Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Piecemeal Policy is Populist and Perhaps Ponzi


After I wrote about federal spending last week, the press was filled with new ideas about tax change and tax reform. On one level that sounds good. Many of us have been harping about a lack of attention to the tax side. On another level, this cornucopia of tax ideas warns of a continued breakdown in Washington and the increasing potential for a fiscal meltdown.

Consider the guy who gets in a car accident and damages his 1988 Vanagon pretty badly. He takes his pride and joy to his favorite mechanic, Claus. Claus wrings his hands and tells the guy, let’s call him Jason for fun, that the bill will be large because he has to fix everything from the brakes to the rolled and pleated cream and crimson upholstery. Jason luckily is covered by the Deutsche Hefeweizen Car Insurance Company and tells Claus to go ahead and do the work.  Imagine how Jason felt when Claus called him and told him the car is ready. When Jason arrived he found that the front end was fixed but nothing else. Claus explained that if Jason is satisfied, he would work on the rest of the car. Imagine that Claus and Jason go through this same thing each time Claus fixed one more part of the car. Finally Jason, usually a mild-mannered and thoughtful fellow, began screaming at Claus – DO NOT CALL ME AGAIN UNTIL THE WHOLE D___CAR IS FINISHED. I CANNOT EVALUATE YOUR WORK AND KNOW MY CAR IS FIXED UNTIL ALL PARTS ARE WORKING AT THE SAME TIME.

I think you get the point. Claus might take great pride in his brake work but Jason cannot really evaluate the brakes until he can actually drive the car forward and step on the brake pedal. It would also help to check the brakes after the steering system is fixed and he could see how the car braked while turning.

A sequential method is good for building a house. First you dig the hole then you lay the foundation, etc. But some things are best done and understood simultaneously. I think our fiscal system is broken. It behooves some politicians to amaze us with one partial solution after another. But the truth is that you cannot really evaluate a spending plan without knowing how you are going to finance it. Think of all the fiscal policies that have been dribbled out by the President or Congress lately. We fix employment one day with a continuing payroll tax reduction.  We make markets more efficient the next day by reducing corporate tax rates. We raise the tax on dividends and capital gains another time. One policy is all about fairness. Another one is about efficiency. Another pretends to impact growth. Hollow words talk about medium-term budget restructuring. All these policies have implications for national fiscal health in the near-term. All will impact it in the long-term. We cannot evaluate the brake fix without the steering. We cannot know the impact of a spending plan without a revenue fix and tax reform.

I can just see those politicians sitting around their favorite watering hole in DC drinking $20 Manhattans laughing with each other about how stupid we voters are. Let’s hit the voters with housing reform on Tuesday, says Senator 1. Yes, and then on Wednesday we will save the planet from killer bees chortled Senator 2. Senator 3 chuckled that Thursday should be when they publish the three million page document on fair taxes. They toast the voters and then text their chauffeurs to take them to the next stop for donuts. 

Okay I make fun but the sad truth is that this piecemeal approach is about nothing except the manipulation of us by politicians. They divide us and we happily line up in our respective camps while they go to the bank. 
Talk about a Ponzi scheme. These politicians vote for schemes that have done nothing but make things worse. I don’t care whether you talk about the war on poverty or on Afghanistan – the policies are not raving successes. Then they pit us against each other when it comes to another round of policies that don’t work. When the last round of policies clearly don’t work, they play a game of blaming each other and gain even more power to do equally bad policy. The game is nearing the end and we citizens are left with a mess.
I can hear you now. Larry – get real. You expect these politicians to actually sit in one place long enough to come up with a comprehensive economic plan for the economy? You want them to deal simultaneously with a number of the most important fiscal tools that could make progress towards advancing our goals for employment, economic growth, poverty, energy, and security? You want them to stop playing the bait and switch game?

I agree that what I am saying sound really crazy. I want our politicians to have a plan to improve our country. I want our politicians to recognize that there are tradeoffs when it comes to making progress on important goals like growth and poverty and environment.  I want our politicians to stop playing cheap games that artificially create animosity between the rich and the poor, the young and the old, and the wage earner and the owner. I want our politicians to lead in a way that raises our aspirations and creates realistic hope that we can succeed in an increasingly competitive global economy.

Okay, so maybe I am engaging in some early morning JD with my raisin bran. But we do need to recognize that the current approach to policy during an election year is just going to make things worse. Worse yet is what has happened to our expectations. Notice that it sounds crazy when I propose that our politicians act as leaders and statesmen. Have we really come so far (down) that we can only expect crass and selfish behavior of our political leaders? This is a great country with great people. We should expect more.
More should not be so much to ask for. Most of it we know already.  Below I will try to prioritize some things that most of would agree with. If you don’t agree that gives you something to comment about.

(1) Send a signal to ourselves and the world that our temporary deficits and debt position must be confronted immediately. That means we must reduce spending and increase tax revenues. We could always sell the Grand Canyon to the Chinese but I am not suggesting that yet. 
(2) Don’t let a solution for deficits/debt jeopardize our fragile growth position. By that I mean that too much austerity too soon might be a bad idea. So restructure the budget numbers in a gradual way. They can argue about the speed of the solution. But at the end of the day come up with a temporal plan.
(3) Ask the appropriate czars to move more quickly to finding ways to deal with housing issues, with reducing excessive leverage, and with using the legal system to penalize the bad guys.
(4) When dealing with government spending and tax revenues, leave no stone unturned. Allow no sacred cows. Spending restraint will not get anywhere if Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are taken off the table. Similarly tax revenue enhancement cannot be done unless the entire realm of tax rates, deductions, loopholes, and credits are reviewed together.
(5) If we evaluate the efficiency or the fairness of every change individually we will never take the first step. Instead we should take everything together – all the ideas above – and then make a summary statement about the overall impact on employment, growth, poverty, income distribution, etc. If one multifaceted plan fails to muster enough support, then they should adjust the plan until they get something that appears to be better when it comes to employment, growth, poverty, income distribution, etc.

If some of you have gotten this far you might be screaming – Larry – are you crazy or drunk? Can you really expect Washington to do something like this? Humbly I beg you to notice that the piecemeal approach does not work. It is taking us to the vigilante’s abyss. America does not face an inevitable decline because of the external meanness of China, PIIGS, OPEC, Terrorists, etc.  As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

We have the firepower to adopt a comprehensive plan. We already believe nothing will get done this year because it is an election year. Wouldn’t it be nice if some folks in Washington took this year to work hard on a perhaps flawed but comprehensive plan that addresses our real problems? Isn't that what we pay them handsomely to do? 

14 comments:

  1. The 20% optimist in me says that we can and will do what it takes no matter how much it hurts in the short-term. The 80% pessimist in me says "No way, GI!Never happen! Numba 10, GI!" Our elected reps are more interested in maintaining their seats of power than in solving problems....which they created, in the first place. And, they are adept at pulling the cotton/polyester fleece (wool is too expensive, now) over the voters' eyes so that they can keep getting elected. The piecemeal approach works best for them because we-the-gullible will only remember the last thing they proposed. And while the proverbial elephants are now breaking down the city walls, we have corralled the p-ants.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Al. In the story, we eventually noticed that the King wore no clothes. Perhaps as more and more people see that our current politicians just make things worse, perhaps there is room for your 20% optimism. But for the time being they are quite proficient at pitting ourselves against each other. We seem to revel in the combat.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Actually, the Simpson-Bowles proposal accomplishes much of what you propose. All it needs is a leader to bring the sides together and negotiate. Where's Obama when you need him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was about to post the same idea. It's not perfect but it handles the tax & spending problem without crushing the economy. It had leadership in the Senate's "Gang of Six" who probably avoided the watering hole in Larry's blog.

      Delete
  4. Hi Jim, I agree -- it doesn't have to be that hard. But unfortunately both sides seem adamant about winning for their own sides...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Our fearless leader doesn't want to play the mediator to help reach a compromise solution. He wants the "my way or the highway" solution so he remains aloof just as he did with the super commission and plays the class warfare card. There was never and never will be an intent to reach an agreement. He wants no spending cuts. He wants targeted cuts to increase spending in areas which will buy the votes of those who are too blind or stupid, or both, to determine what is happening. They are the ones who will be heaving the Molotov cocktails in the streets a la Greece. In the military, we would have court martialed him for dereliction of duty, gross negligence, and conduct unbecoming. Of course, Mitch McConnell et al are just as bad.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Simpson Bowles: That does almost pull it all together. Larry, we need a leader not just another politician who deftly uses distractions to hide his /her inability to solve problems. To make this happen we need an event that forces us into action. In saying this I hope the event will not sting too much.

    Let's see: Obama - nope a very liberal person trying to appeal to the moderates and keeping a low profile. The R's have Rick and Mitt. One lived off of the life of a politician and took every lobbyist job he could pretending to be a consultant.Now he is pushing social issues because he has no solutions for anything else. Mitt knows a lot about buying and selling companies...which is what make s it fun to start a new company and eventually get paid for the efforts. Mitt is not pushing social issues but is pandering to the moderates...I think he is a closet moderate.

    "Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?" We need you now !

    I do not see any leaders in the balcony who would take the abuse of our negative system in order to step up Are we setting ourselves up for a shake up?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Al and James,

    It is hard to see a way out of this mess. I have a feeling that the vigilantes will visit us sometime this year and that might get some attention. But it is still not easy to see a leader...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear LSD. Yer blog reminds me of an old song, “Fly Me to the Moon.” We’ve been there; done that. In fact, we’ve been there and done that twice – oh, heck, more than twice. Did major tax reform in 1986, nibbled at marginal taxes a couple times since, and landed on the moon a few times, too. Yeah yeah, we’re talking ‘bout doing tax reform again and also flying to the moon again – oh, yawn, yak, yak. I’m with Mr. Al on this – no, wait, more than with him . . . . I’m 100% pessimistic that we’ll never, ever, ever do major tax reform anytime soon. We’ll fly to the moon sooner . . . . and I think it’s possible pigs will fly before landing a major tax reform.

    Crass and selfish politicians? We got wut we voted fer. Won’t elect candidates that propose major change even when it’s needed (‘cept when hope and change are fuzzy buzz words that mean a lot different things to a lot different peoples and then when ya gets it ya don’ts like it). Won’t oust “stay in the middle and compromise” incumbents.

    Signaling that deficits and debt reduction should be confronted immediately . . . . . but temporarily so as not to disrupt a fragile and nascent recovery . . . . unfortunately kicks the can down road farther (and further . . . ) but most likely will occur since crass and selfish politicians aside from being crass and selfish don’t have the gonads for major change. Ergo, expect gradual and ‘nibbling at the edges’ changes to income tax law/regs, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security.

    But, I think major changes to income tax laws/regs . . . . lowering marginal rates on ordinary income, broadening the base (so most income tax filers pay some tax), eliminating most all exclusions/deduction/loopholes (including carried interest) . . . will not burden the recovery (except to transfer lot of federal employees and some private jobs to unemployment). I believe a vastly simpler tax code will boost the economy, not slow it down. Additionally, remove – not suspend – remove burdensome agency laws/regs that impose on businesses costs that diminish their competitiveness and add almost no value to GDP.
    RE: housing. Czars moving quickly? Sooner pigs flying to the moon; there has been plenty of time for that and nada. The most recent obamination . . . . Makinghomeaffordable . . . will help only a fraction of underwater/delinquent mortgages. Banks don’t/won’t write off those toxic assets and crass and selfish politicians won’t allow further taxpayer bailout (Yea, now there’s a set of gonads!). Picture an inward-looking firing squad. Picture the only white knight riding to the housing rescue . . . . that be the free market; let it let air out so prices/inventory attain equilibrium.

    Yes, Mr. LSD; we believe nothing will get done this election year ‘cause we knows dem pigs don fly. Maybe we outta go head and pay dem pigs handsomely to teach dem crass and selfish politicians how to fly. Yes, Mr. LSD; buckle dat seat belt further and take a big wiff o dat swamp gas wif Mr. Pogo der, ‘cause he be right, “We have seen the enema and it be us” – ‘casu’n we be the ones vote’n in dem crass ‘n selfish politicians who wone make no radical changes to de status quo. May it be us who need dem gonads.

    BTW, Jim . . . . who cares, “Where’s Obama when you need him?” We didn’t need him in ’08 and before and most certainly don’t need him now. Either lead, follow, or get out of the way. I hope Nov. 6th puts him in the latter. Our country cannot afford him—constitutionally, fiscally, competitively, or morally.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was wondering what took you so long to jump into the sea Tuna. Anyway, thanks for jumping. I have two responses. First I know you read my blogs so you know I am not for kicking any can down the roads insofar as deficits and debt goes. I want a long-term agreement with teeth today. I want it yesterday. But I want it to not all come today. I want it stretched out a bit. Again -- it must have teeth and it must come with special provisions that make it next to impossible to undo tomorrow. Second, it appears that despite your tone you really aren't proposing anything much different than what I listed. I want them to work on that as a comprehensive package. My post tried to make the point that a sequential approach won't work. You seem to think that if the Rs won the election and got more power that they would get it done with Obama gone. I guess we will see.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The delay jumping into sea is due not being able to find my wetsuit. I know you’d like the deficit/debt to be fixed yesterday, but stretching things out is untenable . . . fer reasons you and I have jaw-boned like degĂ  vue all over again . . . . untenable ‘cause of the political grid lock of the gutless, crass, and selfish pols. You know tunas don’t have ears and therefore are tone deaf . . . so if my literary tone seems – on occasion – which I know you know – unpleasant, squeaky, and off-tenor – just write if off ‘cause we all know that tunas have no class, but taste good nonetheless. Agree, the sequential approach won’t work despite that approach working for everything the Congress and Exec have done since ’08 except mostly OBCare. With a split Congress/White House there is absolutely, unequivocally, no, nada, chance of anything but sequential. But, with a full court press R Congress and WH at least they’ll have to put their votes where their mouths are. That, I believe, is the last great hope.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Charles, I would never write-you off. If this blog is to have any real authenticity (and fun) it needs to be able to withstand the full scope of difference of opinion. It is good for you, me, and occasional bystanders to listen to all sides. So keep up the good work and thanks for sharing your thoughts -- even though the ones that disagree with me are totally wrong. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dr. D: You seem to be looking for what is "right"? Reminds me of the mouse working through the maze. After one unsuccessful try he always finds the cheese. Move the cheese and again 1 try and he finds it. Put a politician in the same maze and it takes 4 or maybe 5 times to find the dollars after the first try. Move the dollars and it takes 10 times. Why? Politicians like to be right...even if they are not.

    How about something radical? Another party? Technocrats? America Elect is working on it. The moderates are loosing both sides and have no where to look.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, let's see. A third party gave of eight years of Slick Willie! What could be worse? How about 8 years of Obama.

    ReplyDelete