts will be enacted into law in his second term. It's in the bag.

What makes me so sure? Two reasons. First, I can see how much the liberal establishment fears it. And second, their arguments against it are utterly impotent.

Here's a case in point. On Tuesday, bellwether "angry liberal" pundit Paul Krugman dragged himself back from an urgently needed post-election mental health break to rail against Social Security reform in the op-ed pages of the New York Times. Krugman must see this as a battleground issue. But if this column is the best he can do, then he's not likely to be any more successful at using his column to turn back the tide of reform than using it to nominate Howard Dean, and when that failed, using it to elect John Kerry.

The core argument of Krugman's column is that Social Security is not in crisis, as he says the proponents of reform through private accounts claim it is. At most, Krugman argues, the system has small, distant and easily cured funding problems.

"Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more realistic than the very cautious projections of the Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. ...But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P."

Only a liberal could argue that raising taxes by more than half a percent of GDP for a hundred years is "modest." But even at that, Krugman strongly misrepresents what is actually a dire message in the Congressional Budget Office report. Yes, the report found that the system's shortfall between the present value of its revenues and the present value of its expenditures projected out a hundred years is indeed 0.54% of GDP. But the report states -- and Krugman ignores -- the fact that this very calculation means that, even with new revenues of 0.54% of GDP injected into the system, the system will end up exhausted: "at the end of the 100 years, the balance would be large enough to authorize paying one year's worth of benefits." After that, the report projects that there would be a mismatch between revenues and expenditures of more than 2% of GDP.

Even that is all based on the idea that the assets in the Social Security trust fund -- Treasury bonds being accumulated during the current years while system revenues exceed system expenditures -- will be there to pay retirement benefits in the future. Of course those Treasury bonds represent nothing but IOU's, in essence promises by the government to pay itself. The same CBO report that Krugman cites points out, correctly, that "Those trust funds are mainly accounting mechanisms and contain no economic resources."

As I was told by David John, Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Krugman's belief in non-existent Social Security Trust Fund assets is typical of the unrealistic way academic economists approach real-world problems. "It's like the old joke: How does the economist escape from a desert island? First, assume a rowboat." It's worse than that, though: "Here, Krugman is assuming a luxury yacht."

Not a very rosy picture, is it? Yet Krugman chose to cite the CBO report because at least it paints a rosier picture than the Annual Report of the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund. The Trustees say the trust fund will run out in 2044 -- eight years sooner than the CBO estimates. New Krugman Truth Squad member Victor Davis, writing on the Dead Parrot Society blog, notes that according to the CBO, the difference between the two reports is mostly in their underlying economic assumptions -- and CBO's are far more optimistic. CBO uses higher estimates for real wage growth, and lower estimates for inflation and unemployment, than the Trustees. How remarkable that Krugman -- perhaps the world's most relentlessly pessimistic economist, who has written for years about our "age of diminished expectations" and "depression economics" and how America is turning into a "banana republic" -- now finds it "more realistic" to look beyond "cautious projections."

This burst of economic optimism is all the more surprising considering that Krugman himself, in the past, has argued -- in his typically shrill style -- that the Social Security system is in crisis. For example, he wrote in the New York Times in 1996,

"Where is the crisis? Just over the horizon, that's where... In 2010...the boomers will begin to retire. Every year thereafter, for the next quarter-century, several million 65-year-olds will leave the rolls of taxpayers and begin claiming their benefits. The budgetary effects of this demographic tidal wave are straightforward to compute, but so huge as almost to defy comprehension."

If there is no crisis -- as Krugman claims now -- then what motivates those who seek Social Security reform through private accounts? Krugman says,

"They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success. For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it."

But whom, exactly, are these destroyers that Krugman is talking about? As Krugman Truth Squad member Jon Henke points out on the Q and O blog, Krugman himself once wrote in his Times column, "There is a case for reforming Social Security; there is even a case for privatization."

Social security policy experts have even longer memories. Economist Eric Engen, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, reminded me that President Clinton's hand-picked Advisory Council on Social Security spent three years investigating reform options, and in 1997 recommended to Health and Human Services Secretary Donna E. Shalala two different plans involving private accounts -- plans which received the endorsement of the majority of the Council's members.

The best Krugman can do is pretend there's no crisis -- and impugn the motives of anyone who disagrees with his deeply conventional liberal wisdom. Because he has no defense against the best arguments for Social Security reform with private accounts.

The reality is that, crisis or not, the present system is inadequate and unfair. It denies Americans choice, control, and property rights in their own retirement savings. It sucks up the entire savings and investment capacity of tens of millions of lower-income Americans. It has a terrible implicit rate of return, compared to even the worst market investments. And it is unfair to minority members whose life expectancies are lower, and thus can expect fewer payments over a lifetime.

Reform of Social Security with private accounts is an issue that shows compassionate conservatism at its best. And the more the angry liberals like Krugman sputter and fume about it, the more inevitable I am convinced that it is.

Correction [12/9/2004]... Reader David Rumney noted that in the original posting I had stated that the difference between the CBO's estimate of 2052 for trust fund exhaustion, and the SSA's estimate of 2004, was six years. In fact it is eight. The posting above has been corrected.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:22 AM | link  

IT'S REALLY SO SIMPLE    This is why I love Glenn Hubbard. From an op-ed in this morning's Wall Street Journal, here's tax reform and health care reform all in one neat package:
We propose a simple change to tax law that would cut unproductive health spending, reduce the number of uninsured and promote greater tax fairness. For anyone with at least catastrophic insurance coverage, all health-care expenses -- employee contributions to employer-provided insurance, individually purchased insurance and out-of-pocket spending -- would be tax-deductible. The deduction would be available to those who claim the standard deduction and to those who itemize.

The most important effect of tax deductibility would be to reduce unproductive health spending. Under current law, medical care purchased through an employer's insurance plan is tax-free, while direct medical care purchased by patients must be made with after-tax income. As we and many others have observed, this tax preference has given patients the incentive to purchase care through low-deductible, low-copayment insurance instead of out-of-pocket, which in turn leads to cost-unconsciousness and wasteful medical practices. In addition, the tax preference for insurance creates incentives for the health-care system to rely on gatekeepers rather than deductibles and copayments when it does try to control costs. The cost of gatekeepers are financed out of insurance premiums that are paid with before-tax dollars; deductibles and copayments are paid with after-tax dollars.

According to our calculations, based on research from the RAND Health Insurance Experiment and others, we estimate that tax deductibility would reduce spending by approximately $40 billion in 2004 dollars, or 6% of total private health spending. These savings could be achieved without significant adverse consequences for health outcomes. This occurs in spite of the fact that tax deductibility makes health care overall look cheaper relative to all other goods, which leads to higher spending. By making insured health care look more expensive relative to out-of-pocket health care, tax deductibility leads patients to choose health plans with higher deductibles and copayments, and therefore to reduce spending enough to more than offset this effect.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 7:47 AM | link  

Tuesday, December 07, 2004

SPITZER FOR GOVERNOR!    I'm all for Eliot Spitzer being governor of New York as soon as possible. No need to wait for an election. Even the suspension of democracy in this case would be a small price to pay to get him out of his current position as Grand Inquisitor to the financial services industry (besides, being from California, I'm looking forward to being able to say to my New York friends, "my governor can beat up your governor" -- while visualizing Arnold Schwarzenegger terminating that whiney little drip. And besides, think of all the new opportunities for corruption that Spitzer can avail himself of in a higher executive position. Check out this letter to the editor of Business Insurance News, from an industry executive troubled by certain matters of appearances:
Speaking of "appearances," how about Mr. Spitzer's tennis pal, campaign contributor and former boss securing a 19% sweeter, all-cash deal for his company from Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc., after Mr. Spitzer hit Marsh with a tsunami of subpoenas. Then, Mr. Spitzer's tennis buddy ends up as CEO after Mr. Spitzer says he "can't deal" with the current Marsh CEO. Later, Mr. Spitzer says it's OK for his tennis pal, now Marsh's CEO, to pay any potential fines from their contingent commissions, which Mr. Spitzer earlier alleged were ill gotten. Isn't this like the DA indicting someone for burglary and saying they can use the proceeds to cover any fines? Yeah, "appearances" do matter, Eliot, and this does not look good.

Tom Harvey

Columbia, Ohio

Editor's note: Mr. Harvey is the former chief executive officer of international brokerage network Assurex Global.

Thanks to reader Jill Olson for the link, via Tigerhawk.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:22 PM | link  

A FLAG FLIES AT MECCA    Thomas O. Miller happened to be in the OC, so he did a pilgrimage to the Ayn Rand Institute, where he staged this impromptu flag-raising ceremony.

Tom, proprietor of Atomic Art, by the way, is responsible for our Krugman Truth Squad gnome-buster logo!

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:18 AM | link  

NPR BEATEN BY BUSH    Bush's in-your-face affirmative action program at the cabinet level -- where he diabolically hires fully qualifed minority members -- continues to mess with minds on the left. Now Tavis Smiley, the talk show host on liberal NPR, has quit -- "criticizing NPR for not doing enough to reach minority listeners." He told Time magazine:
It is ironic that a Republican President has an Administration that is more inclusive and more diverse than a so-called liberal-media-elite network.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:59 AM | link  

Monday, December 06, 2004

WITH ALLIES LIKE THESE (2)...    A French soldier goes terrorist, and it's all because he wants to do a very unFrench thing: work.
A soldier Sunday threatened to blow up a site storing about 64 tons of munitions in eastern France, leading to the evacuation of about 400 inhabitants of three villages in the Marne region.

The Marne district said the sergeant major, an explosives expert, had locked himself up at the site where he had worked to protest against his upcoming retirement. The depot mainly stores anti-tank mines.

Dominique Dubois, top official in Marne, told France Info radio the sergeant major had probably been at the site since Friday. The man had left a note outside explaining his demands..."The man wants his dossier to be re-examined because he will soon reach the age limit (for retirement). He is 47 and on Dec. 17 he will reach the age limit. He would like to pursue his military career," he said.

Thanks to reader Irwin Chusid for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:57 AM | link  

Sunday, December 05, 2004

WITH ALLIES LIKE THESE...    The French police are stupid enough to make it a practice to put explosives in air travellers' luggage to train their explosive-sniffing dogs. But now they have lost track of a piece of baggage with test explosives in it -- it could have flown off to any of 90 destinations.

Thanks to reader Perry Eidelbus for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:38 PM | link