Planet Utah

David Plouffe is wrong

Reacting to the rotten jobs report today, Obama advisor David Plouffe got in trouble for seeming to say, basically, "The macro economy doesn't matter to voters." Here's (part of) what he said: 

The average American does not view the economy through the prism of GDP or unemployment rates or even monthly jobs numbers.

In fact, those terms very rarely pass their lips. So it’s a very one-dimensional view. They view the economy through their own personal prism. 

Whatever you think of the political wisdom of these remarks, I can tell you that they are wrong, empirically speaking. There's a well developed political science literature on this issue, and that literature has determined that people vote on the basis of both their own economic circumstances (often referred to as "pocketbook voting"...but who carries a pocketbook anymore?), AND the state of the broader economy (political scientists refer to this as "sociotropic voting"). 

No, we CANNOT have class outside today.

My five-month hangover and the doctors who've never heard of Allegra

About five months ago, while I was doing the Clean detox program, I started feeling hung over all the time: headache, flushed feeling in my face, tingling sensation in my head, 24/7. No relief, ever.

At the time, I figured it was just the detox. Well, I did 4.5 weeks on Clean (1.5 weeks longer than the prescribed 3 weeks), just to be sure I had all of the toxins out. Once I stopped doing Clean, I figured the feeling would go away.

It never did.

If you want to know what it feels like, go to your fridge, break out the horseradish, scoop up a teaspoonful, and eat it. I'll wait...

Did you get the horseradish head rush? That's what I feel like, all the time. Not fun.

I've seen three doctors in Dallas about this, and I've talked to two within my own family. They've given me plenty of advice and plenty of things to try, but I've had no relief.

I have plans to see a neurologist next week, but in the meantime I decided to drop by a neighbor's house and ask her if she'd ever experienced anything like this. I did, and here's what she said: "Yeah, I've had horrible allergies here in Texas. A lot of people do. North Texas is notorious for that. People who have never had allergies other places have allergies here. When things are bad, I get a headache every day starting at about 4:00. If you're like that, you should get on Allegra and stay on until you feel better."

Not one of the five doctors said anything like that to me. Only two mentioned allergies at all. One was interested in food allergies, though, and preached a highly restrictive diet...the very same diet I was on when I started feeling this way. The other wanted to put me on a regimen on which I'd have to give myself an injection every other day for a year, and then maybe I'd feel better. Maybe.

My neighbor, though, just busted out Occam's Razor and gave me the most sensible advice I've gotten...for free.*

Footnote: I only just started on Allegra, so I can't tell you yet whether I feel any better. The point of the story, though, is that five out of five doctors failed to come up with the cheapest, easiest, most obvious thing to try. Weird...

*To be fair, the doctors in my family didn't charge me, either.

Why are tax increases worse than spending cuts?

Republicans are insisting on a major deficit reduction package as the price of approving the debt ceiling increase. They will not, however, contemplate tax increases as part of that package. The standard line is, "In this economy, we should not be raising taxes."

But doesn't that same logic apply to spending cuts? After all, government spending is economic activity. 

Think about it this way. You're the richest guy in a tiny island kingdom. Each year, the island turns out about 10 million bucks' worth of stuff, and you buy $4 million of it.

You have a dirty little secret, though: You've been borrowing about $1 million/year from a Chinese bank to keep up your spending habits.

One day, you announce that you're going to start living within your means, which means that you will now spend only $3 million per year. If the islanders keep turning out $10 million worth of stuff, there will be $1 million in unused goods lying around. Recognizing this, the islands' producers scale back their output to a total value of about $9 million.

This has significant implications in terms of jobs, benefits, income, and overall quality of life.

Over time, of course, people on the island will have babies, maybe some wealthy immigrants will move to the island and start spending a lot of money, maybe the island's inhabitants will be able to crack some overseas markets. One way or other, eventually, they'll make up that lost million dollars. In the short run, however, it will cause some serious economic dislocations.

And, scene...

So, that's a rough analogy, I know, but isn't that essentially what we're talking about with respect to government spending cuts? If so, "in this economy," why are spending cuts any more desirable than tax increases?

Footnote: Please note that this is a purely economic question I'm asking; that is, it's a question about the relative impact of tax hikes and spending cuts on the economy. If you want to argue that the federal government taxes enough already, and that the budget should be balanced exclusively through spending cuts, that's fine. Most Republicans would, presumably, make that argument. But they are ALSO making the argument that tax increases are worse for the economy than spending cuts. That's the part I don't get.