The Chamber of Commerce as a Political Entity

It is not only that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is among the big political players, many local chambers shape local government policies, protecting businesses and commerce from local government measures and, in general, acting as referees in local economic development.  Their programs are focused on business interests and the have shown little interest in  local poverty and social issues, as if these issues were not related to the economic future of the city.

…these contributions…also show how the chamber has increasingly relied on a relatively small collection of big corporate donors to finance much of its legislative and political agenda. The chamber makes no apologies for its policy of not identifying its donors. It has vigorously opposed legislation in Congress that would require groups like it to identify their biggest contributors when they spend money on campaign ads.

via Top Corporations Aid U.S. Chamber of Commerce Campaign – NYTimes.com.

Thanks AT&T!

AT&T–you have the worst internet, wireless and customer service in town (except maybe for Comcast!).  My internet service was out for a few days and I read books!  Enjoyable indeed.

DOA Deficit Commission

Most economists agree with this view on income taxes.  I agree with the view on social security.  Let higher income groups pay more social security taxes and plenty of taxes on their social security earning.  Above a certain income and wealth level people should not get social security.

…There is no — zero — evidence that income taxes at current rates are an important drag on growth.

Oh, and they’re talking about raising the retirement age, because people live longer — except that the people who really depend on Social Security, those in the bottom half of the distribution, aren’t living much longer. So you’re going to tell janitors to work until they’re 70 because lawyers are living longer than ever.

Still, I guess this is what it takes to get compromise, if by compromise you mean something the center-right and the hard right can agree on.

Update: It’s here. And it really is that bad. The idea that co-chairs of a commission whose charge is fiscal sustainability should take it upon themselves to (a) declare that federal revenue must not exceed 21 percent of GDP — that’s right, putting a cap on receipts and (b) call for reducing the top rate from 35 to 23 is just awesome.

via Economics and Politics – Paul Krugman Blog – NYTimes.com.

Simon Johnson Confirms the New House Budget Committee has a Bad Start

Seems like it is very hard to find a fiscal conservative who will take on the continuing problem of the “too big to fail banks” and failure to confront escalating Medicare (the program we all love) costs.

Only in American could self-styled “fiscal conservatives” say that “America is eager for an adult conversation on the threat of debt,” but then decline to discuss the first order problem that has brought us here and threatens us going forward: Dangerous systemic risk brought on by the reckless behavior of big banks. No “fiscal conservatives” showed up for the legislative fight to rein in big banks – none, and now Spencer Bachus (presumptive incoming chair of House Financial Services) says that restrictions on big banks should be further lifted (quoted in the FT today, p.15).

We can reasonably draw only one conclusion: Paul Ryan and his colleagues are not real fiscal conservatives.  This is further confirmed by the following:

1. Paul Ryan’s main short-term suggestion in his FT piece today is: Cut taxes.  Anywhere else in the world you would be laughed out of the room for suggesting this as the first step towards bringing a government’s fiscal house to order.

2. For concrete proposals on spending cuts, Mr. Ryan refers us to the Republican “Pledge to America“.  But that Pledge has no such detail on anything that would make a first-order difference, i.e., add all their proposals together and it wouldn’t even make a noticeable dent in the government debt path.  If a politician can’t summarize his main suggestions in an op ed, there are no real suggestions.

3. Mr. Ryan is right to bring up the need to make small adjustments to Social Security; this has been done before and makes sense. But the major budget buster in the CBO baseline, as you get out to 2030, is MedicareWhat exactly is Mr. Ryan proposing in terms of controlling those costs? On current demographic and technology projections – with the existing cost structure – even if you cut benefits substantially, Medicare becomes unaffordable.  Who will be squeezed over time – beneficiaries, providers, or payers – and how exactly? This will be a tough and emotional conversation – the lobbies here are almost as powerful as banks – but Mr. Ryan is not even starting us in the right direction.

via Paul Ryan Is Not A Fiscal Conservative « The Baseline Scenario.