BRYAN CAPLAN
May 7, 2013
Keynesian Bets: What's Out There
May 6, 2013
Keynesian Bets Bleg
May 6, 2013
The Pyramid of Macroeconomic Insight and Virtue
May 2, 2013
A Natalist Provision
May 1, 2013
I Was a Teenage Misanthrope
DAVID HENDERSON
May 5, 2013
John Thacker on Vaccinations and the Sequester
May 3, 2013
Chef Rudy's Virtues Project
May 2, 2013
My take on Reinhart and Rogoff
May 1, 2013
Medicare Kills a Program
SHARE
Since "neoliberalism" is pejorative in most circles, this post will not help your cause.
21 cents from each dollar I earn should go to the federal government; that is indeed a dubious goal. Aside from the entertainment value the president and congress provide on a daily basis, it is hard to see what I get for this non-trivial sacrifice. I find this tragic (or humorous, depending on my mood), since any services I receive from the public sector are provided at the state and local levels at lower cost; of course, public unions are working feverishly to obliterate the favorable comparison.
Government revenue equivalent to 21% of GDP ≠ effective tax rates of 21% for everyone.
@GU
Among economists neoloberalism is a positive term.
I'm concerned that budgetary pressures might drive a huge increase in regulation, that the legislature will hide the cost of government in regulation rather than operating through the budget.
For example, the government could reduce ethanol subsidies but increase regulation mandating the purchase of ethanol. Magic! Government spending is reduced and support for farmers is increased.
And a cursory glance at the U.S.'s public policies reveal that economist's views are often ignored when formulating/implementing policy.
The public tends to dislike economists' favored policies. The public is wrong, but that doesn't mean they'll change their minds. So, my point is that "neoliberalism" is a scare word ("Pinochet's Chile bro!") among most people. IMHO branding a sensible solution as "neoliberal" is a losing strategy if your goal is to actually implement the solution.
Link the age of eligibility for entitlements to life expectancy, and make health insurance and health care entitlements more like car insurance (insure against accidents, not pay for regular maintenance).
Ideally medicare and social security would be rolled into medicaid. No need for transfers from rich to rich, or middle to rich, or middle to middle, or rich to middle. Rich to poor or middle to poor may be justifiable (depending on your values and worldview). The rest is distortionary with no benefits.
(Didn't Dr Kling say something similar about transfers in a previous post? I looked for it but was not successful.)