Hank Kalet

Bush’s bad economic mojo

I’ve heard it said that, more than crafting specific policy, a president’s impact on the economy comes from the confidence he inspires in the country. If citizens can be reassured, then the economy has a better shot at bouncing back.

I’m not sure I believe that, but if we want to apply this notion to the events of the last couple of weeks, the cratering (the media’s new favorite word) of the stock market and public confidence in the economy at the same time that the Bush administration has attempted to calm nerves just shows how irrelevant the president (pictured above — White House photo by David Bohrer — during his Friday address on the economy) has become.

Read this from Dan Froomkin, which I think says it a lot better:

When it comes to the current financial crisis, it’s become pretty clear that an appearance by President Bush doesn’t calm nerves. It rubs them raw.

With global markets in a state of panic, with the world talking about the end of American capitalism, with ordinary citizens watching in despair as their savings vanish, we could all use some reassurance.

Had the president this morning announced something new, specific and verifiable, it might have helped. Most economists are persuaded that the semi-nationalization of American banks through direct infusions of capital is our best bet at this point. And the administration is reportedly working on a plan to do just that.

But today all Bush gave us was limp cheerleading, vaguely assuring us he’s doing everything possible.

The president seems checked out. His approval ratings are in the toilet. His credibility is shot. He’s arguably responsible for this mess in the first place. And his presence and his words have led to more fear and panic, not less.

Jan. 20 cannot come fast enough.

Surreal in the afternoon

Annie (pictured) and I took a half day on Friday to take advantage of the Indian summer afternoon.

We had no plans — we just wanted some sun and a nice place to wander, nothing extravagant or too far. We ended up in Plainsboro, at the village center area, a built-from-scratch pseudo downtown that features some shops and professional offices, with some high-end housing at its outskirts.

It's a nice place, especially the coffee bar — It's a Grind — which has tasty brew and nice atmosphere.

And yet, as with Plainsboro's other attempt at downtown creation -o the failed Forrestal Village — there is something a bit off about the place, as if this new business district was just a movie set.

The goal, I suppose, was to create Princeton's Nassau Street or Cranbury's Main Street in what was formerly an open field.

I'd consider it a moderate success — better than Forrestal, but not quite Cranbury or Hopewell.

But the, it may need time to develop a personality, a character of its own.

This message was sent using the Picture and Video Messaging service from Verizon Wireless!

To learn how you can snap pictures and capture videos with your wireless phone visit www.verizonwireless.com/picture.

To play video messages sent to email, QuickTime� 6.5 or higher is required. Visit www.apple.com/quicktime/download to download the free player or upgrade your existing QuickTime� Player. Note: During the download process when asked to choose an installation type (Minimum, Recommended or Custom), select Minimum for faster download.

Bad health care news

The Economic Policy Institute is reporting a disturbing — and dangerous — trend:

The share of the U.S. population under 65 years old with health insurance rose from 2006 to 2007. Despite these overall coverage gains, the news was not so good for employment-based health insurance: the share of persons covered through work (either their own or a family member’s employer) declined for the seventh year in a row. Over the 2000-07 period, the trends indicate a signifi cant shift from private to public coverage, especially among children. In particular, since 2006, public insurance was the only reason that more Americans did not become uninsured as coverage through work fell.

The news in New Jersey, according to the report, also was not good as it workers lost coverage at a greater rate than the rest of the nation. According to the report, New Jersey was 10th in the nation in the percentage of the work force, under the age of 65, who were covered by employer-provided health insurance during 2000 and 2001 with 75.6 percent of workers getting coverage.

In 2006-2007, however, the state ranked 11th, with its percentage dropping to 69.7 percent with the number of covered employees dropping by 252,315.

While New Jersey’s percentage remains above the national average of 62.9 percent, its percentage point decline of 5.8 was a full point higher than the national average.

New Jersey Policy Perspective, in an e-mail alert, said that over the last year — which falls outside of the report time frame — things may have gotten worse.

The drop in employer-provided health insurance coverage took place when the unemployment rate in New Jersey was only 4.2 percent in 2007, the lowest it had been in five years. By August 2008, unemployment had risen to 5.9 percent, suggesting that employer-provided coverage has likely eroded since the period covered by the report.

The numbers, as NJPP points out, are especially bad for low-income people and children:

At the national level, the EPI study found only 21.9 percent of low-income persons had employer coverage compared to 86.4 percent for higher income persons. The sad fact is, in our society, your health often depends on whether you have a job and how much money you make. That’s unfair to people and bad for the nation’s productivity.

New Jersey children are especially hard hit. For them, health insurance provided by a family member’s employer decreased to 68.6 percent from 76.2 percent.

There are ways of addressing it, NJPP says:

Fortunately, New Jersey enacted legislation this summer that mandates health insurance for all children by next year. The law also expands coverage for uninsured parents up to twice the federal poverty level. And, it made changes in the marketplace that should result in reducing the cost of private insurance for most individuals and group insurance for small employers. This should help to reduce shifting of the cost burden of health insurance from employers to taxpayers.

On the federal level,, Congress needs to pass pending legislation, as it did in the 2003 recession, that would temporarily increase the federal matching rate for Medicaid to avoid state cutbacks in health services. As Hippocrates advised, “First, do no harm.”