My Influence Extends to Harvard University

Apparently, my ideas (at least one anyway) have caught the attention of Harvard Professor of Economics Dr. Jeffrey A. Miron. I sent him an email this week inviting him to a challenge. And he accepted!

It's Interesting that the proposed "New Jersey" policy he chose was initiated by other States. Our new Governor, Chris Christie, is merely deciding whether to jump on that bandwagon. The news article Dr. Miron linked to states, "Gov. Chris Christie says he’ll wait for assessments from his attorney general and health commissioner...". I have two questions:

1. Wasn't our Governor previously the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey? He should have a good understanding of federal constitutional law. He shouldn't need much of a briefing.
   
2. What does the commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services know about federal constitutional law?

CBO Scoring of the Healthcare Bill

To Dr. Paul Krugman in response to your comment about Douglas Holtz-Eakin’s op-ed:

If this is the best critique a conservative budget wonk can come up with – if deliberately misrepresenting how the legislation works is the only way to make it seem irresponsible – then the bill must be pretty sound in fiscal terms.

Please address the following:

Keith Hhennessey has concerns about the assumptions the CBO scoring is based on:

"If these bills become law, we are left with two problems. The assumed conditions may not hold, so this new promise may in fact be underfunded just like all prior promises. And even if the conditions hold, we still have left unsolved the long-term fiscal problem with which we began, and we have fewer tools available to fix it.

The assumed conditions will not hold because they are not designed to hold. The bills' authors have cleverly constructed the promises so that they are paid for in an accounting sense, but are politically unsustainable. New Medicare spending on doctors is paid for, as long as you believe Congress will allow even bigger cuts to take effect two years from now. The new insurance subsidies are paid for, as long as you believe that a tax increase scheduled to begin far in the future will survive eight years of labor union lobbying for repeal or perpetual delay. The new insurance subsidies are designed to cover those who buy health insurance outside of employment, but not those with the same salary who get health insurance through their job. If you believe this inequity is politically sustainable, then the bill is paid for. If instead you think there will be unbearable political pressure to provide equal treatment and expand subsidies to some of the 100+ million Americans who today get their health insurance through their job, then the subsidies you enact now are only the camel's nose under the tent, and you are setting us on a path to an even larger and unfunded government promise. "

Greg Mankiw also noted concerns about conventions of budget scoring and
the credibility of assumptions used.

"When they estimate the budget impact of a bill like this, they assume the path of GDP is unchanged.... It is not because the CBO staffers necessarily believe that result. Rather, it is just one of the conventions of budget scoring heir estimates should come with a warning label:
'These numbers are based on assumptions that are convenient but not credible. Use at your own risk.' "

He also highlighted quotes sourced from a letter sent to Nancy Pelosi from the Congressional Budget Office about its own numbers concerning the healthcare bill providing caveats about the limits of their analysis:

"The reconciliation proposal and H.R. 3590 would maintain and put into effect a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time.

... The projected longer-term savings for the legislation also reflect an assumption that the Independent Payment Advisory Board established by H.R. 3590 would be fairly effective in reducing costs...

...It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate of spending could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or through reductions in access to care or the quality of care."

Do you have any thoughts on the concerns raised about the assumptions used to score the bill?

UPDATE:
Scott Sumner has more detailed questions for Paul Krugman.

Topics, Lables and Tags

Blogger uses the term label for what is normally called a tag. Either way I intend to use them in a specific manner.

I will use at least one of the following tags in each of my posts.

Economics - Financial Intermediaries, Cooperative Associations
Government - More on legislation than politics.
Food - Ingredients, Restaurants, Recipes, et cetera.
Hockey - Mostly NHL and New Jersey Devils
Football - American Football (mostly the NFL and Miami Dolphins); Also FIFA style Association Football or Futbol (mostly MLS and New Jersey Red Bulls)
Software - Libre Licensed Software, Computer Science, Programing
Off-Topic - Everything else

You can subscribe to a feed of any of these categories using the links to the right.

Lawrence Lessig and the United States Congress

Lawrence Lessig has a knack for bringing abstract legal theory into the realm of the everyday. Generally, he speaks (or writes) and I understand. But one at one significant point, he stopped making sense. That is until recently when I finally caught up with his thought process.

The point where his words became incoherent to me was on June 19, 2007 when he posted on his website a statement entitled "Required Reading: the next 10 years". In which he writes:

From a public policy perspective, the question of extending existing copyright terms is, as Milton Friedman put it, a "no brainer." As the Gowers Commission concluded in Britain, a government should never extend an existing copyright term. No public regarding justification could justify the extraordinary deadweight loss that such extensions impose.

Yet governments continue to push ahead with this idiot idea -- both Britain and Japan for example are considering extending existing terms. Why?

The answer is a kind of corruption of the political process. Or better, a "corruption" of the political process. I don't mean corruption in the simple sense of bribery. I mean "corruption" in the sense that the system is so queered by the influence of money that it can't even get an issue as simple and clear as term extension right. Politicians are starved for the resources concentrated interests can provide. In the US, listening to money is the only way to secure reelection. And so an economy of influence bends public policy away from sense, always to
dollars.

He continues on to make his defining statement:

I have decided to shift my academic work, and soon, my activism, away from the issues that have consumed me for the last 10 years, towards a new set of issues: Namely, these. "Corruption" as I've defined it elsewhere will be the focus of my work. For at least the next 10 years, it is the problem I will try to help solve.

I do this with no illusions. I am 99.9% confident that the problem I turn to will continue exist when this 10 year term is over. But the certainty of failure is sometimes a reason to try. That's true in this case.

If you are anything like me, Lessig's statement went right over your head. It did for me for a number of reasons. First, "corruption" is such a broad term that it doesn't effectively convey Lessig's intention without context. Second, the context provided by Lessig is only tangentially related to any of his academic and public work. Finally, I've followed Lessig's work because it has interested me, but now there will be a vacancy in the public discourse concerning Copyright, Patent, and Trademark Law. This imminent void distracted me from the context he provided for his future direction.

So what was Lessig actually tying to say?

Generally, by "corruption", Lessig means the disproportionate influence that those with enough money have over the legislative process in the USA compared to collectively all other Citizens and constituents that are to be represented by Congress. Lessig wants to address this discrepancy as best he can.

Almost a year after he made his defining statement about shifting his focus, Lessig, with some help from others, started change-congress.org, a project to support what Lessig considers a first step toward a more equitable system; to institute a publicly funded campaign option that allows qualifying candidates for national office to receive matching campaign funds from the US treasury thereby providing a fair chance to win primary and general elections against a corporately or self funded candidate. A candidate would be able to choose to accept only small donations from the public along with matching funds or special interest money, but not both.

Lawrence Lessig probably does a better job at explaining the concept in the video at Change-Congress.org and on the information page.

According to Change Congress the first step to change takes the form of the Fair Elections Now Act as proposed in the Senate and House in the following bills:

The 111th United States Congress (January 3, 2009, until January 3, 2011):

S752 - Applies to Federal Election Campaigns for the Senate

H1826 - Applies to Federal Election Campaigns for the House of Representatives

I can't think of any reason that might indicate that these bills would not effectively alter the economy of influence currently controlled by corporations and the most wealthy of Americans in favor of everyone else. Nor can I think of a better idea to try first. I do know that there is a fundamentally inequitable balance of influence that encourages Congressional Representatives to consistently vote against best interests of their constituents against all other reason and logic. The Fair Elections Now Act is the only practical option I know of to compensate, even if only partially, for the existing imbalance of influence. I'd love to hear other ideas both complimentary and rebuttals. Which is why I'll continue to follow Lawrence Lessig's posts.

To take the idea of publicly funded campaigns further, I think it might be applied in New Jersey to all levels of government. However, the potential for corruption is more limited at smaller levels of government. Maybe it is only appropriate on a state level. I don't know who to talk to about this. I doubt that I'd be able to start a grassroots effort to effectively promote this idea. But I'll keep it in mind and research the issue until I can demonstrate a good case for New Jersey to adopt similar policies. Until then, this idea will exist isolated on my weblog....