Author Archives: SEH

Three examples of hardball

  1. Don Corleone has a horse’s head placed in the bed of a Hollywood director.
  2. Rahm Emanuel sends a dead fish to a pollster.
  3. President Obama invites Paul Ryan to his April 13th speech on the budget deficit, which preached class warfare.

Taxes and deficits

Republicans should not consent to higher tax rates to reach an ostensibly non-partisan compromise on deficit reduction.   The main reason is that Congress will very likely use a good chunk of any tax increase  to sustain excessive spending.  To elaborate:

If federal spending is cut by $1, the direct effect is to reduce the federal deficit by $1.  The indirect effects are uncertain in magnitude and perhaps in direction.  Some people in general and economists in particular believe that reduced spending will hurt the economy and increase other federal spending (e.g, for unemployment benefits) and/or reduce tax collections.  Other people and economists believe that reduced spending will help the economy and reduce other spending and/or increase tax collections.  Academic and other researchers try to estimate the effects of past spending cuts and predict what would happen now.  The results are subject to significant uncertainty.

If federal taxes are increased by $1, the direct effect is to reduce the deficit by $1.  The indirect effects depend on the effect of the tax increase on economic activity.  While the effects are uncertain in magnitude, it is highly probable that tax increases would reduce economic growth, increasing other government spending and reducing tax collections.  Academic and other researchers again try to estimate the effects of past tax increases and predict what would happen now.  The results likewise are subject to significant  uncertainty.

If, however, taxes are increased as part of a political compromise to reduce the deficit, it is entirely plausible that spending will not be reduced as much as would ultimately be the case without tax increases.   In other words, Congress will use some portion of any tax increase to sustain spending.  Other things being equal, a $1 increase in taxes would then reduce the deficit by less than $1.

The connection between taxes and government spending has been researched with historical data, as usual with less than definitive results.  My own strongly held view is that federal spending is much too high, that marginal tax rates are too high, and that any increase in taxes will in significant part finance spending that should be cut.

Insurance regulation and the Dodd-Frank Act

My paper Insurance Regulation and the Dodd-Frank Act, prepared for the Networks Financial Institute’s 2011 Insurance Reform Summit, discusses a number of key issues regarding implementation by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions affecting insurance. The paper emphasizes the fundamental differences between insurance and banking, including much lower potential for systemic risk and substantial market discipline in insurance, and how those differences favor solvency regulation and guaranty systems that reflect the distinctive features of each sector. It argues that the FSOC and FIO should carefully consider those differences in their analyses of possibly systemically important insurance companies and in the FIO’s study and report to Congress on insurance regulation. Particular attention should be paid to the relatively low systemic risk and relatively strong market discipline in insurance compared with banking.