Don’t Like the Results, Kill the Report

Apparently earlier this year the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report on the correlation between the top marginal tax rates and economic growth. Spoiler alert, the report found no correlation between lowering the top marginal tax rate (the rate on the so-called job creators) and an increase in overall economic activity. This result, of course, runs counter to the main thrust of the current Republican economic policy, which is to push for lower taxes on “job creators” in order to create more jobs.

So what did the Republicans in Congress do when they got the report? They demanded that the  CRS withdraw the report.  And since the CRS works for Congress, and Republicans are in the majority, they CRS had no choice but to withdraw the report.

But there is magic in the internet. Things really don’t disappear, so the report is available here.

The New York Times story is also available here.

The overall conclusion of the report:

The top income tax rates have changed considerably since the end of World War II. Throughout
the late-1940s and 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was typically above 90%; today it is 35%.
Additionally, the top capital gains tax rate was 25% in the 1950s and 1960s, 35% in the 1970s;
today it is 15%. The average tax rate faced by the top 0.01% of taxpayers was above 40% until
the mid-1980s; today it is below 25%. Tax rates affecting taxpayers at the top of the income
distribution are currently at their lowest levels since the end of the second World War.
The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate
and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth. The reduction in
the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The
top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie.

However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of
income at the top of the income distribution. As measured by IRS data, the share of income
accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before
falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the
top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to
how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income
disparities.

The Rising Cost of Health Care

The Lane Report has an article titled “The Seven Factors Driving Health Care Cost. ” (Click the title for a link to the article.) Since it was from the Lane Report my assumption was that the seven factors were 1 – 6. Obamacare 7. Medical Malpractice costs. But I was wrong, except for the last item.

According to the article the seven factors are:

1. Paying doctors per treatment and not for health outcomes.

2. A population that is growing older and fatter.

3.  Desire for the newest drugs and treatments.

4. Tax breaks for health insurance, which encourages companies to provide insurance with low deductibles and co-pays for a bigger tax write down, but which allows employees to over-use health care.

5. Poorly informed consumers.

6. Hospital consolidation.

7. Legal issues, like medical malpractice fears and costs, but also fraudulent billing and other issues.

The full report was prepared by the Kaiser Family Foundation and PBS News Hour. It is available here.

The cost of the two main government medical programs, Medicare and Medicaid, are rising at unsustainable rates. We, as a nation, will not get those costs under control until we get the rising costs of health care under control. That is no easy task, but it will only be done by addressing all of the causes, and not simply blaming it on one cause among many.

The Rising Cost of Health Care

The Lane Report has an article titled “The Seven Factors Driving Health Care Cost. ” (Click the title for a link to the article.) Since it was from the Lane Report my assumption was that the seven factors were 1 – 6. Obamacare 7. Medical Malpractice costs. But I was wrong, except for the last item.

According to the article the seven factors are:

1. Paying doctors per treatment and not for health outcomes.

2. A population that is growing older and fatter.

3.  Desire for the newest drugs and treatments.

4. Tax breaks for health insurance, which encourages companies to provide insurance with low deductibles and co-pays for a bigger tax write down, but which allows employees to over-use health care.

5. Poorly informed consumers.

6. Hospital consolidation.

7. Legal issues, like medical malpractice fears and costs, but also fraudulent billing and other issues.

The full report was prepared by the Kaiser Family Foundation and PBS News Hour. It is available here.

The cost of the two main government medical programs, Medicare and Medicaid, are rising at unsustainable rates. We, as a nation, will not get those costs under control until we get the rising costs of health care under control. That is no easy task, but it will only be done by addressing all of the causes, and not simply blaming it on one cause among many.

The Cost of Mining Coal

Here’s an excellent article from the Washington Post about the rising cost of mining coal. This rising cost accounts for its declining use. The costs are rising largely because the coal that is the easiest to get was mined first, and now what is left is more difficult, and expensive, to obtain.
Cost of mining coal.

According to Marie Shmaruk, a director at Standard & Poor’s who analyzes metals and mining companies: “We have been relatively negative on central Appalachia for quite some time because it’s an expensive area to mine,” she said. “It’s been mined out and has thinning coal seams. We’ve been mining there forever.”

Shmaruk said that “central Appalachia is being squeezed the most. At natural gas prices today, the coal in a lot of those mines is not really competitive. And you’re seeing a lot of the utilities in that area have moved to natural gas.”

If there is a war on coal, the opponent is low cost natural gas, not environmentalists.

The Cost of Mining Coal

Here’s an excellent article from the Washington Post about the rising cost of mining coal. This rising cost accounts for its declining use. The costs are rising largely because the coal that is the easiest to get was mined first, and now what is left is more difficult, and expensive, to obtain.
Cost of mining coal.

According to Marie Shmaruk, a director at Standard & Poor’s who analyzes metals and mining companies: “We have been relatively negative on central Appalachia for quite some time because it’s an expensive area to mine,” she said. “It’s been mined out and has thinning coal seams. We’ve been mining there forever.”

Shmaruk said that “central Appalachia is being squeezed the most. At natural gas prices today, the coal in a lot of those mines is not really competitive. And you’re seeing a lot of the utilities in that area have moved to natural gas.”

If there is a war on coal, the opponent is low cost natural gas, not environmentalists.

Personality and Political Orientation

An article in Salon summarizes the research from a new book, “Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics.”

Briefly, those who are disposed towards order and hierarchy tend to be Republicans, and those who tend to be adventurous and free thinkers tend to support Democrats.

Here’s the article. How your Personality Predicts Your Politics.

More on this later.

Personality and Political Orientation

An article in Salon summarizes the research from a new book, “Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics.”

Briefly, those who are disposed towards order and hierarchy tend to be Republicans, and those who tend to be adventurous and free thinkers tend to support Democrats.

Here’s the article. How your Personality Predicts Your Politics.

More on this later.