Health Care Links

Nobody seems to agree on anything regarding the health care bill.  But the official estimate of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is that repealing the bill would add $230 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, making its repeal tricky for cost-conscious Republicans.

Paul Krugman lays out where some of those savings are coming from

While Congress argues about repeal, the courts argue about the constitutionality of the law: to date, three have ruled that it is and two have ruled that it isn't.  Guess which party appointed which judges.

Speaking of partisanship, one interesting to watch during the upcoming election is how Mitt Romney handles the health care reform debate.  The plan was modeled, in part, on the one implemented while he was governor of Massachusetts.  Democrats have taken to praising him for his work in 2006, with the new governor, Deval Patrick, recently joining in.

Health Policy Links

Over the past 25 years, life expectancy has risen far slower in the US than many other developed nations.  Why?  Smoking, obesity, and poverty appear to be some of the main culprits.  What can be done?

The USDA is calling for new standards for school lunches, here's a rundown of the proposed changes.

A growing number of locales are posting calories counts on menus, but studies find that customers at Taco Time and in NYC didn't order any healthier after they were posted.

Here's a map of the prevalence of food deserts across the US, and another series of maps charting eating habits across the country.

And Mark Bittman writes that we should strive to "eat real food" and lists a number of proposals that he thinks might make that happen

Even More Economic Links

On Friday, Paul Krugman wrote that

The whole budget debate, then, is a sham. House Republicans, in particular, are literally stealing food from the mouths of babes — nutritional aid to pregnant women and very young children is one of the items on their cutting block — so they can pose, falsely, as deficit hawks

About which The Economist writes "Paul Krugman's columns tend so often toward scathing criticism of Republicans that it's easy to discount the outrage and dismiss it. It would be a shame if that's the reaction to his writing today, which couldn't be more on point."

John Harwood wonders whether the hard-line stances on budget issues will fire come election time, pointing out that tough talk on spending hasn't historically led to many political victories.

Also of interest is this brief piece on the unemployment rate: Does Less Unemployment Mean More People Working?

Economic Policy Pre-Debate Reading

Background:
The federal budget: Austerity lite | The Economist

Rethinking Budget Cutting - Pew Research Center

For Wisconsin Governor, Battle Was Long Coming - NYTimes.com

Opinion: What Does Government Do?

Affirmative:
David S. Broder - Without higher taxes, the national debt will be crushing

Negative:
W. Kurt Hauser: There's No Escaping Hauser's Law - WSJ.com

More Economic Links

update: the House voted to cut $60 billion from the budget on Saturday morning.  Said John Boehner: “This week, for the first time in many years, the people’s House was allowed to work its will — and the result was one of the largest spending cuts in American history.  We will not stop here in our efforts to cut spending, not when we’re broke and Washington’s spending binge is making it harder to create jobs.”


Florida's governor turned down $3 billion in federal funding for high-speed rail, joining the governors of Wisconsin and Ohio in turning down federal funds.  Meanwhile, the large cuts proposed by Wisconsin's governor in conjunction with proposed restrictions on public-sector unions have led to large protests.  Milwaukee and Madison have had to cancel school because so many teachers called out sick.  And the Democrats from the state legislature have skipped town so that the legislature can't reach quorum and bring the proposal to a vote.


The House voted to end a program to manufacture a different type of engine for the new F-35 joint strike fighter.  Voting against the proposal was John Boehner, whose home state of Ohio stands to lose 1,200 jobs.  Voting for the proposal was a coalition of liberals who want to shrink the defense budget and deficit hawk conservatives.  As another piece details, the freshmen legislators so far seem more motivated by their desire to cut spending than their desire to be re-elected.


The GAO released their annual list of government programs at high risk of fraud and waste


Here's Jon Stewart's take on the budget debate


Here's a video I strongly recommend watching on the fiscal crises that local and state governments are facing

National Debt Activity

Background: possible negotiations on the budget?

An interactive, "you fix the budget" activity

Also of interest, a graphical exploration of Obama's budget proposal

National Debt Links

Setting the stage: Republicans Ready for Battle Over Debt Ceiling

Back in the fall, a bipartisan commission made a number of recommendations, which weren't readily accepted by either side.  At the time, conservative columnist David Brooks wrotethat it would probably take a third party or new movement to actually enact these changes, otherwise"we continue on the headlong path toward a national disaster. And along the way our dysfunctional political system will leave all sorts of other problems unaddressed". Meanwhile, liberal columnist Paul Krugman wrote that the commission had been "hijacked" and that the commission was one whose "first priority is cutting taxes, with deficit reduction literally at the bottom of the list" presenting a proposal that "clearly represents a major transfer of income upward, from the middle class to a small minority of wealthy Americans." He concludes that "It’s no mystery what has happened on the deficit commission: as so often happens in modern Washington, a process meant to deal with real problems has been hijacked on behalf of an ideological agenda.

Meanwhile, Republicans didn't react too kindly to the lack of discussion of the national debt in the State of the Union. "The president of the United States is asking us to increase the debt limit. But on Tuesday night, he didn't even address it. And I don't think the American people will tolerate increasing the debt limit without serious reductions in spending and changes to the budget process, so that we can make sure that this never happens again. The other night, all he did was call for more stimulus spending. I think our team has been listening to the American people. They want to us reduce spending, and there is no limit to the amount of spending we're willing to cutJohn Boehnersaid on "Fox News Sunday" the following weekend.

Part of the problem is that Americans don't like the current situation, but they also don't want to cut anything.

Obama and the congressional Republicans have both unveiled budget cuts in the past week. Predictably, neither side is happy with the other's proposal.

In regards to the Republican cuts, Krugman writes that they follow a simple pattern: "Focus the cuts on programs whose benefits aren’t immediate; basically, eat America’s seed corn. There will be a huge price to pay, eventually — but for now, you can keep the base happy." Meanwhile, Paul Ryan's response to the Obama budget was "He's raising spending everywhere.  This is not an austere budget."

Economic Links 2-14-11

A preview of some of the things we'll discuss in class in addition to some other interesting pictures and articles

-Some interesting trends in public opinion, including a chart showing the flip in perception of the economies when new presidents from a different party are elected

-Roughly 90% of Americans identify themselves as "middle class" . . . what should we actually consider middle class?

-Comparing the size of the various attempts to stimulate the economy since 2008 in a pie chart

-Comparing the size of this recession to every recession since the Great Depression in terms of jobs lost

-The top tax bracket over the course of the last 60 years

-Why the rich are harder to "stimulate" than the poor

-A chart of US household debt over the past decade

-A chart comparing the tax burden on a salary of $100,000 across various nations

-A group of economists are beginning to seriously consider whether greater income inequality leads to greater odds of a financial collapse

Random Links 2-13-11

-Ron Paul once again won the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference, with Mitt Romney a close 2nd.  The Washington Post, however, puts Paul on their list of conference losers and Romney on their list of winners.

-Clarence Thomas hasn't said a word during oral arguments in five years . . . here's why

-Tennesseans are reporting mixed experiences with their new Nissan Leafs -- the advertised 100 mile range is 62-138 miles in practice

-One thing that we have discussed, and will continue to discuss, this semester is the increasing polarization in Congress.  Here are some handy graphs that illustrate those trends.  And here's one of many examples of how polarization might affect perception.

-Lastly, if you decide to do a term paper on environmental policy, here are some colorful images you might borrow for your presentation

Environmental Links 2-8-11

In addition to the class reading on cap & trade, here's how the picture looked last year:
America and climate change: Cap and trade, with handouts and loopholes | The Economist

Since cap-and-trade appears to be dead for the moment, a new policy of "renewable energy standards" may be put in place (requiring a certain percentage of energy generated to be from renewable resources).  Here's one piece arguing that cap-and-trade would be more efficient and a follow-up piece from the Economist on the creation of green jobs.

Another method of controlling carbon that just began is granting the EPA the power to regulate climate-altering gases from factories and power plants: here's the lowdown from the NY Times and from the Washington Post.

Here's an interesting piece on the economics tree planting and harvesting -- deemed "tree-conomics" -- that contains a good summary of the difference between public and private goods, externalities, and collective action (which it argues is necessary to reduce global warming).

And here's an interesting story about a Swedish town that powers itself with only "a motley assortment of ingredients like potato peels, manure, used cooking oil, stale cookies and pig intestines."

At the intersection of pop culture and environmental policy, a liberal blogs were abuzz about a Fox News request for stories refuting global warming las week

On a different note, here's one piece about current politics that's well worth reading. The piece itself is a somewhat interesting discussion of the electoral successes and failures over the past 20 years, but he includes a number of utterly fascinating links and graphs: Are Democrats Better Off Than They Were 25 Years Ago?

Climate Change Links, 2-5-11

The percentage of Americans who believe global warming is already occurring dropped from 61% to 50% between 2008 and 2010.  The partisan divide also widened with conservatives who state this believe dropping from 50% to 30% while 72% of liberals in 2008 and 74% in 2010 agree.

The new chair of the House subcommittee on Environment and Economy, John Shimkus, is one conservative who is skeptical of global warming. Back in November, he told Politicothat God would protect the Earth from global warming:"I do believe in the Bible as the final word of God, And I do believe that God said the Earth would not be destroyed by a flood," he said. What does this mean for policy in the next two years?

"Really, the focus is not going to be climate," said Shimkus.  "The climate debate has, at least for two years, has ended with this election. The real focus is on energy security."

Meanwhile, the climate data for 2010 is out, and it has tied 2005 as the warmest year on record. This could be one reason that only 6% of scientists self-identify as Republicans(versus 55% who self-identify as Democrats)according to a recent poll.

A post at The Economists floats three hypotheses that would explain these numbers:

1.) Scientists hate Republicans and discourage them from becoming scientists
2.) Republicans hate science and don't want to become scientists
3.) Training to become a scientist makes one more liberal

Also of note: The director of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is releasing a new movie soon: Revenge of the Electric Car (click the link to watch the trailer).