Donald Trump is proposing to eliminate the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, as noted in an NYT column today. Each agency received just under $150 million in the 2017 budget, an amount that is equal to just under 0.004 percent of total spending. Another way to think about the money the government spends promoting the arts and the humanities is comparing it to spending on Donald Trump’s golfing trips.
According to calculations from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, we were on a path to spend $59.25 million on Donald Trump’s golfing for each year he is in the White House. This means that by ending funding for either the Endowment for the Arts or the Endowment for the Humanities we can pay for two and a half years of Donald Trump’s golf trips. If both are shut down, it would cover the cost of five years of Donald Trump’s golf trips.
Source: See text.
Donald Trump is proposing to eliminate the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, as noted in an NYT column today. Each agency received just under $150 million in the 2017 budget, an amount that is equal to just under 0.004 percent of total spending. Another way to think about the money the government spends promoting the arts and the humanities is comparing it to spending on Donald Trump’s golfing trips.
According to calculations from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, we were on a path to spend $59.25 million on Donald Trump’s golfing for each year he is in the White House. This means that by ending funding for either the Endowment for the Arts or the Endowment for the Humanities we can pay for two and a half years of Donald Trump’s golf trips. If both are shut down, it would cover the cost of five years of Donald Trump’s golf trips.
Source: See text.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post reported on new health care spending projections from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) which show spending rising to almost 20 percent of GDP by 2026 compared to 17.9 percent in 2016. It is worth noting that these projections have consistently overstated cost growth. For example in 2005, CMS projected that health care costs would rise to 19.6 percent of GDP in 2016.
The piece also notes that prescription drugs are projected to be the most rapidly growing component of health care costs. It is worth mentioning that prescription drugs are only expensive because of government-granted patent monopolies. The free market price is typically less than 10 percent of the patent monopoly price and often less than 1 percent. The generic versions of drugs that sell for tens of thousands of dollars or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in the United States often cost just a few hundred dollars.
A number of Democratic senators have proposed legislation that would have the government pay for research upfront. This would mean that new drugs could sell at generic prices. This would eliminate all the corruption associated with the current system, including the incentive to lie about the effectiveness and safety of drugs. It would likely save more than $380 billion a year (just under 2.0 percent of GDP) on prescription drug expenditures.
The Washington Post reported on new health care spending projections from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) which show spending rising to almost 20 percent of GDP by 2026 compared to 17.9 percent in 2016. It is worth noting that these projections have consistently overstated cost growth. For example in 2005, CMS projected that health care costs would rise to 19.6 percent of GDP in 2016.
The piece also notes that prescription drugs are projected to be the most rapidly growing component of health care costs. It is worth mentioning that prescription drugs are only expensive because of government-granted patent monopolies. The free market price is typically less than 10 percent of the patent monopoly price and often less than 1 percent. The generic versions of drugs that sell for tens of thousands of dollars or even hundreds of thousands of dollars in the United States often cost just a few hundred dollars.
A number of Democratic senators have proposed legislation that would have the government pay for research upfront. This would mean that new drugs could sell at generic prices. This would eliminate all the corruption associated with the current system, including the incentive to lie about the effectiveness and safety of drugs. It would likely save more than $380 billion a year (just under 2.0 percent of GDP) on prescription drug expenditures.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Most newspapers try to reserve such editorializing for the opinion pages, but a NYT article on the Trump budget told readers:
“Yet for all of the talk of fiscal restraint, Mr. Trump’s budget also amounted to an institutional surrender to the free-spending ways of Capitol Hill, which Mr. Mulvaney said had surprised the president and prompted him to refrain from even bothering to advocate deficit reduction.”
This is far from the only issue with this piece. The headline tells readers that the budget would “[add] $7 trillion to deficits.” This is the cumulative deficit projected over the 10-year budget horizon. It should be described as the addition to the “debt.” The amount is equal to 21.4 percent of the end of period GDP.
There are some other items worth noting. My additions are in parentheses.
“The White House budget request would add $984 billion (have a deficit of 4.7 percent of GDP) to the federal deficit next year…”
“Last week, Mr. Trump signed a two-year bipartisan budget deal, struck by congressional leaders largely without his involvement, to boost both domestic and military spending by $300 billion (0.74 percent of GDP).”
“That law increases military spending by $195 billion (0.48 percent of GDP) over the next two years and nondefense spending by $131 billion (0.32 percent of GDP) over the same period. The White House is proposing $540 billion (2.6 percent of GDP) in nondefense spending for 2019 — $57 billion below the new spending cap set by Congress.”
“The plan contains at least $1.8 trillion (0.8 percent of GDP) in cuts to federal entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and food stamps.”
“The centerpiece of Mr. Trump’s budget is a plan to devote $200 billion (0.09 percent of GDP) over the next decade in new spending to improve the country’s crumbling infrastructure, starting with $44.6 billion in 2019 (0.21 percent of GDP).”
“Mr. Trump’s plan would also allocate $13 billion in new spending to tackle opioid abuse through prevention, treatment and recovery support services as well as mental health programs.”
The $13 billion is a five year total which is equal to 0.00012 percent of projected GDP or 0.059 percent of the budget over this period.
Most newspapers try to reserve such editorializing for the opinion pages, but a NYT article on the Trump budget told readers:
“Yet for all of the talk of fiscal restraint, Mr. Trump’s budget also amounted to an institutional surrender to the free-spending ways of Capitol Hill, which Mr. Mulvaney said had surprised the president and prompted him to refrain from even bothering to advocate deficit reduction.”
This is far from the only issue with this piece. The headline tells readers that the budget would “[add] $7 trillion to deficits.” This is the cumulative deficit projected over the 10-year budget horizon. It should be described as the addition to the “debt.” The amount is equal to 21.4 percent of the end of period GDP.
There are some other items worth noting. My additions are in parentheses.
“The White House budget request would add $984 billion (have a deficit of 4.7 percent of GDP) to the federal deficit next year…”
“Last week, Mr. Trump signed a two-year bipartisan budget deal, struck by congressional leaders largely without his involvement, to boost both domestic and military spending by $300 billion (0.74 percent of GDP).”
“That law increases military spending by $195 billion (0.48 percent of GDP) over the next two years and nondefense spending by $131 billion (0.32 percent of GDP) over the same period. The White House is proposing $540 billion (2.6 percent of GDP) in nondefense spending for 2019 — $57 billion below the new spending cap set by Congress.”
“The plan contains at least $1.8 trillion (0.8 percent of GDP) in cuts to federal entitlement programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and food stamps.”
“The centerpiece of Mr. Trump’s budget is a plan to devote $200 billion (0.09 percent of GDP) over the next decade in new spending to improve the country’s crumbling infrastructure, starting with $44.6 billion in 2019 (0.21 percent of GDP).”
“Mr. Trump’s plan would also allocate $13 billion in new spending to tackle opioid abuse through prevention, treatment and recovery support services as well as mental health programs.”
The $13 billion is a five year total which is equal to 0.00012 percent of projected GDP or 0.059 percent of the budget over this period.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Hey, I thought it was just a way to give a middle finger to low-income people for getting government aid, but the Washington Post tells readers that the plan to provide baskets of food in place of the current cash-like system where we allow people to buy the food they want:
“It would do this [hugely cut spending on food stamps] in part by requiring many beneficiaries to accept food deliveries in addition to financial assistance, a change the White House believes will improve nutrition quality and cut back on costs.”
It’s good we have the Post to tell us what the White House really believes. Otherwise, we might think bad things about them.
Hey, I thought it was just a way to give a middle finger to low-income people for getting government aid, but the Washington Post tells readers that the plan to provide baskets of food in place of the current cash-like system where we allow people to buy the food they want:
“It would do this [hugely cut spending on food stamps] in part by requiring many beneficiaries to accept food deliveries in addition to financial assistance, a change the White House believes will improve nutrition quality and cut back on costs.”
It’s good we have the Post to tell us what the White House really believes. Otherwise, we might think bad things about them.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That’s what careful readers of the administration’s budget must assume. After all, the budget tells us that we should expect savings of $59 billion in 2028 from reducing “improper payments Government-wide” (Table S-2). However, we build up to these large annual savings very gradually. There is nothing noted for savings in 2019 and just $1 billion in 2020. Even in 2024, the last year of a hypothetical second Trump administration, the projected savings are only $6 billion.
If we assume that these improper payments were always there, but it will take vigilant effort and ten years to weed out the full $59 billion (and even in 2028 there could still be more improper payments) it means that we could be improperly spending more than $50 billion a year throughout the Trump administration. And that is their assessment.
That’s what careful readers of the administration’s budget must assume. After all, the budget tells us that we should expect savings of $59 billion in 2028 from reducing “improper payments Government-wide” (Table S-2). However, we build up to these large annual savings very gradually. There is nothing noted for savings in 2019 and just $1 billion in 2020. Even in 2024, the last year of a hypothetical second Trump administration, the projected savings are only $6 billion.
If we assume that these improper payments were always there, but it will take vigilant effort and ten years to weed out the full $59 billion (and even in 2028 there could still be more improper payments) it means that we could be improperly spending more than $50 billion a year throughout the Trump administration. And that is their assessment.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
I know and respect E.J. Dionne, but I’m afraid I have to get out a heaping dump truck full of ridicule for his whining about the “agony of the moderate left.” Yeah, times can be difficult for these politicians. After all, when their half measures fail to produce results for those who they claim to represent, they get voted out of office and then are stuck earning multi-million dollar salaries in the private sector or doing six-figure speaking gigs for Wall Street banks.
This compares to life for the more actual left who actually have a far better track record in doing things like recognizing housing bubbles that will sink the economy and knowing that cheap stimulus is inadequate to fuel recovery from a severe recession. There are few people with big bucks who are anxious to have such views promulgated, which means you don’t often hear them in places like The Washington Post.
Anyhow, the only reasonable response to E.J. Dionne is “life is tough.”
I know and respect E.J. Dionne, but I’m afraid I have to get out a heaping dump truck full of ridicule for his whining about the “agony of the moderate left.” Yeah, times can be difficult for these politicians. After all, when their half measures fail to produce results for those who they claim to represent, they get voted out of office and then are stuck earning multi-million dollar salaries in the private sector or doing six-figure speaking gigs for Wall Street banks.
This compares to life for the more actual left who actually have a far better track record in doing things like recognizing housing bubbles that will sink the economy and knowing that cheap stimulus is inadequate to fuel recovery from a severe recession. There are few people with big bucks who are anxious to have such views promulgated, which means you don’t often hear them in places like The Washington Post.
Anyhow, the only reasonable response to E.J. Dionne is “life is tough.”
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
The Washington Post’s editorial page is notorious for refusing to own up to its mistakes. In true Trumpian spirit, the paper still has not corrected an editorial touting the success of NAFTA which absurdly claimed Mexico’s GDP had more than quadrupled between 1987 and 2007. The correct number was 84.2 percent.
Anyhow, Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor, is now complaining again about the horrible harm that will be caused by future deficits. In any plausible scenario, the potential harm from a too large deficit is dwarfed by the trillions of dollars of lost output, and the millions of people needlessly unemployed, as a result of the Post and its allies pushing for austerity following the Great Recession.
The Post’s editorial staff both lack any knowledge of economics and lack integrity.
The Washington Post’s editorial page is notorious for refusing to own up to its mistakes. In true Trumpian spirit, the paper still has not corrected an editorial touting the success of NAFTA which absurdly claimed Mexico’s GDP had more than quadrupled between 1987 and 2007. The correct number was 84.2 percent.
Anyhow, Fred Hiatt, the editorial page editor, is now complaining again about the horrible harm that will be caused by future deficits. In any plausible scenario, the potential harm from a too large deficit is dwarfed by the trillions of dollars of lost output, and the millions of people needlessly unemployed, as a result of the Post and its allies pushing for austerity following the Great Recession.
The Post’s editorial staff both lack any knowledge of economics and lack integrity.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That one is apparently not on the agenda, at least according to Amanda Taub’s NYT “The Interpreter” piece. The piece notes the declining support for center right and center left parties in most western democracies. While it notes that people feel unrepresented by these parties, it never states the obvious, these parties have consistently supported monetary, fiscal, trade, and intellectual property policies that redistribute an ever-larger share of income to people like Bill Gates and Robert Rubin.
It should not be surprising that most of the public is not enthralled with this outcome and the parties that promote it. And yes, there are alternatives, as I point out in my (free) book, Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer.
That one is apparently not on the agenda, at least according to Amanda Taub’s NYT “The Interpreter” piece. The piece notes the declining support for center right and center left parties in most western democracies. While it notes that people feel unrepresented by these parties, it never states the obvious, these parties have consistently supported monetary, fiscal, trade, and intellectual property policies that redistribute an ever-larger share of income to people like Bill Gates and Robert Rubin.
It should not be surprising that most of the public is not enthralled with this outcome and the parties that promote it. And yes, there are alternatives, as I point out in my (free) book, Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
