David Brooks is worried, too, but his worries are about the path from our present health care system to a single-payer system. From his most recent New York Times column:

It sounds good. But the trick is in the transition.

First, patients would have to transition. Right now, roughly 181 million Americans receive health insurance through employers. About 70 percent of these people say they are happy with their coverage. Proponents of Medicare for all are saying: We’re going to take away the insurance you have and are happy with, and we’re going to replace it with a new system you haven’t experienced yet because, trust us, we’re the federal government!

The insurance companies would have to transition. Lots of people work for and serve this industry. All-inclusive public health care would destroy this industry beyond recognition, and those people would have to find other work.

Hospitals would have to transition. In many small cities the local health care system is the biggest employer. As Reihan Salam points out in The Atlantic, the United States has far more fully stocked hospitals relative to its population and much lower bed occupancy than comparable European nations have.

If you live in a place where the health system is a big employer, think what happens when that sector takes a sudden, huge pay cut. The ripple effects would be immediate — like a small deindustrialization.

Doctors would have to transition. Salary losses would differ by specialty, but imagine you came out of med school saddled with debt and learn that your payments are going to be down by, say 30 percent. Similar shocks would ripple to other health care workers.

The American people would have to transition. Americans are more decentralized, diverse and individualistic than people in the nations with single-payer systems. They are more suspicious of centralized government and tend to dislike higher taxes.

My worries are a bit different. The fiscal rationale of the entire scheme assumes that we will hold the line on reimbursement rates and that’s something I see no will to do. If the Congress had been willing to hold the line on Medicare reimbursement rates 50 years ago or even 20 years ago, we wouldn’t be in the fix we’re in now, spending significantly more than any other country in the world. If the consequence of “Medicare for All” is to raise all reimbursement rates to those of private insurance and continue to increase the reimbursement rates at a multiple of the growth of non-GDP annually, no foreseeable system of financing will render it affordable.

And keep in mind that once we’ve torn down the private insurance system, if the new system fails, there’s no way to get back. It’s like a parachute jump. If you miss the target, you can’t jump back up into the plane and try it again.

In an op-ed in the Washington Post Lawrence Summers expresses his worries about American politicians embracing Modern Monetary Theory:

First, it holds out the prospect that somehow by printing money, the government can finance its deficits at zero cost. In fact, in today’s economy, the government pays interest on any new money it creates, which takes the form of its reserves held by banks at the Federal Reserve. Yes, there is outstanding currency in circulation, but because that can always be deposited in a bank, its quantity is not controlled by the government. Even money-financed deficits cause the government to incur debt.

Second, contrary to the claims of modern monetary theorists, it is not true that governments can simply create new money to pay all liabilities coming due and avoid default. As the experience of any number of emerging markets demonstrates, past a certain point, this approach leads to hyperinflation. Indeed, in emerging markets that have practiced modern monetary theory, situations could arise where people could buy two drinks at bars at once to avoid the hourly price increases. As with any tax, there is a limit to the amount of revenue that can be raised via such an inflation tax. If this limit is exceeded, hyperinflation will result.

Third, modern monetary theorists typically reason in terms of a closed economy. But a policy of relying on central bank finance of government deficits, as suggested by modern monetary theorists, would likely result in a collapsing exchange rate. This would in turn lead to increased inflation, increased long-term interest rates (because of inflation), risk premiums, capital fleeing the country, and lower real wages as the exchange rate collapsed and the price of imports soared.

I think that Dr. Summers is missing a number of the subtleties in the idea. Because the dollar remains the world’s primary reserve currency there’s a lot more demand for dollars than there is for, say, the Venezuelan bolivar. That provides more leeway for U. S. spending than would otherwise be the case.

Also, as long as production outstrips spending I think it’s true that we can spend more than we take in.

Where MMTers and I disagree is that I think there’s more risk than many of them do, the risk may emerge suddenly and without warning, and the consequences would be catastrophic.

Where serious, sensible modern monetary theorists and I agree is that I don’t think we need to balance running a deficit in one year with running a surplus in some other year. As long as our deficits are relatively small we can run them indefinitely. However, talk of running deficits in the tens of trillions (without commensurate expansion of production) worries me, too.

Do you recall a post here from a week or so ago in which I remarked that, were the District of Columbia to be made a state, it would make equal sense for every city larger than Mesa, Arizona to become its own state as well? Little did I know. Illinois News Network reports that there a bill in the Illinois House, HR101, which would urge Congress to make Chicago a state:

State representatives from different ends of Illinois disagree on whether Chicago politicians are pushing Windy City policies onto the rest of the state.

State Rep. Marty Moylan, D-Des Plaines, scoffed at the idea of House Resolution 101, which would urge Congress to make Chicago its own state.

“No, that’s a bunch of B.S.,” Moylan said. “Chicago provides a lot of tax revenues for other parts of the state.”

There’s been lots of debate on the topic over the years, but one often-cited study based on a snapshot of the state found that downstate communities received more money from the state government than they contributed in taxes. Others note that Chicago takes from the rest of the state, pointing to the hundreds of millions of dollars the state sends to Chicago Public Schools.

Sponsors of HR101 also say Chicago politicians are pushing Windy City policies on the rest of the state with no regard for rural concerns.

Moylan said that’s not true.

“Chicago doesn’t force their policies on downstate. Downstate has their own communities and their own elected officials,” Moylan said.

I’ve mentioned it before. Chicago, Cook County, and its adjacent counties, called here “the collar counties”, have most of the state’s population, a disproportionate share of the state’s income, pay a disproportionate amount of the state’s taxes, but do not receive a commensurate return from the state in terms of state spending.

Additionally, Chicagoans are not treated fairly by the state. The Chicago Public Schools has its own pension fund, all of which is paid for by residents of Chicago. In addition Chicago taxpayers pay into the state’s teacher retirement system. Said another way not only are Chicagoans paying for the retirements of Chicago teachers, we’re paying for the retirements of all of the state’s teachers. There are any number of prospective remedies for that but as it stands Chicagoans are screwed.

I don’t think that Chicago should become its own state but I also think that Illinois’s residents need to disabuse themselves of any illusion that Chicago isn’t carrying its share of the state’s burden. We’re carrying out share and more.

Any notion that Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan is pushing legislation intended to promote Chicago’s interests is wrong as well. Look at the record. The only interests that Mr. Madigan is furthering are his own.

Here’s a little more information about the Chicago mayoral primaries that I found interesting. It’s based on the district canvass (PDF) of the results.

First, no candidate received an outright majority in any ward. I find that very interesting on its own.

Second, of the fourteen candidates for mayor only seven won pluralities in any ward. Here are those results:

Ald. Bob Fioretti didn’t even get a plurality in his home ward.

I’ve reproduced the map I posted earlier at the top of this post.

Some random observations. These results show a city sharply divided by race and what for better word I’ll call “level of dissatisfaction”. That should hardly be a surprise to anyone. Notice that the “establishment candidates” (Daley, Mendoza, Preckwinkle, Chico), all of whom were running with varying levels of credibility against the establishment, had less than citywide appeal. Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle’s support was highly concentrated on the South Side. This was a terrible result for Gery Chico. IMO it’s the end of his mayoral aspirations.

How does this bode for the general election? I find it hard to believe that anyone who voted for Willie Wilson, Bill Daley, or Jerry Joyce will turn to Preckwinkle in the general election. Will that mean a victory for Lori Lightfoot? Who knows?

From Michael Hendrix at RealClearPolicy:

Americans trust their local governments because they are tasked with doing things we want: keeping us safe, educating our children, cleaning the streets. And while we have some say in who our nationally elected leaders are and what they do, it is hardly the sort of choice offered by our nearly 36,000 local governments. At the local level, we may vote with our feet as well as our ballots.

It is time we gave local a chance once again. The people and places closest to us are where we tend to direct our care and our energy; they should enjoy the authority necessary for diverse citizens to pursue flourishing lives together. In the 21st century, localism should be the rallying cry for those who believe in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

I would add that excessive focus on what goes on in Washington infantilizes local governments, turns them into clients of the federal government. Local voters need to keep their eyes on the ball which is firmly in the court of local government. Otherwise what happens is, well, what has happened in Chicago and Illinois. That isn’t an argument for centralized government. It’s the consequence of centralized government.

I think that Kari Lyderson of In These Times is getting out a bit in front of what we can actually conclude from Chicago’s mayoral primary election held last week:

A number of progressive challengers ran for City Council—many of them people of color—and took down incumbent aldermen or made it to runoffs.

The results say a lot about a growth in race and class consciousness and a hunger for change in Chicago after eight years under Mayor Rahm Emanuel, dubbed “Mayor 1%.” This election could be seen as a rejection of Chicago’s once all-powerful Democratic machine, a vast system of political patronage; of the Daley dynasty, with the loss of mayoral candidate Bill Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley and brother of Mayor Richard M. Daley, who served a combined 43 years); of a Council in lockstep with the mayor; and of Emanuel’s autocratic, corporate style of governance.

Ahem. I haven’t seen a breakdown by race of the election results but I think her conclusions are premature. Amara Enyia, the most progressive candidate in the field of fourteen, received 8% of the vote. The most conservative candidatge, businessman Willie Wilson, got 10%.

Characterizing Cook County President Toni Preckwinkle as anti-establishment or a reform candidate is at best wishful thinking. She’s part of the establishment. Could she reform it? Perhaps. Or is she more likely to continue the same failed policies of the last several mayors?

Lori Lightfoot is, arguably, shall we say establishment-adjacent? Her reputation is that of being anti-Emanuel and, more than anything else, the primaries were a repudiation of Rahm Emanuel. I could have told Chicagoans so. And did.

If you look at the returns ward by ward, Willie Wilson may actually have received more votes from black voters than either Preckwinkle or Lightfoot. Lightfoot’s votes appear to have come largely from what we used to refer to as “Lake Shore liberals” who are predominantly white, Preckwinkle’s from the South Side, Willie Wilson’s from the South and West Sides and from the wards to which black voters have fled from the South Side. I doubt that more detailed analysis of the results will be forthcoming.

The Northwest Side and the Gold Coast went for Daley to my chagrin. For some there is no such thing as enough punishment and Daley voters would seem to fall into that category.

Well, this is rich. Here is the statement, published late on Friday when presumably they hoped no one would notice, by the editors of the Washington Post:

A Washington Post article first posted online on Jan. 19 reported on a Jan. 18 incident at the Lincoln Memorial. Subsequent reporting, a student’s statement and additional video allow for a more complete assessment of what occurred, either contradicting or failing to confirm accounts provided in that story — including that Native American activist Nathan Phillips was prevented by one student from moving on, that his group had been taunted by the students in the lead-up to the encounter, and that the students were trying to instigate a conflict. The high school student facing Phillips issued a statement contradicting his account; the bishop in Covington, Ky., apologized for the statement condemning the students; and an investigation conducted for the Diocese of Covington and Covington Catholic High School found the students’ accounts consistent with videos. Subsequent Post coverage, including video, reported these developments: “Viral standoff between a tribal elder and a high schooler is more complicated than it first seemed”; “Kentucky bishop apologizes to Covington Catholic students, says he expects their exoneration”; “Investigation finds no evidence of ‘racist or offensive statements’ in Mall incident.”

A Jan. 22 correction to the original story reads: Earlier versions of this story incorrectly said that Native American activist Nathan Phillips fought in the Vietnam War. Phillips said he served in the U.S. Marines but was never deployed to Vietnam.

or, said another way, nearly every detail in the original story published by the WaPo was incorrect, uncorroborated, and skewed, not conforming to the WaPo’s purported ethical standards. And they’ve reached this conclusion six weeks after the story was published. A $250 million law suit does wonders to focus the mind.

Were I the publisher of the WaPo, I would encourage my lawyers to settle as quickly as possible. The primary remaining question is whether the WaPo will pay $100 million, $250 million, or more. Mr. Bezos is going to find that an unethical newspaper is a very expensive hobby. He’s been accumulating a number of those lately.

In his latest New York Times column David Leonhardt looks to me to be trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle:

Ideological purity doesn’t tend to play well in general elections, however. Every modern president has found ways to appeal to Americans’ fondness for consensus — even if that fondness is based partly on a naïve view of politics and even if the candidates’ appeals have sometimes been more stylistic than substantive.

Donald Trump campaigned as a defender of Medicare and Social Security. Barack Obama became a national figure by reaching out to both red and blue America. George W. Bush was a “compassionate conservative.” Bill Clinton followed a “third way.” Ronald Reagan put a sunny face on his conservatism.

As frustrated as many Americans have become, most still don’t see themselves as radicals. About 35 percent call themselves moderate, compared with only 26 percent who say liberal, according to Gallup. Another 35 percent say conservative. Even among Democrats, only about half use the liberal label, with other half choosing moderate or conservative.

Let’s see now. We have two political parties in which the most active and ideological members are insisting on ideological purity. All of the energy and money is moving towards the edges. I don’t see a great deal of room for moderation, compromise, or pragmatism.

That most Americans see themselves as moderates may not reflect the reality. Everyone is the center of his or her own universe. And patterns of residence may convince you that your political views are much more centrist than they actually are. Just because everyone you know holds very similar views to yours does not mean that the views of people in Chicago are the same as those of people in Santa Cruz.

That is why we have federalism and why federalism is better suited for a country as large and diverse as ours rather than centralizing things so that every decision is made within 20 miles of the Potomac River.

I don’t believe that the polls tells us whether people are left, center, or right or in what direction political thought is moving. What I think the polls do tell us is that ordinary people don’t think they’re getting a square deal.

In this article at The Conversation Darrick Hamilton and Trevor Logan make an interesting case for reparations on the grounds that a major source of the tremendous lag between white and black wealth is historic government interventions, from the Land Act of 1785 to the GI Bill:

Rather than education leading to wealth, it is wealth that facilitates the acquisition of an expensive education. The essential value of wealth is its functional role; the financial security to take risks and the financial agency that wealth affords is transformative.

In our view, education alone cannot address the centuries-long exclusion of blacks from the benefits of wealth-generating policies and the extraction of whatever wealth they may have. The most just approach would be a comprehensive reparation program that acknowledges these grievances and offers compensatory restitution, including ownership of land and other means of production.

Check out the very interesting graph in the article depicting the differences between median and mean white and black household wealth. Mostly it illustrates the tremendous increase in the wealth of the wealthiest but it’s interesting nonetheless. Unmentioned in the article: savings by whites exceeds savings by blacks at everything income level.

As I’ve said before I think we would be much better off as well as more just concentrating on need rather than race. A good start would be rolling back the enormous subsidies presently being given to the wealthy and the upper middle class.