The FDA's Graphic Imagery: A Step in the Right Direction

Two years ago, President Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act into law which requires the FDA to beef up warning labels on cigarette packs. Instead of containing text only, the new labels will feature a graphic image that covers 50% of the front and back of each cigarette pack. This week, the FDA released the nine images it will be placing on the packages. They include a man smoking through a tracheotomy, a dead man with a T-incision (apparently after his autopsy), and an image of a diseased pair of lungs placed side-by-side with a healthy pair. Previous studies by psychologists have shown that graphic images like these encourage thoughts of quitting in smokers. The FDA has taking this into account by adding a 1-800 number on every pack which directs the smoker to a toll-free line offering help to those wishing to quit.

These results are backed up by experiments in behavioral economics which have shown that images like these are effective in deterring consumption of cigarettes by lowering their demand. In a study published by Kenyon College, economists rated the amount adult smokers would be willing to pay for either A) a regular pack of cigarettes with the current warning label B) a pack with a larger text-only warning label on the front C) a pack with a graphic image covering 50% of the front and back, and D) a "plain packaged" pack with a graphic image where all signature advertising such as the company's logo has been removed .

As part of the study, subjects were given a sum of money for their participation, presented a pack of cigarettes and asked to place a bid for how much they were willing to pay for the pack. After this process, an arbitrary "true" value of the pack is revealed. If the participant's bid was higher than the "true" value, then he purchases the pack for his asking price; if his bid is lower, he does not receive the cigarettes. By making participants monetarily accountable for their bids, the experiment possesses a high degree of external validity.

At the conclusion of the experiment, the results showed that, on average, the subjects were willing to pay $3.52 for the control pack and $3.43 for the pack with the large text-only label -- exhibiting a modest decrease in demand. When the graphic images were added, however, the asking price plummeted to $3.11, and when logos were removed, bids dropped even lower down to $2.93.

This experiment exhibits the efficacy of pictorial warning labels and therefore supports the FDA's new deterrence technique. It also demonstrates the potential to decrease demand further by instituting a "plain packaging" rule which strips logos from cigarette packages. As of now, no country has laws mandating plain packaging, and cigarette companies are sure to levy lawsuits citing free speech if such a statute were implemented (much like they did in response to the current law). Despite this, America should take the lead on this type of legislation like we did 45 years ago in becoming the first country to mandate warning labels on cigarette packs. Given that cigarettes account for 443,000 deaths every year in America - the equivalent of a 9/11 happening every two and a half days - the government should be doing all it can to decrease the demand for this deadly substance.

The Gingrich Campaign Hits Another Bump in the Road

In perhaps the most startling development in Newt Gingrich's rocky candidacy for President, the ex-Speaker's campaign manager resigned today, along with his entire Iowa team and key members of his New Hampshire and South Carolina staffs. In the words of Chris Matthews on Hardball, "I've never seen anything like this." Since the early days of his campaign, Gingrich has faced criticism for claiming that his extramarital affairs resulted from his sense of patriotism, and for his assertion that the Paul Ryan's Budget plan constituted "right wing social engineering." Most recently, in a strange move, Gingrich decided to go on a two-week vacation with his wife out of the country, just as his Republican competitors started revving up their respective campaigns. For many on the Gingrich team, the candidate's overseas gallivant was the breaking point. "The professional team came to the realization that the direction of the campaign they sought and Newt's vision for the campaign were incompatible," said Sonny Perdue, a campaign manager. Adding insult to injury, Perdue signed on with the Pawlenty campaign upon his resignation.

Diamond's Departure

When President Obama nominated Peter Diamond to sit on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors fourteen months ago, those of us concerned with our economy's rampant unemployment met the announcement with open arms. Diamond, a professor at MIT, has spent his academic career studying the labor market. Six months after being tapped by the President, Diamond was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on unemployment. Adding to his credentials is the fact that Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, studied under Diamond. In his doctoral dissertation, Bernanke thanked Diamond by name as one of his mentors who "gave generously of their time, reading and discussing my work." Being a Nobel Laureate and an influential professor of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, however, did not impress Republicans in the Senate.

Since his nomination last April, Diamond's credentials were questioned by those in the Senate Banking Committee who claimed that that he did not possess the requisite knowledge or experience to sit on the Board of Governors. Most vocal was Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, who referred to Diamond as merely an "old fashioned, big government Keynesian." Over the past thirteen months, Shelby and other Republicans on the Banking Committee have stymied efforts to confirm Diamond at every turn, and finally, the Professor had seen enough.

Today, Dr. Diamond penned an op-ed in the New York Times, where he declared that he would withdraw himself from the nomination process, and return to his academic career. In his piece, Diamond asserts that those who blocked his appointment politicized the confirmation process and exhibited a misunderstanding of the Federal Reserve's mandate. Under the Federal Reserve Act, established in 1913, the Board of Governors has the dual responsibility of achieving "maximum employment and stable prices." In other words, the Fed aims at keeping both unemployment and inflation low. Given the nations 9.1% unemployment rate and a core CPI under 1.5 one may expect the Federal Reserve, and the politicians who nominate the Board members, to be more concerned with gaining full employment than with the threat of future inflation. Instead, however, inflation has become Public Enemy Number 1, with the issue of protracted unemployment falling by the wayside. In Chairman Bernanke's historic first press conference back in April, for example, inflation concerns dominated the discussion.

This overemphasis on the threat of inflation at the expense of addressing mass unemployment, combined with claims that Diamond - an expert in employment - is unqualified to serve on the Federal Reserve, demonstrate that many in Washington do not fully understand the dual mandate of our nation's central bank. Today, we lost the opportunity to have a Federal Reserve Governor who is uniquely qualified to address the scourge of mass unemployment that our country faces. If those like Senator Shelby continue to block people like Professor Diamond from entering public service, they will do so at our nation's peril.

What Would Romney Do?

In FXD's most recent post, my fellow Pennyon contributor exhorts the American people to "move past" Romney's hypocritical 2006 health care reform law, and realize that we should be focusing on the former CEO's economic insight instead of his record on social reform. I could not agree more with FXD's sentiment that we should be aiming our attention at the dire economic situation in which Americans now find themselves. Someone, however, should pass the memo on to Romney. Instead of moving on from the issue of health care, Romney said in his first official campaign speech yesterday that his agenda "begins with a complete repeal of Obamacare."

In the same speech, Romney received raucous cheers when he delivered the line "Barack Obama has failed America." With such an assertion, it is important to imagine an alternate universe where President Romney was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States three years ago. What would Romney have done so as to not fail us like Obama has? Well, for starters, he apparently would not have implemented a health care reform bill which included an individual mandate, expanded Medicaid, and utilized exchanges, much like he did in 2006. But at the request of FXD, we will leave that aside.

Regarding economic policy, two of President Obama's first major pieces of legislation were the auto bailout and the stimulus package -- both opposed by Romney. "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," wrote Romney in a New York Times Op-Ed. Romney asserts that "if General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye." Oh, really? Later, in the summer of 2009, the Obama Administration decided to prop up the auto industry in exchange for fundamental restructuring. Since then, the industry has regained its footing, the bailout has cost much less than anticipated, and according to Secretary Geithner in his recent Washington Post Op-Ed, it saved roughly one million jobs. Confronted with the facts, Romney has engaged in an all-too-familiar display of flip flopping. Regarding Obama's auto bailout, Romney's spokesperson claims that "Mitt Romney had the idea first." To be fair, many of the ideas described in Romney's opinion piece found themselves into the eventual Obama package, such as the requirement for restructuring. But the crucial aspect -- the propping up of the auto companies with Federal aid which Romney allegedly opposed-- helped the companies stay alive during their restructuring, saving, in Geithner's estimate, roughly a million jobs.

Moving on to the stimulus, Romney favored a plan with tax cuts, and limited spending on "essential" projects. In looking at Obama's Stimulus, we find that $260 billion went toward tax benefits, while $202 billion went to contract, grant, and loan programs. Of the various programs, the vast majority (over $162 billion) went to education, transportation, energy/environment, infrastructure, and housing. Are they essential enough, Mr. Romney?

Rounding out the rest of the stimulus is the $184 billion directed toward entitlements, the majority of which supplied Medicaid and unemployment insurance with funding. Without these funds, scores of jobless Americans would have been unable to subsist for very long. Wouldn't our President have failed America, as Romney claims Obama has, if he let the unemployed go without medical care and without enough money to put food on the table?

To be sure, the stimulus package passed by Congress and signed by President Obama was a vastly insufficient response to the economic cataclysm America faced. Despite this, the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan federal agency which analyzes economic and budgetary data, estimates that the stimulus package saved anywhere from 1.4 to 3.4 million jobs.

It's safe to say that Romney's plan, given its' smaller scope consisting of tax cuts and modest temporary spending increases, would not have been as successful. It's not clear how Romney's stimulus would have brought about recovery, aside from his claim that permanent tax cuts would act as an economic panacea. But lets assume, for a moment, that had Romney been in office, our President would not have "failed us," and the economy would be turning upwards as I write this column.

So in this alternate universe, the economy has regained traction, and addressing the federal budget becomes issue Number 1 for President Romney. How exactly does Romney plan on reconciling his permanent tax cuts with a balanced budget? The answer hinges on "regain[ing] control over...entitlement spending on programs such as Social Security and Medicare." To be sure, these two programs will be giant fiscal burdens in the future if they are not reformed, but won't the burden be increased by less revenue? Of course they will be. But again, much like his health care hypocrisy and his bailout blunder, we will move on.

When analyzing the two, Romney's proposal for the future sounds strikingly like Congressman Paul Ryan's budget plan. No wonder, then, that Romney has voiced his support for the Ryan Plan. Both plans hinge on cutting taxes and overhauling Medicare. Mr. Ryan proposes to do this by turning Medicare into a voucher system. In essence, the Government will give coupons away to the elderly so that they can fund their own medical care. The amount the Government allots is pegged to general inflation, which moves at a much slower pace than rising medical costs.

The important take away here is that the Ryan Plan, which President Romney would pass if he were in office right now, does nothing to control costs; it merely cuts off access. There will come a time in the not-so-distant future, when the vouchers given out under Ryancare/Romneycare 2.0 will not cover medical costs for our elderly population. When this happens, millions will be unable to pay for their most basic medical care as they age. The thought of denying our elder population of health care is unconscionable to me. But even if one were to take it as a necessary evil for the sake of our fiscal security, there is one giant obstacle: any system that cuts off care to the elderly will never last.

The elderly population votes in the highest percentage of any cohort, and once their healthcare starts to run out, they will go to the polls. And they will flock there in droves. Political pressure will mount and before long either the vouchers will increase or Medicare as we know it will be reinstated. There is no way around it: an aging population will not allow its health care to be taken away (which is the reason why Ryan starts the voucher system only for those currently under 55). For true reform of Medicare, cost controls must be implemented within the health care system. President Obama has recognized this by containing costs via his health reform bill and by appointing the Health Care Advisory Board, which will study ways to cut costs in Medicare.

Romney's support for the Ryan budget and his pledge to immediately repeal the Affordable Care Act demonstrate that the former Governor does not fully grasp what it takes to balance the federal budget in the long run. And in the short term, it doesn't appear that we would be much better off had Romney been living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue these past three years. With no auto bailout, and a much smaller stimulus package the American economy would have been much worse off. Millions more would be jobless now, cut off from unemployment insurance and with limited access to healthcare. Now that is an alternate reality where leadership would have failed America, with Mitt Romney - not Barack Obama - to blame.

All Eyes on Goldman

It's never easy being in the PR department of Goldman Sachs. The investment bank, the largest on earth, has been under fire since the earliest days of the financial collapse. Who can forget the infamous Senate hearing last spring, where Senator Carl Levin repeatedly invoked Goldman's own words in claiming that they were knowingly selling investors "a shitty deal?" Two months ago the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released its findings on the financial crash, Wall Street and the Financial Collapse: Anatomy of a Financial Collapse. In the nearly 700 page report, Goldman takes a leading role. The report chronicles how Goldman bet against the mortgage market while actively selling their investors securities that they suspected would decrease in value. To many this is to be a conflict of interest; to Senator Levin, a breach of the law.

In calling for Goldman's prosecution, Sen. Levin claims that, "In my judgment, Goldman clearly misled their clients and they misled congress." Citing Levin's report, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, in his expose"The People vs. Goldman Sachs," has called for the Justice Department to step in. In the article, Taibbi interviews former New York Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer, who made a name for himself as the "Sheriff of Wall Street" by prosecuting Wall Street CEOs in the void left open by an inactive Federal Government. When asked what he would do if he were still Attorney General, Spitzer replied "once the steam stopped coming out of my ears, I'd be dropping so many subpoenas."

Despite such sentiment, the Federal Government has been loathe to act. Spitzer's words, however, did not fall on deaf ears in the Empire State. As reported in today's DealBook, the Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, has issued subpoenas for Goldman, resulting from the Levin Report. To make matters worse for Goldman, this summons comes on the heels of an "exploratory meeting" with the New York Attorney General's Office which occurred only two weeks ago.

Turning our attention to the markets, after the story broke, shares in Goldman dropped down to $132.04 before stabilizing at $134.38. Despite its rally, Goldman ended the day down $1.79 from closing on Wednesday. Today's losses, although small, are indicative of a larger trend in Goldman recently. The firm's shares are down from $170 in January, and from $140.73 at the end of May. It appears the markets -- as well as the legal authorities -- have their eyes on Goldman Sachs.

Debt Ceiling Do-Si-Do

Last night, just as the political world was obsessing over "Weinergate" and the circus that is Sarah Palin's "family vacation," Washington DC engaged in another act of political theater: the House vote to raise the debt ceiling. The final act of this circus, however, unlike some of the more trivial stories that pass for "news," will determine the health of our nation's -- and the world's -- economy for years to come.

Back on May 16th, the United States hit its debt limit, and since then, the government has been forced to implement "extraordinary measures," to ensure that America remains solvent. These measures can not go on indefinitely, however, as they expire on August 2nd. The clock is ticking.

And how does Congress respond? By bringing up a bill that, by admission of its one of its own authors, Rep. David Camp, "will and must fail." Why introduce a bill with the intention of ensuring its failure, one might ask? The answer: to demonstrate to President Obama the lack of congressional support for raising the ceiling without enacting budget cuts to go along with it. But haven't we seen this saga play out before? Back in April, President Obama and Speaker Boehner agreed at the 11th hour to a compromise which cut $78 billion from the President's proposed budget. Given that the budget was passed by members of congress, it makes no sense that these very same people are now speaking out against the natural, and logical, outgrowth of their piece of legislation. In essence, the American economy is being held hostage by those in congress who, unsatisfied by the April cuts, want to squeeze more out of the federal budget.

And the American people are outraged, right? Wrong. As evidenced by a recent Gallup Poll from May 13, nearly half the US population is against raising the debt limit. Only 19% are in favor of increasing the ceiling, while 47% are against it. Straddling the middle, are the 34% of Americans who "don't know enough to say." At least they are being honest with themselves. For, if the 47% who are against raising the debt knew enough to form a rational opinion, they would either revise their answer or acknowledge that their wishes, if granted by congress, would result in economic calamity.

If Congress does not increase the limit by August 2nd, when the Treasury's "extraordinary measures" expire, Geithner and Obama will be forced to choose between two very dire options. They may decide to default on the national debt for the first time in our nation's history. This would result in skyrocketing interest rates, and could lead to a credit crunch which plunges the world into its second financial collapse in the past four years. Imagine someone who recently developed a mean case of acute asthma, who is barely recovering from the most strenuous asthma attack recorded in, say, 80 years. When he finally begins breathing again with deep, but wheezy breaths, he takes a harsh body-blow, knocking the wind out of him. How long will it take for him to recover, if ever, and at what cost? For the obvious reasons, this result is unthinkable.

In light of the consequences of default, we must turn to option 2. If the government wishes to honor its debts, it must drastically cut federal spending by $4 billion dollars a day, or roughly $125 billion every month. These billions can come out of anywhere from federal salaries, Social Security and Medicare payments, or soldiers' pay. Within 8 months, these cuts will have sapped a trillion dollars out of an economy that is already sputtering -- the equivalent of cutting off our asthmatic's air supply.

In realizing the dire consequences of not raising the limit, it is disheartening to see the political games that surround such an important vote. This may cause one to lament that our elected officials are more interested in dancing in a debt ceiling do-si-do, than actually engaging in governance. Looking back at the political history of our country, however, it is comforting to see that there was once a time when these partisan charades did not surround congress' vote on the debt ceiling. Congress' process of appropriating funds had always been a redundant two step process: passing the budget, and then authorizing an increase in the debt ceiling to allow the already agreed upon money to be spent. Between the years of 1979 and 1995, however, there was a brief respite from this strange, redundant system.

As chronicled in the National Journal's "This Guy Once Fixed the Debt Ceiling Problem," Congressman Richard Gephardt, under the tutelage of Speaker Tip O'Neill, combined the two votes back in 1979. When a budget was passed, the debt ceiling was automatically raised to accommodate the increase in appropriations. This system held strong until incoming House Speaker Newt Gingrich separated the two votes, when the Republic Revolution rolled through the House in 1995 . In the words of Gephardt, the two-vote system is "silly because it's just grandstanding...it's a facade; it's not real. If you're real, you vote for budgetary and spending decisions that would balance the budget"

Despite the obvious silliness of the two-vote system, it has remained intact for the past 16 years. And here we are, two months away from insolvency, because many of our politicians prefer to play games with our economy, dignifying the ignorance of some of their constituents, rather than engaging in responsible governance. Today, in response to last night's legislative charade, Geithner's Assistant Secretary for Financial Markets, Mary Miller, released a statement. In it she reaffirmed that, come August 2rd, the United States will face "catastrophic economic and market consequences" if Congress does not act. Let's hope congress gets the memo. Finally.

"I think -- I hope -- we'll be O.K"

Yesterday's New York Times reports that “housing prices fell in March to their lowest point since the downturn began.” This new low is indicated by a 0.8% drop between February and March in Standard and Poor’s Case-Shiller Index, an economic indicator which surveys the price of single-family homes in the nation’s largest cities. This is a troubling -- but not altogether surprising – sign for an economy whose recovery continues to sputter. Last summer, in the Bloomberg BusinessWeek article, “Krugman or Paulson: Who You Gonna Bet on?” Hugo Lindgren, asks his readers to compare – and hedge their bets on – the differing economic outlooks of John Paulson, a hedge-fund manager, and Paul Krugman, a Professor in economics and Nobel Laureate.

Krugman, back in July of 2010, “went all in on Keynesian orthodoxy,” claiming that given the lack of federal spending, the economy will slip into a third depression characterized by slow, sporadic growth and high unemployment, resembling the Long Depression of the late 19th Century. Paulson, on the other hand, was bullish on the future. “We’re in the middle of a sustained recovery in the U.S…I think were about to turn a corner,” he claimed during the summer of 2010, “it’s the best time to buy a house in America.” Given the lack of growth over the past year and the downward spiraling housing prices evidenced by today’s Case-Schiller Index, one would have been wise to bet on the wisdom of Krugman over Pauslon.

This news is compounded by the release of a report by the National Association of Realtors which shows an 11.6% decrease in sales – significantly worse than the organizations prediction of a 1% drop. With such disappointing news, the future remains uncertain. Despite this, Douglas Yearley, the CEO of Toll Brothers, has advised us to be cautiously optimistic. In a presciently guarded remark, Yearley muses, “I think – I hope – we’ll be O.K”.