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

Latest
Media Infiltrations:

Obama's Social Security Fine Print
The Wall Street Journal
June 25, 2008
Commodity-Prices Scapegoats
The Wall Street Journal
June 3, 2008

Krugman Truth Squad logo, courtesy Tom Miller, Atomic Art: admin@atomicart.com

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:
cover
A Bound Man
Shelby Steele

What I'm listening to:
cover
Langley Schools Music Project

What I'm watching:
cover
There Will Be Blood

What I'm playing:
cover
Speed Racer

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

Amazon Honor SystemClick Here to PayLearn More

Thanks to Irwin Chusid, public editor.

Copyright 2002 thru 2008
Donald L. Luskin
All rights reserved.
"The Conspiracy to
Keep You Poor and Stupid"
and "Krugman Truth Squad"
are trademarks of
Donald L. Luskin
www.poorandstupid.com

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

Some of the sites
that have linked to us!
* recently updated


In Association with Amazon.com

Powered by Blogger Pro™

Powered by Blogger Pro™

7:00 pm EDT
Tuesday, July 1
Unindicted co-counterconspirator-in-chief Donald Luskin will appear on CNBC's Kudlow & Company. Don will be talking about -- you guessed it -- politics, the economy, and the market.

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!

Thursday, June 15, 2006

INDEED   Our pseudonymous correspondent "Irrational Exuberance" sends in from the field "another argument in favor of a gold standard," this one from Dallas Fed president Richard Fisher:
"Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect" may seem a bit quaint in the age of Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith, but I think it is a useful maxim for those assigned the dull and decidedly unsexy task of conducting monetary policy.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:24 AM | link   

MORE ON MIRON   I'm not sure why my posting of libertarian Harvard economist Jeff Miron's suggestions for cutting government spending generated quite so much reader response -- but they did. Maybe it's an example of the "transition trap." When libertarian principles have been abandoned and government is insinuated too much in all our lives, the adjustments involved in getting government out again involve too many small steps, too many compromises. It's so easy for a train to come off the rails, and so hard to get one back on them. Here are more comments:


Regarding: "Social Security for the Well-Off:", "Medicare for the Well-Off:","Higher Education for the Well-Off:"

A "Libertarian Economist" should know better. These are essentially the same arguments that are made for higher marginal tax rates, and would have all of the advantages and disadvantages of a more steeply progressive income tax system. From a worker lifecycle point of view, payroll taxes paid are offset by benefits received. Reduced benefits for the "well off" would be the same as enacting a progressive tax. Collecting payroll taxes without returning benefits would exact a form of punishment those who responsibly save and invest their own money over a lifetime. The "well-off" already contribute disproportionately into the payroll tax scheme, particularly for Medicare, which has no income cap on contributions.

Corey Snow


Another problem with means-testing is that it does away with the selling point that "this is a program to benefit everyone", and the program loses any support it had from those means-tested out of it.

Pete Madsen


You must have "gone native" if you think their is anything libertarian associated with Jeff Miron's proposals. Social Security and Medicare are middle class entitlements and serve folks with incomes from maybe $30,000 to $200,000 (that is middle class in Washington DC). Libertarians would oppose both programs. Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid serve the truly needy. Of course, real libertarians are rare and few people believe these programs should be abandoned. Mend them, not end them is a reasonable policy position. Social Security is viable into the indefinite future with the across the board benefit cuts mandated by law and Medicare only needs a little help from the market (managed care).

Miron is simply spouting liberal propaganda when he claims "means testing" these programs is a policy everyone can agree on. What he is really proposing is a substantial tax increase on the most productive citizens in America who have based their retirement planning on promises of the government to provide health care and an income floor for their old age. While Bill Gates, John Kerry and possibly Professor Miron may never miss the money, the bulk of the beneficiaries are counting on some payments in exchange for their 40+ years of Social Security contributions. (Doesn't truth in advertising require Miron to mention cut-offs for his proposal, none made it into the press stories.)

And his attack on the State college system is particularly disingenous. Everyone knows Harvard and the other elite liberal schools serve the rich and the poor, while the middle class students often go to premier state colleges like University of Virginia. His suggestion that these middle class parents should pay Harvard tuitions at State schoools is extremely insensitive to a put upon economic minority group. I'll suggest we repeal the tax exemption for college endowments and have Harvard pay corporate income tax on their earnings. And maybe cut costs by mandating Harvard professors teach as many classes as community college teachers. If I had more time, I could add further suggestions.

Please in the future, limit the use of the word libertarian to truly libertarian positions. Miron is just one more socialist.

Malcolm B. Coate


Miron's ideas made me think the second letter of his last name should be an "o."

Social Security is already means-tested twice. First, upper-middle income people get less income replacement in retirement than those with lower middle incomes. Someone earning 25 grand might get a 12 grand benefit at "normal" retirement, while someone making 60 grand will get about 18 grand -- 50% more, even though he put twice as much into the system. That's classic means-testing. Then, upper middle and upper-income Social Security recipients have to pay income tax on either 50% or 85% of their Social Security benefits, while those who rely mostly on Social Social Security alone for their retirement sustenance pay none.

Medicare is already seriously means-tested. 2.9% of a every single dollar a person earns (the 1.45% for both employer and employee) goes into the system to pay for the same benefit i.e., a certain level of medical care in retirement, regardless of what your working-years income was. The rich guy making a million a year is paying 20 times as much to get that fixed benefit as someone making 50 grand a year. Forcing someone to subsequently not get the benefit or to pay more in the form of higher deductibles and copays can only be seen as unconscionable piling on.

College tuition is already ruthlessly means-tested to the point where a Tulane University president once bragged to the rough effect that it was income redistribution at its finest. Only the poor have access to the vast majority of grants (Pell, etc.). The "Expected Family Contribution" calculation is rigged against people who have higher incomes, and who save and invest. The pricier schools even dig deeper than the feds do into parents' finances to make sure that no source of wealth that "should" be expended on college is missed.

Like I said, I'm not sure that TCS Daily spelled Miron's last name correctly. I'm so fired up about the weakness in those three ideas that I'll probably burn three posts this weekend on them.

Tom Blumer


Agricultural subsidies need to go. But as your readers pointed out, "means-testing" would be a tough sell. Nevertheless, since I do not believe supply side economics works (at least not in America, where tax rates are already low, you should definetly try applying your philosophy in Europe), means-testing could be a way in which one reduces taxes and also reduces expenses to make up for the lost revenue. Interesting thought.

Rod Selem


Update... Reader Marnee Dearman nails it:
If these letters from readers demonstrate anything it is the failure of the Libertarian argument. The crux should be individual rights yet Libertarians, lacking a clear and integrated philosophical system, tend toward the pragmatic. So really is it any wonder that most of those letters were quibbles on who should get what, yet again? One utilitarian argument is as good as another. The only reason required for cutting government programs is an ethical one based in individual rights, and that, crazy as it may seem, is the hardest sell of all. It must be done, clearly and without equivocation, or nothing will ever change.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:18 AM | link   


Wednesday, June 14, 2006

AT LEAST IN THIS CASE THEY ARE ADMITTING IT   At their heart, all taxes are instruments of government control of people. In some cases it's right out in the open:
"Taxation is, by far, the single most effective tool against smoking," said Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden. "It is now more critical than ever that New York State grant New York City the authority to raise the city's tobacco tax." Health officials say that if the city is allowed to add another fifty-cent tax, 10,000 people who would have died of smoking-related illnesses will instead be saved."

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:00 PM | link   

SIMPLE SOLUTIONS FOR THE SERIOUS   If anyone of either party was serious about cutting government spending, libertarian Harvard economist Jeff Miron has a simple checklist of what they would do. But they don't...
... the claim that government expenditure cannot be cut is dead wrong. I offer here a list that Democratic economists should embrace. The numbers after each item are the approximate annual savings in 2006 dollars.
Agricultural Subsidies: Everyone's favorite whipping boy, and for good reason. These subsidies are a handout to rich farmers, and they raise food prices for everyone. $20 billion.

Social Security for the Well-Off: Social Security is not means-tested; people with substantial retirement income get full benefits. This is insanity; recipients did not "save" the benefits they receive; these benefits come from taxes paid by current working generations. Cut Social Security expenditure, say, 20% by introducing a modest degree of means-testing. $100 billion.

Medicare for the Well-Off: Same deal as with Social Security. Raise premiums, deductibles, and co-pays in a means-tested manner to save 20% of current expenditure. $60 billion.

Higher Education for the Well-Off: State governments currently operate colleges and universities in a manner that makes no distributional sense. Children of millionaires pay the same highly subsidized tuition as children in poverty. State governments should emulate the private sector by setting a high tuition rate and then offering discounts on a means-tested basis. $50 billion.

Pork: Although many "bridges to nowhere" are small potatoes, the number of potatoes is large. A recent accounting by Taxpayers for Common Sense estimated 2005 earmarks at $24 billion; most of this is pure pork. Adding big ticket items like manned space flight, Amtrak subsidies, mass transit boondoggles like the Big Dig, senseless flood control projects undertaken by the Army Corps of Engineers, and subsidized disaster insurance, not to mention state and local pork, would easily yield substantial savings. $70 billion.

The grand total from this list is $300 billion annually, roughly the deficit projected for 2006.
Thanks to reader Jameson Campaigne for the link.

Update... Reader Gordon Haave doesn't think it's this simple.

Miron's checklist is problematic: 1. By means-testing Social Security, you would have an admission that it is not in fact a real retirment program and that the money that one contributes to Social Security is not in fact invested in an account for you. It is this myth that keeps social security alive. This is why the Democrats aren't screaming for means testing social security. It might threaten the whole program.

The same deal basically exists for medicare. There is of course no trust fund. By means testing it, the wealthy will say "But what about what I put in the trust fund". The answer to which is that the trust fund is on paper only.

Children in poverty do not pay the same tuition as children of millionaires. Higher education is the greates price discrimination industry that there is. The colleges claim that there is one tuition rate. Then, they get your parents tax returns and figure out how much you can pay. That is what they charge you. The federal government should simply get out of the higher education business, and the tuition rates will come down. Take Harvard for example: Their endowment is large enought that they do not even need to charge tuition. Why do they then? Because much of it is paid for by the government. They would lose that money if they didn't charge tuition. If the government did not interfere in the tuition marketplace, Harvard would cut tuition if not eliminate it.

Of course they don't want to cut pork. But we all know that.

Update 2... Reader Gerald Hanner chimes in:
The deal made with the American people back there in the 1930s was that you paid into Social Security and you got something back from it when/if you made it to age 65. It was never intended to be a "means-tested" program, i.e., welfare. It was supposed to provide a floor of income in a day when individual and company retirement plans were almost nonexistent. In fact, the first Social Security recipients had paid nothing into the program; they simply had fulfilled the requirement of having lived long enough and having worked the requisite number of quarters.

With good reason, the Congress has preserved, more or less, the basic structure of the Old Age portion of Social Security. Where the original recipients' payments were tax-free (it was considered to be an insurance indemnification) we recipients of the Old Age benefit nowadays pay taxes on the benefit, so Congress has changed the benefit from an indemnity to a pension payment.

Miron also neglects the other three aspects of Social Security: the Disability portion, the Survivor Benefits portion, and the Medicare portion. Do you think Medicare is any less a drain that the Old Age benefit?

Things have change for the better in the last seventy years or so. No Kidding! Congress should take action to adapt Social Security to our modern age, but turning it into a welfare program isn't a bright idea.

Update 3... reader Dudley Crawford writes,
Is the humor intentional in naming Jeff Miron as a libertarian? Means testing sounds egalitarian to me. i.e., lefty.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:09 AM | link   


Monday, June 12, 2006

YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING   Reader Ethan Davis found out just how utterly useless the New York Times "public editor" is when it comes to getting an error corrected on the editorial page. Check out this correspondence:
Dear Public Editor,

In your June 8 editorial on the flag burning amendment, you write: "Supporters of the amendment cannot point to a single instance of anti-American flag burning in the last 30 years."

But a simple Google search turns up an October 2001 flag burning incident at Amherst College. Protesters doused flags with gasoline, ignited them, and chanted anti-American slogans.

I hope you will correct this factual error. The Amherst College news release about the flag burning can be found here: [link]

Sincerely,

Ethan Davis



Dear Mr. Davis,

Thank you for your messages and for your patience. The editorial and Op-Ed pages are not within this office's purview except for monitoring factual erros [sic]. The example you provided does not seem to qualify as an error because the editorial says that "supporters" of the proposed amendment cannont [sic] point to a single issue of flag burning, not that there have been no instances.

Sincerely,
Michael McElroy
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

Update... our own public editor Irwin Chusid notes the two typos in the Times' reply, which I've gone back and marked with "[sic]". How's that for irony? Making an error in spelling the word "errors".

Update 2... reader Joe Reed has caught the Times red-handed:

Michael McElroy claims that "The example you provided does not seem to qualify as an error because the editorial says that 'supporters' of the proposed amendment cannot point to a single issue of flag burning," and he is wrong. The Citizens Flag Alliance, "a broad-based, nonpartisan, nonprofit, national organization, which was formed to persuade Congress to pass a constitutional amendment that would return to the American people the right to protect their flag," has an extensive list from 2005. They're unfortunately not hyperlinked to news articles, but they do list dates and sources.
Update 3 [6/13/2006]... Reader Urijah Kaplan adds,
Besides being an obvious mischaracterization of the editorial's intent, the fact is that it said "cannot" not "did not"! "Cannot", of course, means that it would be impossible for them to point out an instance, not whether they actually did or not.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:08 PM | link   

THE DEMS WILL CLEAN THINGS UP WHEN THEY WIN IN NOVEMBER   "When I become chairman [of a House appropriations subcommittee], I'm going to earmark the shit out of it." So says Jim Moran (D-VA), quoted in the Arlington Sun Gazette, on what he would do if Democrats take the House of Representatives. Thanks to Taegan Goddard for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:20 PM | link   


Sunday, June 11, 2006

WHAT'S GOOD FOR GM...   General Motors tried to respond to a vicious Tom Friedman column in the New York Times, in which the automaker was accused of supporting terrorists, buying votes in Congress and being a corporate "crack dealer." According to a GM blog, after the Times published several attaboys supporting Freidman, and much back-and-forth with GM, they finally agreed to publish a watered-down version of a response. The fastidious Times wouldn't even allow GM to use the word "rubbish" in describing Friedman's crazy accusations. The letters editor told GM, "It's not the tone we use in Letters." Right. Only in columns. Be sure to review the entire hilarious backstage correspondence between GM and the Times on this.

Thanks to reader E. M. Schulze for the link.

Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 3:50 PM | link   

CONTRA THE TIMES    Carl Futia is an investment strategist who specializes in contrary opinion -- and loves to bet against the New York Times. In response to today's Times Magazine's cover story on the US's supposed debt crisis, Futia writes,
...certainly the NYT is continuing its downbeat propaganda compaign that tries to convince its readers that the US economy is in trouble. But my theory of the big media is that they are in the business of telling people what they want to hear. So this story is good evidence that, at least among the elite in the USA, there is a lot of negative sentiment about the US economy and its prospects. As far as I am concerned this means that no significant drop in stock prices is likely for the forseeable future.

I note also that the bogeyman of debt is a contrary opinion signal that the US bond market is headed up from here. And I think it...is telling us that the US dollar is headed up too.


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 3:44 PM | link   

A NEW BLOGGER TAKES ON THE TIMES' STATISTICS   Our old friend Bob Ferguson has started his own blog... it's a good one -- check it out. Start with this posting:
Jeff Sommer's recent article in the New York Times, "Fear of Inflation Prompts Big Losses in Stocks" makes a big deal about the recent one-week decline of 3.2% in the Dow Jones Industrials. But if you think about it, it is not particularly unusual.

Roughly, the DJI has a mean weekly return of about zero. Its annual standard deviation of return is about 15%, more or less. Assuming weekly returns are independent as an approximation, a 15% annual volatility corresponds to a 2.08% weekly volatility. A weekly return of -3.2% is only 1.54 standard deviations from the mean.

Assuming normality, the probability of a result 1.54 standard deviations below the mean or worse is 6.2%. This sounds pretty low, but Mr. Sommer did not pick this week at random. He scoured recent history for the worst week and found that it was the worst since about a year ago.

The real question is how likely is at least one weekly decline of at 3.2% or worse in a year.

Roughly this size negative return or worse should occur about three times a year (0.062*52=3.2). In fact, the probability that it would occur at least one week a year is about (1-(1-0.062)^52)=0.964, or about 96.4%.

Something that is expected to happen at least once a year with probability 96.4% is not unusual.


Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:16 PM | link   


There's more...visit the archives!