Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Biden’s COVID Bailout Would Drag Down America’s Economic Recovery
the federalist ^ | January 26, 2021 | Casey B. Mulligan

Posted on 01/26/2021 9:58:04 AM PST by Kaslin

Subsidize something — get more of it. Expect the Biden economy to have additional unemployment, increased poverty, and lower incomes for a longer period.

resident Biden’s plan for federal coronavirus relief resembles the American Recovery Reinvestment Act (ARRA) signed by President Obama after the 2008 financial crisis. It uses several federal agencies to separately distribute financial assistance to persons unemployed, in poverty, or otherwise with low incomes, on top of the dozens of programs already in place. Predictably, it will result in a disappointing economic recovery as long as it lasts.

The plan includes a $100 weekly unemployment bonus, on top of the $300 bonus passed last month, which itself is on top of about $400 in weekly state unemployment benefits. It also includes additions to rental assistance, food stamps, health insurance assistance, and direct payments to households, all of which are available only if the recipient remains unemployed or otherwise with sufficiently low income. Biden also proposes to more than double the federal minimum wage.

Each of these types of assistance has been studied, with some authors finding no “statistically significant” adverse effect on hiring, work behavior, or earning power. But expect, as Obama’s team did 12 years ago, Biden’s team to assert that the adverse effects are zero for the individual programs and their combination.

Theirs is a “fallacy of the heap,” a logical fallacy that was well known to the ancients, long before economics was a distinct profession. The fallacy notes that removing a single grain of sand from a heap of sand still leaves us with a heap of sand. The same with the second grain of sand, and the third, and so on. Therefore, according to the fallacy, any number of grains of sand can be removed without removing the heap itself.

Every introductory economics teacher has to confront this fallacy. Invariably the class includes a student pushing back on the law of demand that raising prices reduces demand, “Raise the price of a car by a penny and that will not stop anyone from purchasing the car.” The teacher has to say, “OK, let the seller of the car raise the price $10,000, just one penny at a time. Each penny increase has no effect on sales — therefore a $10,000 price increase has no effect on sales,” and the fallacy is apparent.

The same holds for incentives to hire, work, or earn. Incentives to work may remain after adding a bit to food stamps, or rental assistance, or any of the other programs. But eventually, the absence of incentives will be apparent, especially among people whose incentives were already substantially eroded.

This is why the ARRA never came close to delivering the recovery promised by the Obama administration (in particular, by Jared Bernstein, who is now slated to be a member of Biden’s Council of Economic Advisers). The 2009 recession was particularly deep for unmarried people and others not coincidentally receiving the most generous assistance from the ARRA, as I showed in this study and my book on the 2009 “Redistribution Recession.”

This time, as vaccination and other measures begin to reduce the harms from the coronavirus, the fundamentals of the economy will be pushing toward recovery while the Biden plan holds it back about 5 million jobs below pre-pandemic levels (in addition to the 3 to 4 million reduction in employment from the December 2020 relief package). The Congressional Budget Office projects that the minimum wage provision by itself will cost more than 1 million jobs.

Biden’s plans for health insurance may do the most to reduce work. The 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) created what is now the most important credit against the personal income tax: credits for premiums paid for individual health insurance plans sold on the ACA “exchanges.” The rules determining eligibility and amounts for the credits create two kinds of disincentives to work.

The most important, but often forgotten, is an implicit tax on full-time work created by the ACA rule prohibiting the large majority of full-time workers from receiving credits because of their employment status (regardless of how much or little that job pays). These workers become eligible for the credits if (and because) they cease employment, or switch to part-time employment. The second disincentive applies to the comparatively few workers who purchase health insurance on the ACA exchanges: their credit is phased out with their income.

Take Mike Smith, who, in 2010, was working long hours in California as a district manager for a national auto parts retailer. Despite wanting to help care for his grandchild and elderly in-laws, Smith kept the manager job into his 60s because he and his wife wanted the health insurance that came with it.

According to National Public Radio, they both retired in 2014 because the ACA gave them heavily subsidized health insurance, for which they would have been ineligible if Smith had remained in his district manager job. Why spend their own money on health insurance when taxpayers would now pay most for them?

In other instances, workers at many schools, restaurants, and municipal offices were having their hours cut so the new law does not recognize them as full-time workers. Biden would increase these disincentives to hire, work, and earn.

The adage still holds: Subsidize something, and you’ll get more of it. As a result, expect the Biden economy to have additional unemployment, additional poverty, and lower incomes for a longer period.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bidenadministration; covid19; covidrelief; covidreliefbill; economicpolicy; joebiden; subsidies

1 posted on 01/26/2021 9:58:04 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The Democrat wet dream is America as it was circa 1936-1940. Deep depression as an excuse to grow government power and the redistribution apparatus.

Redistribution does not necessarily or even usually mean rich to poor. It usually means from the politically unorganized to the politically connected.

Confession: I actually believe in global climate change. But I also believe the best way to combat it is to plant more of those efficient carbon sequestration devices known as trees. Not making the Al Gores and Joe Xidens of the world richer by trading "carbon credits" and transferring wealth from Americans (one of lower polluters on the planet) to China (one of the highest).

2 posted on 01/26/2021 10:16:51 AM PST by Vigilanteman (The politicized state destroys aspects of civil society, human kindness and private charity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Probably earlier than that.
The depression affected the entire world. My father was 12 years old when his father died. They were the richest family in the town they lived. His ancestors btw came from Sweden to Germany during the 30 year warm which was from 1618 to 1638.

3 posted on 01/26/2021 10:32:32 AM PST by Kaslin (Joe Biden will never be my President, and neither will Kamala Harris)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Illegal president, Illegal congress, not my government, not my country. Guaranteed this economy is going into the shit hole and taking the country with it

4 posted on 01/26/2021 11:30:57 AM PST by Herakles (Diversity is applied Marxism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson