tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post4517505576103069645..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Quick on Paul RyanEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-11679194586584463982011-04-11T20:51:17.787-04:002011-04-11T20:51:17.787-04:00Let's just say you have more buy in than I and...Let's just say you have more buy in than I and leave it at that.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-35071507570277527692011-04-11T15:15:33.176-04:002011-04-11T15:15:33.176-04:00Sure there are flaws on the margin. The trouble is...Sure there are flaws on the margin. The trouble is, people always talk about the flaws on the margin and generalize it inappropriately.<br /><br />"Medicare is going to cause budget trouble". This is a government failure on the margin. At the particular margin of public health insurance that we provide currently, there are real costs from government failure and that is one of them.<br /><br />That is pointed to and more generalized statements are made about government provision of health insurance, period.<br /><br />If you want to eliminate government provision of health insurance in a comprehensive way, you have to demonstrate that without Medicare the situation would be better.<br /><br /><i>I never hear that argument</i>. I hear philosophical arguments about it, but that's different. Anyone can formulate a philosophical case for or against.dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-73552210454895206122011-04-11T15:11:06.231-04:002011-04-11T15:11:06.231-04:00That's the thing, the flaws are not on the mar...That's the thing, the flaws are not on the margin.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-29995341998528567382011-04-11T14:15:28.415-04:002011-04-11T14:15:28.415-04:00re: "What I find of interest about this is ho...re: <i>"What I find of interest about this is how "the government" continues to shoot itself in the foot and undermine its own credibility. That only bodes well for us "more markets please" types."</i><br /><br />This is an awfully odd perspective. The early 21st century is not the 1930s, and I'm not of the opinion that Social Security and Medicare are set in stone or inviolate - but you need to have a bigger perspective when you talk about shooting in the foot.<br /><br />How are we shooting ourselves in the foot here? We're "shooting ourselves in the foot insofar as long-term projections on health costs aren't easy and budget trouble is looming down the line as a result (long-term projections on pensions are easy which is why Social Security is in good shape, even given demographic transitions). But we <i>are not</i> shooting ourselves in the foot insofar as the elderly get great health care in this country, and they aren't as at risk of dying in poverty as they were before Social Security and Medicare.<br /><br />So how exactly does government "shoot itself in the foot"? It's not an especially easy answer. We have budget trouble, I'll concede that. Does government "shoot itself in the foot" on the life prospects of the elderly? How are they faring relative to a polity that is restrained from providing for its elderly? What about poor children? Are they better fed and educated here? If we have "failing schools" is that "shooting ourselves in the foot" more so than a polity where children aren't offered education at all and don't receive it?<br /><br />What I find interesting is how people can criticize government on the margin (existing public schools clearly do not perform as well as existing private schools), but never inquire at all about whether this is an appropriate counter-factual on which to judge success or failure. The appropriate question isn't "are we running in to trouble keeping seniors dignified and out of poverty?" - we're almost definitely running into some trouble constantly for the reasons I talk about a lot on here about government inefficiency and market efficiency. The appropriate question is "are seniors and indeed is society as a whole, under this deeply flawed system in need of occasional reform and revamping, better off than they would be without this flawed system". People point out the flaws on the margin and remain completely oblivious to the meaningful counter-factual.dkuehnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10136690886858186981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-14815460493511340322011-04-11T13:59:11.947-04:002011-04-11T13:59:11.947-04:00Daniel,
Whatever "solutions" they have ...Daniel,<br /><br />Whatever "solutions" they have to this issue will be too little and they will not fundamentally disturb the numerous stakeholders. I am not pessimistic about Congress, I am pessimistic about government in general.<br /><br />What I find of interest about this is how "the government" continues to shoot itself in the foot and undermine its own credibility. That only bodes well for us "more markets please" types.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-53453100264994730652011-04-11T09:48:59.886-04:002011-04-11T09:48:59.886-04:00re: "And it will go nowhere."
Well, it ...re: <i>"And it will go nowhere."</i><br /><br />Well, it will be argued over and elements <i>will</i> be included. Hearing Warner talk about this recently, seeing the Ryan plan, and then seeing the Ryan plan push Obama to making an announcement makes me more hopeful than I have been in a long time for entitlement reform. It used to be common wisdom that you just can't touch this stuff. Now three groups (it's really the gang of six, not just Warner) are getting explicit. This is a good sign.<br /><br />I know people can be pessimistic about Congress and I understand that, but entitlements are one issue where it is quite meaningful when they simply start talking about. If just Ryan proposed a budget that is widely considered to be extreme and unhelpful, I'm not sure I would be as positive. But multiple people are speaking up with multiple approaches which means there will actually be a discussion - and actually having that discussion on an issue like this, which is so discussion-resistant, increases the likelihood of a reform.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-55182373410745835222011-04-11T09:40:07.961-04:002011-04-11T09:40:07.961-04:00"Legislation is being crafted on the basis of..."Legislation is being crafted on the basis of Bowles Simpson right now, so I would not be so pessimistic about its relevance."<br /><br />And it will go nowhere.<br /><br />Defense spending is intimately tied with domestic spending.<br /><br />The way you deal with defense policy is to make it an actual defense policy; as opposed to what we have now, with Obama (or whoever occupies the Presidency) acting as if Article I grants him the power to send U.S. military forces anywhere he wants them to go as if he were George III or a medieval monarch.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-75714458149673485632011-04-11T09:31:04.347-04:002011-04-11T09:31:04.347-04:00Yes, but my Senator and others have not. Legislati...Yes, but my Senator and others have not. Legislation is being crafted on the basis of Bowles Simpson right now, so I would not be so pessimistic about its relevance.<br /><br />It - with the Ryan Plan and whatever Obama comes up with (which I'm sure will incorporate elements of Bowles-Simpson even if he didn't like the whole package) will be haggled over, which is precisely as it should be.<br /><br />As for defense - I don't actually think of this as a long-term issue personally, so much as a short and medium term budget concern. Defense is not what will threaten the budget twenty years from now. Entitlements and perhaps tax policy are going to do that. I would like to see defensed address through addressing defense policy - namely ending Iraq and winding Afghanistan down at whatever pace is reasonable (I'm not the best person to say on that).<br /><br />re: <i>"The response would be that they are using the short-term problem as a springboard for more long-term solutions."</i><br /><br />Well certainly that's their response, but I'm concerned that what Ryan is pushing for the short term will make the long-term harder to deal with.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17192667997950934790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-32628071690580637852011-04-11T08:48:29.842-04:002011-04-11T08:48:29.842-04:00Obama has entirely ignored Bowles-Simpson; sort of...Obama has entirely ignored Bowles-Simpson; sort of like how Bush ignored the 9/11 Commission's findings and recommendations. I think commissions, etc., like that are basically pointless and are largely used as a means to shield a politician against criticism.<br /><br />Ryan's plan isn't serious because it does nothing about "defense" (why we continue to use that Orwellian term for our warmaking capability I dunno); of course in order to do something about "defense" we'd have to have a discussion about our role in the world.<br /><br />"My biggest fear is that Ryan and his allies are going to insist on a foolish consistency between short and long term policies."<br /><br />The response would be that they are using the short-term problem as a springboard for more long-term solutions.Gary Gunnelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14463810435943252898noreply@blogger.com