The New York Times reported on the front page of its Sunday edition that as part of the planned stimulus program, Obama Considers Major Expansion in Aid to Jobless. If the article is true, it is a very bad sign for both the economy and the culture:
One proposal, as described by Democratic advisers, would extend unemployment compensation to part-time workers, an idea that Congressional Republicans have blocked in the past.
Other policy changes would subsidize employers’ expenses for temporarily continuing health insurance coverage to laid-off and retired workers and their dependents, as mandated under a 22-year-old federal law known as Cobra, and allow workers who lose jobs that did not come with insurance benefits to be eligible, for the first time, to apply for Medicaid coverage.
As far as the economy goes, the plan as discussed basically involves paying more people in both cash and benefits to stay unemployed. This is just about the worst possible approach to reinvigorating the economy.
A major recession will require many people to make real adjustments and do difficult things. They will have to relocate to different states, change careers, accept significantly lower pay while they gain experience in their new careers, work short-term at unrewarding jobs while they go to night school to train for better careers, etc.
In the long run, this Schumpeterian process of creative destruction will benefit both the individual and the economy at large. The individual winds up working in a new, more rapidly growing and thus a more opportunity-filled industry while the country sees its resources--in this case labor resources--reallocated to places and careers where they can do the most good.
In the short term, though, this type of transition wreaks havoc on families and individuals--that is why it is called creative destruction. This means that few people will undertake such changes except under extreme necessity. Anything the government does to reduce that necessity--such as paying benefits and giving health insurance--creates a reason for a waitress in Michigan to stay put and hope things get better when the real opportunity for her may be to move to Arizona and work in the elder-care industry.
Beyond economics, extending these types of benefits is extremely corrosive to the culture. As a small business owner, I can’t tell you how many people over the years have approached me looking for work “off the books” because they were receiving unemployment benefits and didn’t want to lose them. These job applicants perceived getting a job as carrying an enormous tax equal to 100% of the unemployment benefits. Add in normal income and payroll taxes plus the cost of commuting and they saw a job as not worth it. These types of benefits tempt otherwise law-abiding citizens to engage in illegal activities.
Traditional unemployment benefits have already been extended by 13 weeks in states with an unemployment rate of at least 6 percent. This will delay the recovery. To add subsidized health insurance and Medicaid for those who never had health insurance plus give money to former part-timers … this is all a way of slowing necessary changes in the economy.
One can appreciate the need to increase aggregate demand; one can empathize with the desire to help unemployed people, but if the goal is a speedy recovery without undermining law-abiding practices, the rule should be simple: Minimize or avoid situations in which we pay people for staying unemployed.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
Flawed Deposit Insurance Programs Need Reform, Banking Expert Says
Government insurance programs that safeguard bank deposits should be reformed to ease taxpayers’ undue stake in propping up the nation’s banking system, according to research by a University of Illinois finance professor.
George Pennacchi says the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., created during the Great Depression to halt bank runs, is supposed to protect savings through premiums paid by banks, but is effectively subsidized by the U.S. Treasury, putting tax dollars at too much risk.
“We have a system where when things get bad, taxpayers end up being forced to pay for bank failures, not just the FDIC,” Pennacchi said.
Proof that deposit insurance has grown overly generous has surfaced amid a global economic meltdown, he said, with investment firms such as Goldman Sachs and insurance giant Hartford Financial becoming banks to get access to insured deposits.
“One of the reasons why that’s so, and I think this has been a long-standing problem, is that government has tended to subsidize deposit insurance, sort of through a back door,” Pennacchi said. “The savings and loan crisis is an example. Instead of premiums paid by thrifts covering the losses, about $124 billion came from taxpayers.”
He proposes reforms in a research paper that will be presented this month at an economic conference sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning, Washington-based think tank that seeks to influence public policy.
One reform, Pennacchi said, is veering away from an approach that provides nearly unlimited government financial backing when large institutions such as Bear Sterns are on the brink of failure. The government, he says, deems some banks “too big to fail,” with so many connections to other financial markets that failure could net a disastrous domino effect.
But he says the problem can be addressed without leaving taxpayers on the hook. He proposes a central clearinghouse requiring banks to put up collateral in derivative trading that would cover potential losses if one of the parties fails.
“That would get rid of the too-big-to-fail problem and is done all the time with exchange-traded derivatives,” Pennacchi said. “If you trade on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, there’s a clearinghouse that requires both parties to put up collateral, so if one of them fails it doesn’t cause a loss for their trading partners.”
He says the FDIC should also reform premiums for deposit insurance that have historically been artificially low, covering only average losses and heightening risks of a taxpayer bailout in the event of widespread bank failures.
A move toward rates charged for similar, private-market insurance, such as credit-default swaps, would likely yield significant premium increases, roughly doubling current rates, Pennacchi said.
“But I think that’s the minimum that needs to be charged to protect taxpayers and prevent the government safety net from expanding even more,” he said.
Pennacchi also advocates either abandoning a dedicated deposit insurance fund, managing the program through the treasury instead, or creating a swap market that would level out banks’ premiums.
He says banks could lock in deposit insurance costs through a premium swap market, rather than paying higher premiums when bank failures rise and receiving rebates on premiums when failures are low. The swap market would be similar to interest rate swaps, transferring risk to investors outside of the banking industry.
“If there’s any reform that would be easy to do it would be to create this premium swap, which would lead to more stability for banks because they wouldn’t face high premiums in bad years when they’re least able to pay,” Pennacchi said.
His research will appear in a book that will be published this year by the American Enterprise Institute. The book will focus on government guarantee programs ranging from the FDIC to crop and terrorism insurance.
George Pennacchi says the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., created during the Great Depression to halt bank runs, is supposed to protect savings through premiums paid by banks, but is effectively subsidized by the U.S. Treasury, putting tax dollars at too much risk.
“We have a system where when things get bad, taxpayers end up being forced to pay for bank failures, not just the FDIC,” Pennacchi said.
Proof that deposit insurance has grown overly generous has surfaced amid a global economic meltdown, he said, with investment firms such as Goldman Sachs and insurance giant Hartford Financial becoming banks to get access to insured deposits.
“One of the reasons why that’s so, and I think this has been a long-standing problem, is that government has tended to subsidize deposit insurance, sort of through a back door,” Pennacchi said. “The savings and loan crisis is an example. Instead of premiums paid by thrifts covering the losses, about $124 billion came from taxpayers.”
He proposes reforms in a research paper that will be presented this month at an economic conference sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning, Washington-based think tank that seeks to influence public policy.
One reform, Pennacchi said, is veering away from an approach that provides nearly unlimited government financial backing when large institutions such as Bear Sterns are on the brink of failure. The government, he says, deems some banks “too big to fail,” with so many connections to other financial markets that failure could net a disastrous domino effect.
But he says the problem can be addressed without leaving taxpayers on the hook. He proposes a central clearinghouse requiring banks to put up collateral in derivative trading that would cover potential losses if one of the parties fails.
“That would get rid of the too-big-to-fail problem and is done all the time with exchange-traded derivatives,” Pennacchi said. “If you trade on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, there’s a clearinghouse that requires both parties to put up collateral, so if one of them fails it doesn’t cause a loss for their trading partners.”
He says the FDIC should also reform premiums for deposit insurance that have historically been artificially low, covering only average losses and heightening risks of a taxpayer bailout in the event of widespread bank failures.
A move toward rates charged for similar, private-market insurance, such as credit-default swaps, would likely yield significant premium increases, roughly doubling current rates, Pennacchi said.
“But I think that’s the minimum that needs to be charged to protect taxpayers and prevent the government safety net from expanding even more,” he said.
Pennacchi also advocates either abandoning a dedicated deposit insurance fund, managing the program through the treasury instead, or creating a swap market that would level out banks’ premiums.
He says banks could lock in deposit insurance costs through a premium swap market, rather than paying higher premiums when bank failures rise and receiving rebates on premiums when failures are low. The swap market would be similar to interest rate swaps, transferring risk to investors outside of the banking industry.
“If there’s any reform that would be easy to do it would be to create this premium swap, which would lead to more stability for banks because they wouldn’t face high premiums in bad years when they’re least able to pay,” Pennacchi said.
His research will appear in a book that will be published this year by the American Enterprise Institute. The book will focus on government guarantee programs ranging from the FDIC to crop and terrorism insurance.
Monday, 5 January 2009
Seattle - In the United States there are over 40 million citizens that includes 10 million children who are without health insurance. This is going to
Seattle - In the United States there are over 40 million citizens that includes 10 million children who are without health insurance. This is going to be one of the biggest troubles that soon to be official President Barrack Obama is going to have to handle when he takes office in a few weeks.
Not only do so many people in our country not have health insurance, but those who do currently have it may soon not be able to afford it as insurance premiums are continuing to rise. The fact is that the way things are with health care presently may continue to go downhill and get worse before anyone sees it get better due to the state of our economy.
President elect Obama has reached out to the citizens of our country regarding the health care system and thousands answered that call. Obama asked citizens to come together in groups and discuss what they felt needed to be done to improve the health care system in our country and to come up with some possible solutions. Obama’s transition team set up Sunday as the official date to gather all information discussed and any videos that were made and have them uploaded to their site for review.
In Ohio alone, more than 120 meetings were held and the transition team has received more then 600 reports from groups since the uploading began.
Jen Psaki, a transition team spokesperson has said that they have received an overwhelming outcry from our citizens saying that there is a need for change no matter who the person is. There has been many stories received of very sad situations regarding those who cannot afford health care.
This is not the first time that citizen input has been looked for, however last time there was hardly any medical professionals involved. This time around the medical professionals made sure to give their input. They are concerned with the fact that medical students are choosing to go to the higher paying specialties in their education because nowadays it seems that those who are in general practice are not as valued. Due to this decision rates will continue to rise in health care costs.
There are many reasons that health care is so expensive and why people cannot afford it. There are also many decisions that need to be made by President elect Obama and his transition team along with Tom Daschle, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Let us hope and pray that the right decisions are made and the health care system improves quickly for all.
President-elect Barack Obama eyes a $300 billion tax cut
President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are working on a plan that would deliver $300 billion worth of tax cuts to individuals and businesses, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The proposed tax cuts, which would make up about 40 percent of the economic stimulus package, may make it easier to attract Republican support for an economic-stimulus package, as many Republicans have said that economic initiatives should rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The size of the proposed tax cuts could reach $775 billion over two years, which is a larger amount than many Democrats and Republicans in Congress had anticipated, according to the Wall Street Journal.
If enacted, the Obama tax-cut proposals could total more in two years than either of President Bush's tax cuts did in their first two years, according to the Associated Press.
Bush's 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001 - considered the largest tax cut - was made up of $174 billion of cuts during its first two full years, according to Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation.
Obama had hoped to have Congress enact the recovery plan in time for him to sign his when he takes office in January, but Robert Gibbs, spokesman for Obama, said that was "very, very unlikely."
"We don't anticipate that Congress will have passed, both houses, an economic recovery agreement by the time the inauguration takes place," Gibbs told the Associated Press.
Obama has insisted bold and quick action is crucial to help America bounce back from this recession.
"Economists from across the political spectrum agree that if we don't act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment and the American dream slipping further and further out of reach," he said in his Saturday radio and YouTube address.
Congressional aides briefed on the plan say it likely will include tax cuts of $500 to $1,000 for middle-class individuals and couples, as well as some $200 billion to help revenue-starved states pay for health care programs for the poor and other operating costs. A large portion of the money would go for infrastructure projects, such as road and bridge repairs as well as energy efficiency projects and health care information technology systems.
The proposed tax cuts, which would make up about 40 percent of the economic stimulus package, may make it easier to attract Republican support for an economic-stimulus package, as many Republicans have said that economic initiatives should rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The size of the proposed tax cuts could reach $775 billion over two years, which is a larger amount than many Democrats and Republicans in Congress had anticipated, according to the Wall Street Journal.
If enacted, the Obama tax-cut proposals could total more in two years than either of President Bush's tax cuts did in their first two years, according to the Associated Press.
Bush's 10-year, $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001 - considered the largest tax cut - was made up of $174 billion of cuts during its first two full years, according to Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation.
Obama had hoped to have Congress enact the recovery plan in time for him to sign his when he takes office in January, but Robert Gibbs, spokesman for Obama, said that was "very, very unlikely."
"We don't anticipate that Congress will have passed, both houses, an economic recovery agreement by the time the inauguration takes place," Gibbs told the Associated Press.
Obama has insisted bold and quick action is crucial to help America bounce back from this recession.
"Economists from across the political spectrum agree that if we don't act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment and the American dream slipping further and further out of reach," he said in his Saturday radio and YouTube address.
Congressional aides briefed on the plan say it likely will include tax cuts of $500 to $1,000 for middle-class individuals and couples, as well as some $200 billion to help revenue-starved states pay for health care programs for the poor and other operating costs. A large portion of the money would go for infrastructure projects, such as road and bridge repairs as well as energy efficiency projects and health care information technology systems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
