After Hearing about The Romney Economic Policy.

Media Photo

Mr. Glen Hubbard, obviously a Ph.D., was on the television today at CNN in the role of Mr. Romney’s chief economic advisor or spokesman at this point.  Several salient issues arose during his talk with the blogger / commentator Mr. Zakaria including the deficit and insurance woes that have been badgering candidates for a long time, including Mr. Obama, the current U.S. president.  Mr. Hubbard, in speaking about the budget issues delivered an excellent essay on the difficulties of carrying on as the society with the most civic, political and other freedoms anywhere, and his presentation appeared to be a kind of “you don’t get something for nothing” type trial balloon.  Sometimes indeed in the process of electing officials, the voters can be handed, and for various reasons, nothing for something, in which case there is much negative clamouring and scandal.  It does appear from his spokesman the Romney campaign wants to work out its promises to the American people without being unrealistic.  These were some of the issues Mr. Hubbard fielded this morning, and without claiming to analyze whatsoever the process of lightening the budget load, his explanation turned on revenue collection or spending reductions.  Depending upon what the people want, the candidate appears to be listening to how people want to approach austerity measures:  Through “cutbacks,” “budget controls,” “constraints,” and the like, or “new revenue,” and / or revenue collection.  The actual plan might be a combination of both, which would do something to eliminate widespread use of loopholes and weak points in both budgeting and tax policy.  The substance of the interview consisted of Mr. Hubbard presenting this, but not necessarily presenting anything beyond overall policy definitions, and the viewer was left with likes or dislikes as the case might be, along with policy and party choice as well. 

There is another issue, and that is unless any budgetary policy or tax policy is successful, mostly as a surprise or some overriding spontaneity, what will the U.S. populace do given the risk to public finances upon even at first the examination of policies as successes or failures?  There’s no answer to this, and while in the olden days, one Republican president instituted wage and price controls to accomplish monetary and fiscal goals alike, and this under a policy that was publicly unfavourable, it does appear such unusual approaches to the budget and trade, and the federal revenue issue, need be considered.  The wage and price controls were a palliative, but woke up a lot of people to attention about where the public finances of the U.S. were headed at the time.  By this writing, the author can not mention the advantage of budgetary controls over tax reform, nor vice versa, though these are not exclusive and maybe some policy – maker could determine some arithmetic identity without the present and ubiquitous gallows humour on these topics, and that would give any federal administration some hope of having an actual fiscal / monetary goal to accomplish apart from the abysmal picture some economists paint of public affairs and money these days.  That any such goal would be attainable in terms of federal finances will remain to be seen, and there are many pessimists about the current, related metrics as recorded, not to mention the prospective ones.  Austerity measures were mentioned in the talk on television today, and all forbid the U.S. having a reaction to austerity policies, either formally at election time or in the street, if they are indeed needed at this time.

Another topic at the talk with Fareed Zakaria was national health insurance and the compulsory provisions of this policy concerning coverage, and for which the president is being sued by the Catholic Church given certain provisions.  People like me know that the actual insurance problem as it is approached by policy – makers is quite intractable as there is only so much insurance that can go around.  People believe that their insurance is a kind of financial instrument at times and treat health insurance exploitatively as such on many occasions, and this is a sin.  Health insurance has to be paid for, unfortunately for everyone, and this financial issue and the role of health care in the U.S. economy really make such issues the subject of extreme opinions and educated and technical debates and discussions alike.  The idea of the Massachusetts health care system was discussed as portable to the entire country, and Mr. Hubbard suggested it is not – indeed the demographics (an important health care parameter, even determinative of actuarial and other aspects of insurance plans) of a state like Massachusetts are obviously dissimilar to those of West Virginia or Florida; and one can not bolt a standard from a Massachusetts public health plan onto California or Idaho, either.  This is what makes solutions to such issues incredibly difficult and the subject of adversities, including economic and social ones, business and cultural, etc.  One idea that has not been greatly discussed, at least not publicly, is a national public health system as an auxiliary to private care with pay – as – you – go and / or insurance coverage itself with a deductible or co – payment.  Such a system could be self – financing and profitable for the government and would stratify, equalize and reduce the financial burden of any federal system.  MediCare for older U.S. citizens is an example of such a system as weighted towards federal oversight, though any new system might be a health care / maintenance auxiliary to private insurance concerns.  By this writing, the author is surprised this was not discussed with regard to either the Massachusetts plan or the required health insurance as currently promoted by the president.  Without sounding litigious, Catholics because they have values accruing to very technical issues about women’s rights, women’s right to choose and decide, and abortion itself, and other issues that would be addressed by an umbrella federal health plan, do have, and I mention informally here, an argument with the law.  Catholic bishops and perhaps even the pope would do well to provide some decisive guidance here, and as of yet I have heard none.  Also, and as an endnote, neither Zakaria nor Hubbard brought up any economics argument or policy about what to do with trade.  This probably means both parties are in agreement about some policy as already implemented and will not contest each other on these grounds so far (maybe both main presidential candidates admire and accept the current status quo on trade and will just discuss this secondarily in any debate.)  The trade issue as examined by anyone at this point has to do with long – term labour productivity and benefits and the level they are at today.  Developed and developing economies that apparently have more productive labour forces also have less history in them on contests for higher wages and management changes in the modern sense.  This is why the so – called productivity statistics could be questioned – other countries are less in – touch with modernity than the U.S. is at this point (hush,) and any focusing on the labour market only in economic policies in Western economies causes things like prices, interest rates, bank and other rates, including growth rates and productivity measures themselves to first gather and then integrate improper bias that skews and could ruin business – this would be uncalled – for under the circumstances.

Please pardon typhographical errors.  THS