Hillary Isn’t Bill, Economically Speaking

Even more than usual, coverage of this year’s election has been light on issues and heavy on nonsense. It would be great if there were more articles like this one by Mike Konczal for VOX: “The ‘New Liberal Economics’ Is the Key to Understanding Hillary Clinton’s Policies”.

He begins: 

The Great Recession and its aftermath shattered the policy consensus on economics. What would come next? It’s taken a while, but we’re witnessing the emergence of an important new vision.

He dubs this new vision the “new liberal economics” and says it’s based on these three principles:

— Inequality is not a regrettable but inevitable byproduct of an efficient economy, nor a temporary, self-correcting trend. It’s driven by policy choices, and new choices can make a difference.

— The economy will not simply bounce back from any weaknesses, as was assumed under Alan Greenspan’s Great Moderation. Rather, there are deep structural problems that include a global savings glut and unwillingness by US companies to make investments.

— “Nudging” the private market is not always the best way to deliver core goods and economic security. Deploying government services directly can be more effective.

After discussing these three principles in detail, Konczal argues that Hillary Clinton has formulated an “agenda in light of the Great Recession and the policy revolution [that] energetically incorporates these ideas”. He specifically mentions her proposals to:

  • Regulate financial activities “more broadly”;
  • Increase taxes on top earners;
  • Strengthen antitrust enforcement;
  • Put limits on drug prices;
  • Appoint members of the Federal Reserve board who will treat full employment as one of its primary goals;
  • Reduce corporate America’s fixation on quarterly earnings instead of long-term investment;
  • Initiate a long-needed $275 billion infrastructure plan;
  • Expand Social Security for poorer retires while resisting any cuts to the program;
  • Make all public colleges free for most American families;
  • Add a Medicare-like public option to the health care exchanges;
  • Support paid family and medical leave for all new parents.

Clinton’s many proposals remind me of the book her husband and Al Gore published back in 1992. It was called Putting People First and covered in detail many of the policies Clinton and Gore pursued in office. That was an exciting time to be a Democrat, because we finally had a Democratic President after 12 years of Reagan and the first Bush. We also had a Democratic Congress that worked with the new administration, an important benefit Clinton and Kaine probably won’t have.

But it’s still exciting to think about what a Clinton/Kaine administration might accomplish. Hillary Clinton is a very bright person who understands that America is different than it was in 1992. There’s more inequality, too many people in jail and welfare reform needs reforming. That’s why her agenda is more progressive than her husband’s was. The Republicans will resist, but President Hillary Clinton will do whatever she can to bring us and drag them into the 21st century.

The Clinton campaign’s many, many Issues pages begin here.

From the Ridiculous to the Sublime: Maureen Dowd and Brian Wilson

NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd may have written her most embarrassing column yet. And she’s written more than her share of embarrassing columns.

The thing is: Dowd likes Donald Trump. They’ve had personal conversations. So it makes a bit of sense that she wants to give him the benefit of the doubt. Still, her latest column, “Trump in the Dumps”, is quite surprising. 

Trump jumped into the race with an eruption of bigotry, ranting about Mexican rapists and a Muslim ban. But privately, he assured people [apparently including Dowd] that these were merely opening bids in the negotiation; that he was really the same pragmatic New Yorker he had always been; that he would be a flexible, wheeling-and-dealing president, not a crazy nihilist like Ted Cruz or a mean racist like George Wallace. He yearned to be compared to Ronald Reagan, a former TV star who overcame a reputation for bellicosity and racial dog whistles to become the most beloved Republican president of modern times.

After cataloging what she sees as the pros and cons of his candidacy, she ends with a bang:

Now Trump’s own behavior is casting serious doubt on whether he’s qualified to be president.

Now? As in this week?

Could it be that Dowd likes Trump so much and dislikes the Clintons so much that she’s seriously considering Trump’s strengths and weaknesses? And she’s still on the fence a year after Trump began campaigning?

But then it occurred to me that maybe her conclusion was ironic, a bit of understated humor. I usually don’t read Dowd’s column these days, given the silly stuff she writes, but she can be funny in a nasty sort of way. Perhaps she was merely having fun at Trump’s expense? I’d like to give her the benefit of the doubt, but I really don’t know.

In other news, Pet Sounds turned 50 last month and Brian Wilson turned 74 today. In case you don’t know, he’s the tall one with the Beatles haircut on the album cover. So, in his honor, here’s “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” a few times.

First, the instrumental backing track:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxItXxRBymU

Next, just the voices (right after the opening notes):

Finally, the finished product:

I said it was from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Meanwhile, You Don’t Want To Be Poor In America

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington think tank, has issued a report relating to “welfare reform”, the law that Congress passed and President Clinton signed 17 years ago.

Federal funding for the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program (what used to be called “Aid to Families with Dependent Children” or “welfare”), hasn’t increased since 1996, so inflation has eaten away at the program’s benefits:

Because TANF benefits have declined substantially in value, they do much less to help families escape deep poverty than they did in 1996.  With the exception of Maryland and Wyoming, a poor family relying solely on TANF to provide the basics for its children (such as during a period of joblessness, illness, or disability) in every state is further below the poverty line today than in 1996.

In fact, the inflation-adjusted value of benefits has decreased by more than 20% in 14 states and by more than 30% in 26 states.

Believe it or not, the monthly cash payment to an unemployed woman with two children in Mississippi is $170. Where I live, in one of the highest income states in the country, it’s $424 for a family of three, exactly what it was in 1996 (that’s a 32% decrease in real value).

Of course, there are other Federal programs for poor people, whether they have jobs or not, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or “food stamps”). But you can’t pay the rent or buy shoes with food stamps. Next week, by the way, people receiving food stamps will start getting less. A family of four, other things being equal, will receive $36 less per month.

The CPBP report (with charts):

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=4034

The food stamp news:

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/food-stamp-benefits-going-down-holidays-8C11418632