Six Wasted Syllables (for Paul Price)

On the Atlantic's Business Channel, Chris Good posts about the return of Bobby Jindal, noting that, given his expertise in health care policy, Jindal has taken advantage of the current debate over President Obama's proposed health care reform to tiptoe back into the national spotlight, now that memories of his awful response to the President's speech have faded. Good also links to Jindal's op/ed about health care policy in today's Wall Street Journal, "How to Make Health-Care Reform Bipartisan". One paragraph from Jindal's op/ed prompted the title of this post:

•Refundable tax credits. Low-income working Americans without health insurance should get help in buying private coverage through a refundable tax credit. This is preferable to building a separate, government-run health-care plan.

What would William Strunk, Jr. have called "refundable tax credits", if such a thing existed in his time? I'm guessing he'd call them what they are: "grants". I'm not sure why Jindal and other conservatives persist in wasting an additional six syllables on the longer euphemism. Perhaps it's so they can characterize government spending on such grants as tax relief instead of government spending, but, if so, this bit of obfuscation just plays into liberals' rhetoric on progressive tax policy. Most liberals are happy to characterize transfer payments to low-income Americans as tax relief, and to characterize tax cuts for the wealthy as a form of government spending. There doesn't seem to be much benefit to conservatives in conceding the rhetorical and policy ground on this, particularly since, as some smart centrists (e.g., Clive Crook) and even at least one smart liberal (Matt Yglesias) acknowledge, we are approaching the point of diminishing returns when it comes to increasing the progressivity of our tax system.

As both men have noted, if American liberals want to expand the welfare state raising taxes on the rich, by itself, won't be enough to pay for it; they'll have to raise taxes (by at least a modest amount) on everyone else. Yglesias has noted that countries such as Sweden, which have social safety nets envied by American liberals, also have much more regressive taxes than we do.

The Undertaxed American Middle Class

In the Forbes column we quoted in the previous post ("Undertaxed America"), Bruce Bartlett referred to OECD data in making his case. Clive Crook referred to OECD data as well in a post on taxes in his Atlantic blog earlier this week ("America's widening fiscal gap"):

Mr Obama intends to squeeze the rich, but the scope for this may be more limited than US liberals would wish. Few Americans seem aware that the US income tax code, as a recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study showed, is already one of the most progressive.* Even before the rise in top marginal rates promised by Mr Obama, the US income tax collects 45 per cent of its revenues from the highest-income decile. Compare that with Britain at 39 per cent, Canada at 36 per cent, France at 28 per cent, Sweden at 27 per cent and an OECD average of 32 per cent.

This difference is only partly explained by the less-equal US income distribution. The fact that the US has no broadly based national sales tax - value added taxes make Europe's overall tax codes less progressive still - only underlines the point. The US tax system raises comparatively little revenue; what little it raises already comes disproportionately, by international standards, from the rich.

I have previously argued that the US will need a VAT [value added tax]. Even before Mr Obama unveiled his ambitions for healthcare reform, wage subsidies to help the working poor, better education and the rest, the US middle class was seriously undertaxed. The government's promises, on present plans, will be unaffordable. If they are honoured regardless, the only question is which comes first: broadly based tax increases or fiscal collapse.

I have wondered if there might be a simpler way to tax Americans' consumption than to implement a value added tax. Since income taxes in the U.S. are highly progressive, and IRAs and 401(k)s don't offer deductions for payroll taxes, there is little incentive for Americans in lower income quintiles to save instead of consume. For example, according to CBO data, effective income tax rates for Americans in the bottom two income quintiles were negative in 2005 (i.e., these Americans received more in transfer payments than they paid in income taxes). So why not just increase the payroll tax by some amount and then allow workers to deduct up to that entire additional amount if they make an equivalent contribution to an IRA or 401(k)? Those who contribute less than that additional payroll tax amount to their retirement accounts will be paying a de facto consumption tax.

The image above accompanied the Financial Times column from which Clive Crook quoted himself in his Atlantic post.

Economics as Politics by Other Means

Although Greg Mankiw didn't mention it specifically in the post I linked to previously ("News Flash: Economists Agree"), I wonder if part of what prompted him to write it was the row set off by Clive Crook's Financial Times column last week, ("Politics is damaging the credibility of economics"). In that column Crook wrote,

Economics outside the academy has become the continuation of politics by other means. If you wish to know what Mr [Paul] Krugman thinks on any policy question, do not read his scholarly writings; see which policies are advocated by the progressive wing of the Democratic party. Mr Krugman agrees with liberal Democrats about most things, and for the rest gives as much cover as the discipline of economics can provide - which, given its scientific limitations, is plenty. He does this even on matters where, if his scholarly work is any guide, the economics is firmly against his allies. Liberal Democrats are protectionists. Mr Krugman is not, but politics comes first.

The syndrome affects economists on the right as much as on the left. Just as there is a consensus among economists that protectionism should be opposed, most economists believe that a powerful fiscal stimulus is both possible and desirable in present circumstances, and that the best stimulus would include big increases in public spending. Yet recently, Robert Barro, a scholar with conservative sympathies, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that this view was an appeal to "magic".

The problem is not that Mr Krugman questions the consensus on trade (if indeed he does), or that Mr Barro questions the consensus on fiscal policy (as he certainly does). It is that both set the consensus aside so carelessly. In doing so, these stars of the profession destroy the credibility of their own discipline. Mr Krugman gives liberals the economics they want. Mr Barro gives conservatives the same service. They narrow or deny the common ground. Why does this matter? Because the views of readers inclined to one side or the other are further polarised; and in the middle, those of no decided allegiance conclude that economics is bunk.

Crook threw in a (mostly accurate) criticism of the blogosphere as well:

The web, for all its blessings, is an aggravating factor. Many of the most successful economics blogs promote communication within political groupings, not across them. On the web you best build an audience by organising a claque and stroking its prejudices. Extend elaborate courtesy to people you agree with and boorish contempt to those who do not get it. Celebrate exasperation and incivility as marks of intellectual authenticity - an attitude easier to tolerate in teenagers under hormonal stress than in professors at world-class universities.

For Krugman's and Barro's respective responses to that column, see Crook's Atlantic blog post, "The Dismal Science, Revisited".

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees Imitates The Onion

Hat tip to Atlantic blogger/FT Columnist Clive Crook for mentioning that development economist and NYU professor William Easterly has a new blog, Aid Watch. Easterly has been somewhat controversial for questioning whether traditional foreign aid approaches actually benefit the world's poor. In a recent post ("And Now For Something Completely Different: Davos Features “Refugee Run”"), Easterly writes about the tasteless event promoted by the flyer above, which apparently took place yesterday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Excerpt:

When somebody sent me this invitation from Antonio Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, I thought at first it was a joke from the Onion. What do you think of the Davos rich and powerful going through the “Refugee Run” theme park re-enactment of life in a refugee camp?

Can Davos man empathize with refugees when he or she is not in danger and is going back to a luxury banquet and hotel room afterwards? Isn’t this just a tad different from the life of an actual refugee, at risk of all too real rape, murder, hunger, and disease?

Did the words “insensitive,” “dehumanizing,” or “disrespectful” (not to mention “ludicrous”) ever come up in discussing the plans for “Refugee Run”?

I hope such bad taste does not reflect some inability in UNHCR to see refugees as real people with their own dignity and rights.

Of course, I understand that there were good intentions here, that you really want rich people to have a consciousness of tragedies elsewhere in the world, and mobilize help for the victims. However, I think a Refugee Theme Park crosses a line that should not be crossed. Sensationalizing and dehumanizing and patronizing results in bad aid policy – if you have little respect for the dignity of individuals you are trying to help, you are not going to give THEM much say in what THEY want and need, and how you can help THEM help themselves?

More on the Obama Transition

In his New York Times column on Sunday ("Everybody's Business: Obama's Team Isn’t Exactly a Break With the Past"), Ben Stein was cautiously optimistic about President-elect Obama's economic picks overall, but had this to say about Obama's pick for Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner:

During the presidential campaign, I heard Mr. Obama talk many times about “change you can believe in.” But what does Mr. Geithner have to do with change?

He’s the pre-eminent careerist of old-time finance, and a basic part of the team that got us into this mess. He was pro-deregulation for most of his career. He went along with failing to rescue Lehman Brothers, a decision now generally considered a catastrophic mistake. He led the Federal Reserve Bank of New York while money-center banks made lethal mistakes of faulty risk management — and he did zero to stop it, as far as is known.

In what sense is he “change you can believe in”? How is he part of the solution, not part of the problem? I know he is a protégé of Robert E. Rubin. But isn’t Mr. Rubin himself the essence of the Washington-New York finance axis of power? He was a fine Treasury secretary while the tech boom made all things new, but Citigroup hasn’t exactly thrived during his tenure. Again, where is the change?

In his column in Monday's Financial Times ("Bernanke and the risk of deflation"), Clive Crook asks who, among Obama's economic picks, will actually be in charge:

He has put together a superbly talented team, but with so many strong-willed members one wonders who is in charge. Lawrence Summers at the National Economic Council? Timothy Geithner at the Treasury? This potentially unstable new duumvirate immediately aroused speculation about Mr Bernanke’s future influence and likely tenure at the Fed – an unhelpful development. If this were not complicated enough, next came the announcement of a new Economic Recovery Advisory Board, headed by none other than Paul Volcker.

Mr Obama has emphasised that he will be in command. He better had be. Yet it remains to be seen whether he can control this group of eminences and communicate his policy with sufficient authority. Unlike John McCain, Mr Obama never boasted of his ignorance of economics but the new president is no more master of these issues than his former rival. Boldness seldom comes out of committee, nor does forthright explanation. He is going to need a chief of economic policy – and it would be good if that person, and everybody else, knew who it was.