Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

If there was a Public Option in PPACA, what grounds would the Supreme Court use to overturn it?

The above is a more-than-semi-serious question.

I’ll be blogging/tweeting the Kauffman Foundation’s Bloggers’s Forum tomorrow from 9:30-3:30 EDT (8:30-2:30 here in Kansas City; 6:30-12:30 in DeLong/Thomaville; in Hawaii, they’re still watching Dave Garroway).

You can tell it has reached maturity because tomorrow’s presenters include J. Bradford DeLong, Scott Sumner, Tyler Cowen, and Karl Smith—and that’s just the first panel (“Recovery and Long-Term Growth”).

Mark Thoma, Arnold Kling, and the Former Dynamic Duo [Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias] are all scheduled to follow.

As Brad noted, the event will be live-streamed at Growthology and (one assumes, as usual), the videos will be archived and available.

Neither your not-very-humble correspondent nor fellow AB (and now Roubini contributor) Rebecca Wilder will be presenting.

[links completed late; apologies to Ezra, Matt, and Rebecca for the delay.]

Tags: , , , , , Comments (10) | |

Welcome to the Dark Side, Mark Thoma

Here I thought I was fed up with the Empty Suit in the White House:

What it says to me is all that matters is Obama’s reelection (see, for example, the pivot to deficit reduction) — when the timing’s right for that, things will happen — but don’t keep your fingers crossed otherwise. If you are unemployed and struggling, the president will try to help if it also helps him get reelected, but helping because it’s the right thing to do? Not likely.

The late, not-quite-great Kenneth Koch—from whom Barry may well have taken a class—may be rolling over in his grave, having discovered that his 1960 play about Richard Nixon, “The Election,” has become all the more relevant about the sitting Democratic President.

Tags: , , Comments (19) | |

The social safety net encourages…?

Mark Thoma responds to the meme that the social safety net encourages bad behavior overall:

The idea that the unemployment problem is due to lack of effort on behalf of the unemployed rather than a lack of demand is convenient for the moralists, but inconsistent with the facts. The problem is lack of demand, not the means through which we smooth the negative consequences of recessions.

But what really irks me is the implicit moralizing, the idea that people deserve to be thrown into poverty. Someone who gets up every day and goes to a job day after day, often a job they don’t like very much, to support their families can suddenly become unemployed in a recession through no fault of their own. They did nothing wrong — it’s not their fault the economy went into a recession and they certainly couldn’t be expected to foresee a recession that experts such as Casey Mulligan missed entirely. They had no reason to believe they had chosen the wrong place to go to work, but unemployment hit them anyway. And since one of the biggest causes of foreclosure is an event like unemployment, it’s entirely possible that this household would lose its home, be forced to declare bankruptcy, etc., and end up in severe poverty if there were no social services to rely upon.

What moral lesson is being taught here?