I’ve criticized the Congressional Budget Office for generating biased and inaccurate numbers. These are the clowns, after all, who say deficit spending stimulates the economy in the short run but they also rely on a model which seemingly predicts 100 percent tax rates maximize growth in the long run.

About the only nice thing that can be said about this collection of bureaucrats is that they’re consistent, though I’m not sure being wrong all the time is something to brag about – especially when even cartoonists start to make fun of CBO’s flawed approach.

This is why I’ve argued it may be best to shut down CBO and also written that – at a minimum – sweeping reform of the Capitol Hill bureaucracy is a test of GOP seriousness.

I’m not alone in my disdain for CBO. In a column for The Hill, Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center makes two excellent points about the Congressional Budget Office: 1) the general inability of economists to predict (we’d be rich if we knew how to do that) and 2) the use of inaccurate models.

The CBO’s consistently flawed scoring of the cost of bills is used by Congress to justify legislation that rarely performs as promised and drags down the economy. Whether it scores the recent healthcare bill or the cost of the Capitol Hill Visitor Center, an ambitious three-floor underground facility, the price for taxpayers always ends up larger than originally predicted. …Like many economists, its analysts suffer from a misplaced belief in their forecasting prowess. …CBO relies heavily on Keynesian economic models, like the ones it used during the stimulus debate. Forecasters at the agency predicted the stimulus package would create more than 3 million jobs. …But unemployment stubbornly remained around 10 percent. What was wrong with the CBO’s numbers? …the stimulus and the ACA should serve as yet more evidence that Congress should take budget scores and economic projections with a grain of salt. What looks good in the spirit world of the computer model may be very bad in the material realm of real life because people react to changes in policies in ways unaccounted for in these models.

Let’s now move from the general to the specific. Peter Suderman reports from Reason on new research suggesting that costs for just one provision of Obamacare may be far higher than predicted by the jokers at CBO.

(more…)

In a column about the revolving door between big government and the lobbying world, here’s what the irreplaceable Tim Carney wrote about the waiver process for folks trying to escape the burden of government-run healthcare.

Congress imposes mandates on other entities, but gives bureaucrats the power to waive those mandates. To get such a waiver, you hire the people who used to administer or who helped craft the policies. So who’s the net winner? The politicians and bureaucrats who craft policies and wield power, because this combination of massive government power and wide bureaucratic discretion creates huge demand for revolving-door lobbyists. It’s another reason Obama’s legislative agenda, including bailouts, stimulus, ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, tobacco regulation, and more, necessarily fosters more corruption and cronyism.

This seemed so familiar that I wondered whether Tim was guilty of plagiarism. But he’s one of the best journalists in DC, so I knew that couldn’t be the case.

Then I realized that there was plagiarism, but the politicians in Washington were the guilty parties. As can be seen in this passage from Atlas Shrugged, the Obama Administration is copying from what Ayn Rand wrote – as dystopian parody – in the 1950s.

Nobody professed to understand the question of the frozen railroad bonds, perhaps, because everybody understood it too well. At first, there had been signs of a panic among the bondholders and of a dangerous indignation among the public. Then, Wesley Mouch had issued another directive, which ruled that people could get their bonds “defrozen” upon a plea of “essential need”: the government would purchase the bonds, if it found proof of the need satisfactory. there were three questions that no one answered or asked: “What constituted proof?” “What constituted need?” “Essential-to whom?” …One was not supposed to speak about the men who, having been refused, sold their bonds for one-third of the value to other men who possessed needs which, miraculously, made thirty-three frozen cents melt into a whole dollar, or about a new profession practiced by bright young boys just out of college, who called themselves “defreezers” and offered their services “to help you draft your application in the proper modern terms.” The boys had friends in Washington.

This isn’t the first time the Obama Administration has inadvertently brought Atlas Shrugged to life.

(more…)

This new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity discusses a proposal to solve Medicare’s bankrupt finances by replacing an unsustainable entitlement with a “premium-support” system for private insurance, also known as vouchers.

This topic is very hot right now, in part because Medicare reform is included in the bold budget approved by House Republicans, but also because Newt Gingrich inexplicably has decided to echo White House talking points by attacking Congressman Ryan’s voucher plan.

Narrated by yours truly, the video has two sections. The first part reviews Congressman Ryan’s proposal and notes that it is based on a plan put together with Alice Rivlin, who served as Director of the Office of Management and Budget under Bill Clinton. Among serious budget people (as opposed to the hacks on Capitol Hill), this is an important sign of bipartisan support.

The video also notes that the “voucher” proposal is actually very similar to the plan that is used by Members of Congress and their staff. This is a selling point that proponents should emphasize since most Americans realize that lawmakers would never subject themselves to something that didn’t work.

(more…)

I just read something that unleashed my inner teenager, because I want to respond with a combination of OMG, LMAO, and WTF.

Donald Berwick, the person appointed by Obama to be in charge of Medicare, has a column in the Wall Street Journal that makes a very good observation about how relative prices are falling for products bought and sold in the free market. But he then draws exactly the wrong conclusion by asserting that further crippling market forces for healthcare will yield similar cost savings for programs such as Medicare.

Here’s the relevant passage from his Wall Street Journal column.

The right way is to help bring costs down by making care better and improving our health-care system. Improving quality while reducing costs is a strategy that’s had major success in other fields. Computers, cars, TVs and telephones today do more than they ever have, and the cost of these products has consistently dropped. The companies that make computers and microwaves didn’t get there by cutting what they offer: They achieved success by making their products better and more efficient. …Under President Obama’s framework, we will hold down Medicare cost growth, improve the quality of care for seniors, and save an additional $340 billion for taxpayers in the next decade.

I have no idea whether Berwick realizes that he has inverted reality, so I can’t decide whether he is cynically dishonest or hopelessly clueless. All I can say with certainty is that what he wrote is sort of like asserting “gravity causes things to fall, so therefore this rock will rise when I let go of it.”

To explain, let’s start by looking at why relative prices are falling for computers, cars, TVs and telephones. This isn’t because the companies that make these products are motivated by selflessness. Like all producers, they would love to charge high prices and get enormous profits. But because they must compete for consumers who are very careful about getting the most value for their money, the only way companies can earn profits is to be more and more efficient so they can charge low prices.

So why isn’t this happening in health care?

(more…)

The federal government is capable of enormous waste, which obviously is bad news, but the worst forms of government spending are those that actually leverage bad things. Paying exorbitant salaries to federal bureaucrats is bad, for instance, but it’s even worse if they take their jobs seriously and promulgate new regulations and otherwise harass people in the productive sector of the economy. In a previous video on the economics of government spending, I called this the “negative multiplier” effect.

One of the worst examples of a negative multiplier effect is the $100 million that taxpayers spend each year to subsidize the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which is an international bureaucracy that publishes lots of innocuous statistics but also advocates bigger government and higher taxes in America. This video has the unsavory details, including evidence of the OECD’s efforts to push a value-added tax, Al Gore-style carbon taxes, and Obamacare-type policies.

The OECD’s relentless advocacy of higher taxes (as well as its anti-tax competition agenda) is especially galling since the bureaucrats receive tax-free salaries. Maybe they would be more reasonable if they were not so insulated from the real-world consequences of big government.

To be fair, the OECD is not always on the wrong side. Like other international bureaucracies, the folks in Paris generally oppose protectionism. And the scholars working in the economics department often write excellent papers – which often contradict the statist policies advocated by other bureaucrats in the organization (particularly the policy-making committees).

But the fundamental question is whether American taxpayers should be spending more than $100 million to belong to the organization.

(more…)

Republicans in the House of Representatives are seeking to force a vote, using a discharge petition, on repealing Obamacare. This has caused some infighting since some Republicans want to simply repeal the monstrosity that passed earlier this year, while other GOPers are in the repeal-and-replace camp (Heritage Action is leading the pure repeal effort and National Review has good coverage here and here).

I’m not an expert on the politics of healthcare and discharge petitions, but my gut instinct is that a pure repeal vote is the best short-term strategy. Having said that, there should be no question that good policy requires much more than repeal. In this new Center for Freedom and Prosperity video, Eline van den Broek of the European Independent Institute explains that Obamacare should be repealed, but she also makes a key observation that the American healthcare system was in deep trouble even before that legislation was adopted and sweeping reforms are needed for Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax code’s healthcare exclusion.

I especially like the “Health Freedom Meter” in the video. Citing government data on the huge share of healthcare spending that already is being financed by taxpayers – and showing that only 12 percent is financed directly by consumers, the Health Freedom Meter shows that Obamacare moved America from having a healthcare system 67 percent controlled by government to a system 79 percent controlled by government. That’s obviously a step in the wrong direction, but it also makes clear that repealing Obamacare means a system that will still be burdened with far too much government invovlement and intervention.

(more…)

So where do we go from here now that Obama has succeeded in pushing through a corrupt and bloated healthcare bill?

Let’s start with some good news. This is not the end of the world. If this was 1920, Obamacare would be a paradigm-shifting expansion in the size and scope of Washington. But we do not have a free-market healthcare system today. Government already directly finances nearly one-half of all health expenditures, and the ostensibly private part of our healthcare system is immensely distorted by regulations and tax policy (particularly the exclusion of fringe benefits in the tax code).

Source: CATO Institute

We have deviated so far from a free market that only 12 percent of healthcare costs are paid for out-of-pocket by consumers. And health insurance, rather than being based on risk and protecting against catastrophic expenses, has morphed into a grossly inefficient form of pre-paid health care.

So what does this mean? The way to think of Obamacare is that we are shifting from a healthcare system 68 percent controlled/directed by government to one that (when all the bad policies are phased in) is 79 percent controlled/directed by government. Those numbers are just vague estimates, to be sure, but they underscore why Obamacare is just a continuation of a terrible trend, not a profound paradigm shift. Yes, it is very bad news. Yes, it will cost more than politicians claimed. Yes, it will reduce the quality of care. All those things are true, but we are going 79 mph in the wrong direction instead of 68 mph.

By the way, the 2008 elections did not make that much difference.

(more…)

President Obama and congressional Democrats are claiming that a giant new entitlement program will reduce red ink.  It’s tempting to laugh and dismiss such a preposterous claim. After all, these are the same people who told us that squandering $787 billion on a so-called stimulus would create jobs. Unfortunately, the joke’s on us. According to the “official” scoring estimates on Capitol Hill, Obamacare supposedly will lower the deficit because taxes are being increased more than spending is being increased (not that this should matter since America’s fiscal crisis is spending and deficits are merely a symptom). But these numbers, produced by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation, are highly suspect. I’ve explained elsewhere why the spending projections from the CBO are grossly flawed, and many other experts have made similar observations. The same problem exists on the revenue side of the ledger.  This video explains why we should be very skeptical of any numbers produced by the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Let’s put this in context by reviewing the supposedly nonpartisan numbers that the JCT has produced. The Senate bill has big tax increases on insurance companies, medical device makers, and so-called cadillac health plans. The House plan, meanwhile, largely relies on higher income tax rates on investors and entrpreneurs. And both bills impose huge marginal tax rate increases on middle class taxpayers thanks to the phase out of subsidies, as explained in gruesome detail by my Cato Institue colleage Michael Cannon.

(more…)