Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Monday, 30 January 2012
baby bear hat
In my experience, there is nothing sweeter than a baby with little animal ears on his hat. I crocheted this baby bear hat for a little man who will be making his entrance into the world shortly. Congratulations, Holly! I can't wait to meet Hunter.
This was a no-pattern hat ... I like to crochet on the fly. :)
Are federal government workers overpaid?
Yes, says CBO:
Differences in total compensation—the sum of wages and benefits—between federal and private-sector employees varied according to workers' education level.Overall, the federal government paid 16 percent more in total compensation than it would have if average compensation had been comparable with that in the private sector, after accounting for certain observable characteristics of workers.
- Federal civilian employees with no more than a high school education averaged 36 percent higher total compensation than similar private-sector employees.
- Federal workers whose education culminated in a bachelor's degree averaged 15 percent higher total compensation than their private-sector counterparts.
- Federal employees with a professional degree or doctorate received 18 percent lower total compensation than their private-sector counterparts, on average.
How much would a Buffett Tax raise?
Robert Samuelson has the numbers:
Obama’s still-vague Buffett Tax would apparently impose a minimum 30 percent tax rate on incomes exceeding $1 million....In September, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the 10-year deficit at $8.5 trillion. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimates that a Buffett Tax might now raise $40 billion annually. Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal group, estimates $50 billion. With economic growth, the 10-year total might optimistically be $600 billion to $700 billion. It would be a tiny help; that’s all.
Friday, 27 January 2012
Support from Anonymous
I don't know who this blogger is, but his or her first post is called "Mankiw is right. Buffett is wrong." And he or she puts the argument well (although I may not be objective here).
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
For High School Teachers and Students
The Harvard Pre-Collegiate Economics Challenge is a competition for high school students studying AP economics. It is run by Harvard undergraduates and features one of my favorite economists as a guest speaker. This year it will be held on Saturday, March 31, 2012 from 9 am to 5 pm.
If you are interested in more information about this event, click here.
If you are interested in more information about this event, click here.
Two Reactions to the SOTU
1. Last night President Obama continued his misleading claims about Warren Buffett's tax rate. David Leonhardt recalls that I rebutted those claims several years ago.
David usefully asks for a response to my rebuttal from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning research group in Washington. Chuck Marr, the center’s director of federal tax policy, emailed David back. Click through the link above, and read carefully what Mr Marr has to say. Does it respond to my arguments? No, not at all. Mr Marr just changes the subject. He follows the age-old advice for politicians: Don't answer the question they asked, answer the question you wish they had asked. This might work for some voters, but I am sure it won't for the careful analysts who read this blog. One might reasonably take Mr Marr's non-response as an admission that President Obama's claims about the taxes of Mr Buffett and his secretary don't hold up under closer examination.
2. I was disappointed, and even a bit surprised, that the President adopted the xenophobic approach to outsourcing and international trade. Usually, on issues of international trade, the President plays the role of grown-up and leaves it up to Congress to gin up populist ire. That is true of both parties. Recall that President Clinton pushed NAFTA through.
When President Obama bragged that his administration had substantially increased trade cases against China compared with his predecessor, it made me proud to be one of President Bush's advisers. (Not that the Bush administration was perfect on trade issues. It is just good to know we were better.) These trade cases include such things as anti-dumping claims, which in many cases are just the modern face of protectionism. Phill Swagel and I wrote about anti-dumping laws here.
David usefully asks for a response to my rebuttal from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning research group in Washington. Chuck Marr, the center’s director of federal tax policy, emailed David back. Click through the link above, and read carefully what Mr Marr has to say. Does it respond to my arguments? No, not at all. Mr Marr just changes the subject. He follows the age-old advice for politicians: Don't answer the question they asked, answer the question you wish they had asked. This might work for some voters, but I am sure it won't for the careful analysts who read this blog. One might reasonably take Mr Marr's non-response as an admission that President Obama's claims about the taxes of Mr Buffett and his secretary don't hold up under closer examination.
2. I was disappointed, and even a bit surprised, that the President adopted the xenophobic approach to outsourcing and international trade. Usually, on issues of international trade, the President plays the role of grown-up and leaves it up to Congress to gin up populist ire. That is true of both parties. Recall that President Clinton pushed NAFTA through.
When President Obama bragged that his administration had substantially increased trade cases against China compared with his predecessor, it made me proud to be one of President Bush's advisers. (Not that the Bush administration was perfect on trade issues. It is just good to know we were better.) These trade cases include such things as anti-dumping claims, which in many cases are just the modern face of protectionism. Phill Swagel and I wrote about anti-dumping laws here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
