Political Roundtable Part XXVI

[Pointgod]

Well well well. Looks like Trump and his cronies were trying to get this, pressure the Ukranian government to fire someone on the board of a state run Energy company and assign one of Giuliani’s clients. Another reminder that when Republicans accuse someone of doing something it’s 100% projection.

As Rudy Giuliani was pushing Ukrainian officials last spring to investigate one of Donald Trump’s main political rivals, a group of individuals with ties to the president and his personal lawyer were also active in the former Soviet republic.

Their aims were profit, not politics. This circle of businessmen and Republican donors touted connections to Giuliani and Trump while trying to install new management at the top of Ukraine’s massive state gas company. Their plan was to then steer lucrative contracts to companies controlled by Trump allies, according to two people with knowledge of their plans.

But the affair shows how those with ties to Trump and his administration were pursuing business deals in Ukraine that went far beyond advancing the president’s personal political interests. It also raises questions about whether Trump allies were mixing business and politics just as Republicans were calling for a probe of Biden and his son Hunter, who served five years on the board of another Ukrainian energy company, Burisma.

https://apnews.com/d7440cffba4940f5b85cd3dfa3500fb2?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

[Zonkerbl]

Not my point. My point is that the federal tax code is at least progressive. State and local taxes are anything but... If you were to break it out by just federal taxes it wouldn't be so skewed - although still very skewed.

If you were to look at local and state taxes - we really have a problem there (with respect to where their receipts come from).

But alas, that is a non-sequitur since we were talking about the federal policy.

No, that's actually my point. It is well established in public economics that state tax policy responds strategically to federal tax policy. If the Fed transfers less money to states, because the rich are draining revenues out of it by refusing to pay taxes, then cash strapped states will turn to the tools they have available to replace it (e.g. traffic fines and civil forfeiture).

So one of the consequences of reducing the size of the government *only* by reducing taxes paid by the rich is that states have to increase their regressive tax burden.

[edited to fix a typo: "pubic economics" lol]

Hmmm, I don't think that is the case (see the figure below). I think it is something quite different. State and local outlays have increased rather quickly. Those have been driven by healthcare, unfunded liabilities that are catching up with them and the industrial prison complex (your favorite). You could add that there are unfunded mandates and that would be correct.

But to you point (I think) it would be more efficient for the federal government to have larger receipts and federal transfers to the states (block grants). But of course, every time block grants come up they are blocked (as the federal government wants more and more control - driving inefficiency and further driving unfunded mandates).

This is a misleading graph. I would put it in terms of share of GDP or share of total govt revenue. Of course transfers are going to rise over time. From that graph you can't tell how much is an actual increase and how much is just inflation. And as GDP grows the transfer payments in nominal terms can rise even if their share in GDP falls. So it doesn't provide any context to tell if this is a big or small increase.

Although the average growth rates since 1990 is almost 7%, much higher than GDP growth. Hm.

[Zonkerbl]

Hm. Big growth during seventies, crashed after Reaganomics, definitely a growing trend over time though, from 1.25% of GDP in 1960 to 3% in 2016.

So if these are transfers to pay for medicaid or whatever, yeah I guess they'd have to increase over time. So maybe you need to take these growth trends and compare them to medicaid as a share of GDP. If state health care expenditures are rising faster than fed transfers then they'd have to raise revenue from some other source to pay for it.

[Zonkerbl]

Now I've added *total* medicaire expenditures because I couldn't find it just for states. But still I think the trend shows the point I'm trying to make.

[dckingsfan]

Hm. Big growth during seventies, crashed after Reaganomics, definitely a growing trend over time though, from 1.25% of GDP in 1960 to 3% in 2016.

So if these are transfers to pay for medicaid or whatever, yeah I guess they'd have to increase over time. So maybe you need to take these growth trends and compare them to medicaid as a share of GDP. If state health care expenditures are rising faster than fed transfers then they'd have to raise revenue from some other source to pay for it.

I think that hits the nail on the head. Well at least one of the problems. I think that the unfunded mandates were a big part of the problem. The states did it a bit to themselves with the losing war on crime/stupid on drugs and the unfunded liabilities.

But they could certainly have alleviated part of the problem by fully funding their mandates. And therein makes your point. The great recession buried receipts and transfers.



More to the point the last administration was getting receipts back to where they need to be for our current spending (20 ish). When this last stupid tax stimulus took place.



But that goes back to fixing the tax code first and foremost, right? Then figure out the hole you are in and dig yourself out with a short-term wealth tax that expires when your budget is sustainable. If you could get rid of unfunded mandates at the same time, state and local governments would be less overwhelmed.

[Zonkerbl]

I hope medicare for all actually fixes the problem of rising medical costs in the US. Just because our willingness to pay to avoid death is infinite doesn't mean we should be paying more than what it costs to actually provide the service. I imagine that's what's going on - monopoly power in the health sector plus infinite willingness to pay = fees charged that are higher than actual cost of service.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Hm. Big growth during seventies, crashed after Reaganomics, definitely a growing trend over time though, from 1.25% of GDP in 1960 to 3% in 2016.

So if these are transfers to pay for medicaid or whatever, yeah I guess they'd have to increase over time. So maybe you need to take these growth trends and compare them to medicaid as a share of GDP. If state health care expenditures are rising faster than fed transfers then they'd have to raise revenue from some other source to pay for it.

It's basically all health care. Absolutely every developed nation is feeling the pinch. Health care technologies and treatments are absolutely ballooning. It's a brilliant market, too, because it's not got the same kind of clientele that's going to be willing/able to walk away, price things out, etc. And I don't mean that that in the sense of corruption and anti-competitive practices which are totally a major problem, too. I mean that there are just so many expensive treatments and more are being developed every day and we need a much more effective means of triage because we simply can't afford to pay for everything. Nobody can. I haven't seen it happen in any developed nation yet, either, though maybe I missed something somewhere, but there needs to be a rationale and honest public discussion about this at some point because it's not sustainable.

Getting health care costs under control would pretty much solve all the financial problems (not that there aren't other issues that wouldn't also make things even better). It's also why the idea of ballooning them even more is a dangerous game. I like a single payer option, personally, but part of the value I see in it is a more effective means of controlling costs. Health care workers, drug companies, etc. are going to absolutely hate it. Look up the kinds of strikes and bitter feuds that happened when countries like England, Canada, basically anywhere else rolled out public health care. It absolutely needs to happen for fiscal solvency, though. Single payer without that kind of fiscal restraint is a recipe for much worse.

[dobrojim]

https://nypost.com/2019/10/08/eu-ambassador-gordon-sondland-barred-from-testifying-in-house-impeachment-inquiry/

Never saw that coming.

Same old Trump playbook, tell people you want the whole story to come out
then do everything on earth to prevent that from happening.

call me...

another example of why one should not assume just because someone is rich
that they are also smart. Hilarious his $1M donation to Trump is going to
cost him so much more than that.

[dckingsfan]

I hope medicare for all actually fixes the problem of rising medical costs in the US. Just because our willingness to pay to avoid death is infinite doesn't mean we should be paying more than what it costs to actually provide the service. I imagine that's what's going on - monopoly power in the health sector plus infinite willingness to pay = fees charged that are higher than actual cost of service.

Sadly it won't... actually neither M4A or MFA will do the trick by themselves.

One thing is it could get more Americans insured - and that is a good thing. It would get rid of those bad policies over time and that is a good thing. It could get healthcare out of the hands of employers over time and that is a good thing.

It could reduce the costs of pharma in time as well, it could have a dramatic affect on uncoordinated care and could substantially reduce administration costs (if implemented correctly - and there are lots of landmines there).

It probably isn't going to reduce physician/nursing costs, facility costs, the use of expensive technologies and procedures, the lack of cost consideration from patients, it doesn't get rid of fee-for-service or our populations' unhealthy behaviors, expensive end of life care or litigation.

But if I were Warren, I wouldn't bring up any of these things until I was President. I would have two task forces - one to reimplement the ACA & add M4A or MFA and one to tackle cost drivers.

As a note, I wouldn't implement Bernie's M4A as it would increase many of the expenses (especially in the short-term).

We have another problem looming - our demographics...

[I_Like_Dirt]

We have another problem looming - our demographics...

Everywhere outside of the developing world has that problem. Demographics are about the only thing that I think might actually stop China in time. They're essentially what's bringing Russia down right now and a big reason for the added land grabs Putin is making. Japan was always the canary in the coal mine there. Germany had massive problems that were quietly patched up with immigration despite all the protests against it, but long term Germany and the rest of Europe (with France as a weird exception) all have major demographic troubles on the horizon.

[dckingsfan]

We have another problem looming - our demographics...

Everywhere outside of the developing world has that problem. Demographics are about the only thing that I think might actually stop China in time. They're essentially what's bringing Russia down right now and a big reason for the added land grabs Putin is making. Japan was always the canary in the coal mine there. Germany had massive problems that were quietly patched up with immigration despite all the protests against it, but long term Germany and the rest of Europe (with France as a weird exception) all have major demographic troubles on the horizon.

This is what makes having a smart immigration policy sooooo very important.

The Ds are clearly the closest but have a couple of holes - namely how to remove illegal immigrants (or move them to a legal status - moving forward - DACA is good for the current situation).

We really should be trying to slant immigration in our favor and bring in those in the right demographic (namely educated and 35 and under).

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s744/text

[I_Like_Dirt]

We really should be trying to slant immigration in our favor and bring in those in the right demographic (namely educated and 35 and under).

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s744/text

I agree, though I also think a longer view really needs to be taken. Increasing costs are being offloaded on to parents and children alike at a time when the developed world clearly needs citizens. A rethink on health care along with a rethink on education could help long term, there, too, and honestly might also provide value for taking in the non-educated immigrants as they have more kids and that's generally a net benefit even if we can't cash it in now. I complain a lot about offloading costs onto future generations. It also works the other way where we refuse to take on costs in the immediate (or even restructure things so that things cost less and they are more affordable) to allow for benefits at some undetermined period in the future.

[JWizmentality]

https://nypost.com/2019/10/08/eu-ambassador-gordon-sondland-barred-from-testifying-in-house-impeachment-inquiry/

Never saw that coming.

Same old Trump playbook, tell people you want the whole story to come out
then do everything on earth to prevent that from happening.

call me...

another example of why one should not assume just because someone is rich
that they are also smart. Hilarious his $1M donation to Trump is going to
cost him so much more than that.

Will it though? I haven't seen anyone held accountable and I don't see that happening anytime soon. If there's one thing I've learned over the past 3 years is that the much praised "Checks and Balances" was a laughable joke. The republican party is rotten to its core, the democratic party is fleckless and incompetent and half the population is frighteningly uneducated with fascist inclinations.

This country is f*cked.

[dobrojim]

I suppose that is a good question. Perhaps I'm being optimistic.

[Zonkerbl]

Dems are screwed because any tool they use against the GOP to enforce subpoenas and whatnot will immediately be used corruptly against them ten times worse. They're paralyzed against the GOP's corruption, which is effective because the GOP voters support them unconditionally, no matter how evilly they behave. If the voters want evil, that's what you get.

[G R E Y]

I'm really getting sick of the stonewalling from the WH and that it is allowed. If Sondland is issued a subpoena (it's my understanding he first agreed to a request), does this force him to testify regardless of the State Department's block?

Also, this whole quid pro quo method of stalling by the WH is such a blatant reflection of its leader it's macabre: If impeachment committee votes, then WH will grant access to docs. If impeachment committee releases full Volker transcript / all the texts, then WH will consider allowing Sondland to testify.

This flies directly in the face of co-equal branches of government. And the Rs sit in damning silence. I'm not saying anything revelatory here, but it's just disgusting and exasperating. There will be no place for Rs to hide in history. They won't care as they'll be long gone, so no amount of current kowtowing to egregious disregard for the laws they swore to uphold is enough to induce any shame to do the right thing.

[G R E Y]

Also, can Congress do anything to stop this vile turnabout against the Kurds? They're being left for slaughter.

[dckingsfan]

Dems are screwed because any tool they use against the GOP to enforce subpoenas and whatnot will immediately be used corruptly against them ten times worse. They're paralyzed against the GOP's corruption, which is effective because the GOP voters support them unconditionally, no matter how evilly they behave. If the voters want evil, that's what you get.

They are paralyzed at least until the election... I think the voters that are not supporters have to come out en masse. If they don't then it is on the American voter and no longer on congress - we have capitulated at that point.

[Jamaaliver]

Dems are screwed because any tool they use against the GOP to enforce subpoenas and whatnot will immediately be used corruptly against them ten times worse. They're paralyzed against the GOP's corruption, which is effective because the GOP voters support them unconditionally, no matter how evilly they behave. If the voters want evil, that's what you get.

This is why we need a third Centrist party to divide power between the House and Senate.

If The Senate was Blue, The WH was Red and the House was 'polka dots'...the three institutions would be forced to compromise more frequently to get anything done.

And it would, in theory, prevent any one side from getting too much power and using against political rivals

[Pointgod]

Also, can Congress do anything to stop this vile turnabout against the Kurds? They're being left for slaughter.

No. Blame the **** that voted for Trump and the ones that sat home because Clinton didn’t “inspire” them or they deluded themselves she was the same as Trump.