Politics

The End of Easy Student Loans

James Bailey1 Comment

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is proposing to cut off student loans for programs whose graduates earn less than the median high school graduate. The House proposed a risk-sharing model where colleges would partly pay back the federal government when their students fail to pay back loans themselves. Both the House and Senate propose to cap how much students can borrow for graduate loans. Both would reduce federal spending on higher ed by about $30-$35 billion per year, cutting the size of the $700 billion higher ed sector by 4-5%. I expected that something like this would happen eventually, especially after the student loan forgiveness proposals of 2022:

While we aren’t getting real reform now, I do think forgiveness makes it more likely that we’ll see reform in the next few years. What could that look like?

The Department of Education should raise its standards and stop offering loans to programs with high default rates or bad student outcomes. This should include not just fly-by-night colleges, but sketchy masters degree programs at prestigious schools.

Colleges should also share responsibility when they consistently saddle students with debt but don’t actually improve students’ prospects enough to be able to pay it back. Economists have put a lot of thought into how to do this in a manner that doesn’t penalize colleges simply for trying to teach less-prepared students.

I’d bet that some reform along these lines happens in the 2020’s, just like the bank bailouts of 2008 led to the Dodd-Frank reform of 2010 to try to prevent future bailouts. The big question is, will this be a pragmatic bipartisan reform to curb the worst offenders, or a Republican effort to substantially reduce the amount of money flowing to a higher ed sector they increasingly dislike?

Of course, there is a lot riding on the details. How exactly do you calculate the income of graduates of a program compared to high school grads? The Senate proposal explains their approach starting on page 58. They want to compare the median income of working students 4 years after leaving their program (whether they graduated or dropped out, but exempting those in grad school) to the median income of those with only a high school diploma who are age 25-34, working, and not in school.

Nationally I calculate that this would make for a floor of $31,000. That is, the median student who is 4 years out from your program and is working should be earning at least $31k. In practice the bill would implement a different number for each state. This seems like a low bar in general, though you could certainly quibble with it. For instance, those 4 years out from a program may be closer to age 25 than age 34, but income typically rises with age during those years. If you compare them to 26 year old high school grads, the national bar would be just $28k.

What sorts of programs have graduates making less than $31k per year?

Continue reading →

Not a Ranked-Choice Failure

Zachary Bartsch3 Comments

I have a good friend who is a professor in philosophy at another university. He was telling me about the struggle among his colleagues to determine the recipient of their annual department award. Every year the department chooses from among the graduating philosophy major students one to recognize for excellence. This year, they faced the challenge of incommensurables.

One student had a high GPA in the major, but had a severe case of senioritis and had phoned-in her senior courses. A second had a slightly worse GPA, but had face-planted the senior thesis. Still a 3rd student had merely a good GPA, but wrote an excellent publishable thesis.

The philosophy faculty could not agree. They each shared stories and arguments about the relative weights of the performance indicators and the relative value of the performances. I don’t know if you know any academics, but suffice it to say that they both A) tend not to be good administrators and B) tend not to be invited to productive meetings. I’m glad that I wasn’t in the room.

In fact, the faculty met twice! They were at an impasse. The department award winner is usually no contest. The person who excels in one area tends to also excel in the others. This year, the decision was so unclear and the faculty were so divided that they even seriously considered withholding the award entirely. None of the candidates was excellent on all counts.

Finally, trying to come to a decision – if not an agreement – they decided to adopt something that they’d heard good things about: Ranked Choice Voting. I was thrilled to hear this. What an opportunity to exhibit the nuance and beauty of this collective choice method! They agreed to adopt whatever the outcome would be. As my friend told me this, I was giddy with anticipation. What an exciting story! More good experiences with ranked choice voting may improve its popularity and make widespread its adoption.

If you don’t know, Ranked Choice Voting involves everyone ranking the candidates in order of preference. In this case 1 is most preferred and 3 is least preferred. Then, the candidate with the fewest first-ranked votes is eliminated from the running. The voters whose first preference was nixed now have their votes reallocated to their 2nd preferred candidates. Since only two candidates remain, one of them has won the majority and the election ends with an outcome that is usually considered better than the simple ‘just choose your favorite’ version that most of us use at our local polls.

How did the philosophers fare?

Continue reading →

Montana’s New Property Tax System

Jeremy Horpedahl4 Comments

SPOILER ALERT if you are watching the TV Series Yellowstone: at the start of Season 5, John Dutton (played by Kevin Costner) is sworn in as Governor of Montana. One of his first proposals in his inaugural address is that the state legislature “double property taxes for non-residents” who have been buying up vacation homes in the state, and contributing to the increase in property values in the state (a fact which drives many plotlines throughout the series). This episode aired in November 2022.

This week, the real governor of Montana signed a pair of bills which effectively did what the fictional governor John Dutton proposed: significantly increasing property taxes on non-residents. Starting in tax year 2026, the property taxes for non-primary residences (which will include non-Montana residents and Montanans who own vacation homes) will be based on 1.9% of market value, while Montana residents will pay a graduated rate structure for their primary residence: 0.76% for property up to the state median (currently about $340,000), 0.9% up to two times the state median, 1.1% for the value between 2 and 4 times the state median, and 1.9% (the same as non-residents) for the value of homes above 4 times the state median ($1.36 million currently). Currently residential property is taxed at 1.35% of market value, meaning that while the rate hasn’t fully doubled for non-residents, most non-residents will be paying twice or more in property taxes than Montana residents.

I was a non-resident member of the Montana Property Tax Task Force, and served on the “Tax Fairness” subcommittee where the plan for HB 231 originated, so I have somewhat of a unique perspective on these changes to property tax rates. I will offer a few thoughts, some of which are critical, but let me first say that it was a great honor to be asked to serve on the Task Force by Montana’s Governor. Also, everyone on the Task Force was very friendly and receptive to ideas from outsiders (I was one of three non-Montanans on the Task Force), and so my comments here are not critical of the Task Force process nor anyone on it. As I did when I served on the Task Force, my goal in this post is to try, as best as I can, to objectively analyze how this proposal (now law) will impact Montana.

Continue reading →

95 Days of Trump Spending & Cutting

Zachary BartschLeave a comment

Generally, decisions to spend federal funds come is the authority of congress. But the Trump administration has very publicly made clear that it will try to cut the things that are within its authority (or that it thinks should be within that authority). Truly, the fiscal year with the new Republican unified government won’t begin until October of 2025. So, the last quarter is when we’ll see what the Republicans actually want – for better or for worse. In the meantime, we can look past the hyperbole and see what the accounting records say. The most recent data includes 95 days after inauguration.  First, for context, total spending is up $134 billion or 5.8% from this time last year to $2.45 trillion.

The Trump administration has been making news about their desire and success in cutting. Which programs have been cut the most? As a proportion of their budgets, below is a graph of were the five biggest cuts have happened by percent. The Cuts to the FCC and CPB reflect long partisan stances by Republicans. The cuts to the Federal Financing Bank reflect fewer loans administered by the US government and reflect the current bouts to cut spending. Cuts in the RRB- Misc refer to some types of railroad payments to employees. In the spirit of whiplash, the cuts to the US International Development Finance Corporation reverse the course set by the first Trump administration. This government corporation exists to facilitate US investment in strategically important foreign countries.

But some programs have *increased* spending since 2024. The five largest increases include the USDA, the US contributions to multilateral assistance, claims and judgments against the US, the federal railroad administration, and the international monetary fund. Funding for farmers and railroads reflect the old agricultural and new union Republican constituencies. The multilateral assistance and IMF spending reflects greater international involvement of the administration, despite its autarkic lip service.

Continue reading →

Anti-Tariff Declaration

James Bailey2 Comments

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 was opposed by a thousand economists, but passed anyway, exacerbating the Great Depression. Now that the biggest tariff increase since 1930 is on the table, the economists are trying again. I hope we will find a more receptive audience this time.

The Independent Institute organized an “Anti-Tariff Declaration” last week that now has more signatures than the anti-Smoot-Hawley declaration, including many from top economists. One core argument is the sort you’d get in an intro econ class:

Overwhelming economic evidence shows that freedom to trade is associated with higher per-capita incomes, faster rates of economic growth, and enhanced economic efficiency.

But I thought the Declaration made several other good points. Intro econ textbooks say that tariffs at least benefit domestic producers (at the expense of consumers and efficiency), but in practice these tariffs have been mainly hurting domestic producers, because:

The American economy is a global economy that uses nearly two thirds of its imports as inputs for domestic production.

I get asked to sign a petition of economists like this every year or so, but this is the first one I have ever agreed to sign onto. Most petitions are on issues where there are good arguments on each side, like whether to extend a particular tax cut, or which Presidential candidate is better for the economy. But the argument against these tariffs is as solid as any real-world economic argument gets.

The full Declaration is quite short, you can read the whole thing and consider signing yourself here.

How Scott Bessent Outfoxed Peter Navarro to Get the 90 Day Tariff Pause

Scott Buchanan1 Comment

Despite the nearly universal outcry, President Trump was standing firm on his massive tariffs. “No backing down”, etc., despite the evaporation of trillions of dollars in stock values. On Tuesday, April 8, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt affirmed: “The President was asked and answered this yesterday. He said he’s not considering an extension or delay. I spoke to him before this briefing. That was not his mindset. He expects that these tariffs are going to go into effect.” However, the next day, Wednesday, April 9, Trump announced on his social media platform, Truth Social, that for all countries but China, there would be a 90-day pause in reciprocal tariffs.

What happened here? The common explanations are that (1) the chaos and losses in the markets had finally grown intolerable, or that (2) the president had planned all along to pause the tariff hikes on April 9. I suspect there is some merit to both of these factors – -despite all the prior warnings, I think (1) Trump did not expect such market devastation (he sincerely believes that he is making the American economy great, so why should markets crash?), and also (2) that he had indeed planned to play around with tariff implementations in pursuit of deals.

But what some analysts pointed out as a further factor was the drop in the market value of U.S. Treasury bonds, which correlates directly to a rise in interest rates. The actions of the Administration have seemingly caused market participants, especially abroad, to question the risk-free status of U.S. debt. If the government has to pay higher interest on its debt, it is game over, as interest payments will spiral up and consume an ever-higher share of the federal budget. The chart below shows in orange the price movement of the TLT fund, which holds long-term T-bonds, plummeting on April 7, 8, and 9 (red arrow), as an indicator of rising rates. TLT price then shot upwards, along with stocks (the green line is S&P 500 fund SPY) late on April 9, in the relief following the tariff announcement:

As Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent would be particularly sensitized to the interest rate issue, and able to communicate that to the boss. He has been a successful hedge fund trader and manager, so he understands the plumbing of the system, unlike some other presidential advisors. Up till then, however, economist Peter Navarro, who is ultra-hawkish on tariffs, had had the ear of the president.

So, what did Bessent do? (This is the part that only came to my attention a few days ago, even though technically this is old news). It seems he enlisted the support of Commerce Secretary Lutnick, and adroitly chose a time when Navarro was tied up in a meeting, and barged in on the president in an unscheduled meeting so they could get him alone. And it worked! Evidently, they persuaded him that now was the time to do the clever deal-making thing and issue a pause. It’s a mark of how readily the president can change his mind that his own press spokespeople were unaware of this volte-face, and had to scramble to make sense of it. It is also interesting that cabinet members are resorting to cloak-and-dagger tactics to get policy done.

Bessent naturally gave all the credit to the president for the decision, but he and Lutnick had photos taken to show who saved the financial world – for now:

Scott Bessent (standing, left) and Howard Lutnick (right) with President Trump as he signs 90-day pause in reciprocal tariffs.  Source: Daily Mail.

The president’s recent musings about trying to fire the supposedly independent Fed chairman have since contributed to interest rates going back up again, but that is another story.

Trump’s National Sales Tax

James Bailey1 Comment

Tariffs are going up to levels last seen in the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs that helped kick off the Great Depression:

Tariffs are taxes- roughly, a national sales tax with an exemption for domestically-produced goods and services. I think the words make a difference here- “raising tariffs on countries who we run a trade deficit with” just sounds abstruse to most people, while “raising taxes on goods bought from firms in net-seller countries” sounds negative, but they are the same thing.

Of course, in this case the plan is to raise taxes to at least 10% on goods from all other countries even if they aren’t net-sellers, and raise taxes up to 49% on those that are. This is not a negotiating tactic. We know this from the math- the new tax formula uses net imports from a country rather than a country’s tariff rates, so a country could cut their tariffs on US goods to zero today and it wouldn’t necessarily reduce our “reciprocal” tariffs at all; at best it would reduce them to 10%. We also know it isn’t about negotiating because the administration says it isn’t. Their goal, obviously, is to reduce trade, not to free it.

They say they are doing this to bring manufacturing back to America and to promote national defense. But American manufacturers don’t seem happy. Even before the latest huge tax increase, trade war was their biggest concern:

The National Association of Manufacturers Q1 2025 Manufacturers’ Outlook Survey reveals growing concerns over trade uncertainties and increased raw material costs. Trade uncertainties surged to the top of manufacturers’ challenges, cited by 76.2% of respondents, jumping 20 percentage points from Q4 2024 and 40 percentage points from Q3 of last year.

The National Association of Manufacturers responded to the latest tax increase with a negative statement; so even the one major group that might have benefitted from tariffs is unhappy. Foreign producers and US consumers will of course be very unhappy. I think Trump is making a huge political blunder alongside the economic one- he got elected largely because Biden allowed inflation to get noticeably high, but now Trump is about to do the same thing.

I also see this as a huge national security blunder. For tariffs on China, I at least see their argument- we should take an economic hit today in order to become less reliant on our peer-competitor and potential adversary. But the tariffs on allies make no sense- they are hitting the very countries that are most valuable as economic and/or military partners in a conflict with China, like Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, India, and Taiwan (!!!). One of our biggest advantages vs. China has been that we have many allies and they have few, and we appear to be throwing away this advantage for nothing.

What can you or I do about this? Stock up on durable goods before the price increases hit. Picking investment winners is always hard, but things this makes me consider are gold, stocks in foreign countries that trade little with the US, and companies whose stocks took a big hit today despite not actually being importers. Finally, we can try nudging Congress to do something. The Constitution gives the power to levy taxes to the legislative branch, but in the 20th century they voted to delegate some of this power to the executive. Any time they want, Congress could repeal these tariffs and take back the power to set rates. I have some hope they actually will- just yesterday the Senate voted to repeal some tariffs on Canada, and more votes are planned. The alternative is to risk a recession and a wipeout in the midterms:

Information Regarding Russian Voting

Joy BuchananLeave a comment

Grok 3 beta (paid version) says this:

The Reality

  • Opposition: Genuine opposition is stifled. Prominent critics like Alexei Navalny (who died in prison in 2024) are barred from running, imprisoned, or sidelined. Parties like the Communist Party or LDPR exist but are often seen as “systemic opposition”—allowed to operate but not to seriously challenge the regime.
  • Media and Campaigning: State-controlled media heavily favors United Russia and Putin. Independent outlets face censorship, shutdowns, or exile (e.g., Meduza, TV Rain). Campaigning for opposition is restricted, with candidates disqualified on technicalities or facing harassment.
  • Voting Process: Reports of irregularities are common—ballot stuffing, coerced voting (especially among public sector workers), and inflated turnout figures. The Central Election Commission oversees it all, but it’s widely viewed as Kremlin-aligned. Electronic voting, introduced in recent years, has raised further transparency concerns.
  • Turnout and Results: Official turnout often hovers around 50-70%, though skepticism about these numbers persists. Putin’s 2024 victory, with 87% of the vote, came amid the Ukraine war and suppression of dissent, with no credible challengers.

Public Perception

Many Russians see elections as a formality—Putin’s approval, while fluctuating (per Levada Center polls, it dipped to 59% in 2018 but spiked to 80%+ after Crimea’s annexation), reflects a mix of genuine support, apathy, and resignation. Critics argue the system prioritizes stability over democracy; supporters say it’s what Russia needs given its history and external pressures.

Recent Example

The 2024 presidential election (March 15-17) was a case study: held over three days, including in occupied Ukrainian territories, with Navalny’s death fresh in memory. Three token candidates ran against Putin, none polling above single digits. Protests like “Noon Against Putin” (voters showing up at noon to signal dissent) were symbolic but powerless against the machine.

In short, Russian elections are predictable, heavily managed spectacles—less about choice, more about reinforcing the status quo. If you want specifics on a particular election or X posts about it, I can dig deeper. What angle are you curious about?

Click Read More to see the answer to my follow-up question “Explain coerced voting for public sector employees?”

Continue reading →

US Federal Government Spending Hasn’t Decreased (Yet)

Jeremy HorpedahlLeave a comment

Despite DOGE and the President partially stopping some payments for some federal agencies, the changes so far aren’t visible at all in federal payments data. The Brookings Institution has put together a new tool that tracks daily spending data from the US Treasury. (My co-blogger Zach wrote about this tool last week too.) Here’s a chart from that tool showing total federal outlays by calendar year. Notice that 2025 is right on track with the past two years, or just slightly above (dollars are in nominal terms):

Of course, given the massive amount of US federal spending and the large number of agencies, we might expect it to take more than a few months to get spending under control or significantly alter its course. But this way of tracking the data is definitely picking up any changes made so far. For example, notice the flat lining of USAID funding after Trump comes into office at the end of January:

So while we don’t see any big changes yet in the aggregate spending, the few small agencies that DOGE has frozen are showing up in this data. That tells this will be a useful tool to follow going forward.

Europe Doesn’t Have to Be A Defenseless Museum

James Bailey2 Comments

America has withdrawn aid from Ukraine. Contra the Vice-President, we could easily afford to reverse this, and I hope we will. I know we could afford it because even the much poorer Europeans can, and I think they might finally be ready to try.

Until now, Europe has been fighting with both hands tied behind their back- letting their economic growth fall far behind America’s due to poor policy, and committing only a tiny share of that economy to defense. Here’s how Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk put it:

500 million Europeans are asking 300 million Americans to defend them against 140 million Russians.

Europe may be significantly poorer than the US on a per-capita basis, but it has significantly more people, so the total size of their economy is almost as large as the US and over 4 times larger than Russia:

Source: my graph of World Bank data

But Europe has put only a small fraction of their economy toward defense for a long time. Russia alone spends more on their military than the rest of Europe combined despite their much smaller economy, by putting a much larger fraction of their GDP toward the military:

When European countries spend so little on their own defense, they have little to share with Ukraine. Many leaders complaining about the end of US support have contributed much less themselves, even as a share of their smaller economies:

Europe can be much stronger than Russia, but only if they start trying at least half as hard as Russia. Yes, Europe has poor demographics, but Russia’s are worse; Europe has many more military-age men:

Yes, Russia has nukes, but so do Britain and France, and France might actually take advantage of this.

Economically speaking, is this a good time for Europe to rearm? To me it looks fine. The best time would have been the late 2000s to early 2010s, both because it could have been in time to dissuade Russia from starting this war, and because their economic problems then were much more about a lack of aggregate demand. But right now inflation is fine at 2.4%, NGDP growth is fine at 4.3%, and 10-year bond yields the major countries are around 3-4%. Overall this looks like AD is currently about right, but markets expected that economic growth could turn negative this year, and a burst of defense spending could head that off:

This would be especially valuable if it can be paired with the supply-side reforms that European leaders know they should to do anyway, and that would allow for more growth without pushing up inflation. Europe has fallen far behind the US in productivity, to the point that it is now a bigger issue than their higher unemployment and lower hours worked in explaining why the US is much richer:

The silver lining here is that the further behind the US they fall, the faster they could potentially grow- catchup growth is easier than frontier growth, you just need to copy the technologies and implement the strategies already figured out by the frontier economies. Europe easily has the human capital to do this, they just haven’t had the will- have preferred to regulate new technologies like fracking and AI into oblivion, along with older technologies like nuclear power. They won’t drill for oil and gas themselves in the name of decarbonization but have spent hundreds of billions on Russian oil and gas just since the war began. But if they ever decided to change their policy, their economy could rapidly improve- like letting go of the rubber band you’ve been pulling back.

European leaders appear to finally be realizing this. The European Commission just proposed a 150 billion Euro joint defense fund. This week Germany proposed spending half a trillion on infrastructure and defense, sending European stocks above their previous all-time high set in the year 2000 (!).

The EU always used to be able to excuse their economic failings by saying “at least we brought peace to a continent formerly full of war.” But this is no longer the case. If they cannot settle the war on good terms, they have no excuse. The good news is that European decline has been a choice, and it is a choice they could decide to change at any moment. Victory awaits those who will it.