slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

My, my...this coming from an unusually snarly, arrogant one.

Do us all a favor: Cut'n paste a "snarly arrogant" post from me to another OPP contributor.

Please do so, 'cause given such evidence, I will mend my ways.

Heck, when I come to Tennessee in the near future, we can even share a beer together...my treat

dwp66

That had absolutely nothing to do with my post:

"Our "Bidenflation" is lower than the current inflation rates in much of the world right now. Look at this:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/inflation-projections-by-country-in-2024/

So much for that silly argument. Every nation has had to deal with the end of the pandemic.

And, btw, What about the 𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕-𝑾𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑫𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒎 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝑻𝒆𝒙𝒂𝒔? They have higher overall property taxes than New York:

1.71% New York: 1.73% Vermont: 1.89% Texas: 1.90%

https://belonghome.com/blog/property-taxes-by-state

So much for that argument as well."

If you are going to respond to that post, perhaps it should be something that actually addresses the post?

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

Big freakin' deal... the inflation FORECAST for 2024.. I learned something long ago... the forecast is ALWAYS WRONG!

Let's talk about REAL inflation. The CPI, which measures price inflation, has gone up almost 20 percent since Biden took office. And it's been reflected accordingly in the increase in the cost of goods and services since then.

Gasoline: 47.8%
Groceries: +21.1%
Eating out: +21.4%
Baby food: +30.5%
Pet food: +23.7%
Rent: +20.9%
Electricity: +28.3%
Natural gas: +26.9%
Used cars: +20.9%
Air fare: +32.7%
Public transportation: +22.2%
Real average weekly earnings: -3.9%

Parky60 Loc: People's Republic of Illinois

Texas doesn't have a state income tax. Can New York say the same?

archie bunker Loc: Texas

My property taxes went down this year.
What is the state income tax rate in New York, and Vermont?

dwp66

"Snarly"?

You are absolutely wrong, as almost anyone here would attest.

You must be thinking of someone else, because you certainly do not describe Slatten. In fact, you are describing 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒇. That's called "projection". Here's some samples of your own "snarly" crap from only 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒍𝒂𝒔𝒕 30 𝒅𝒂𝒚𝒔 and, btw, Slatten NEVER talks like this:

"𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒈𝒐 𝒂𝒈𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝒘𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒃𝒂𝒈78."
"𝑰𝑻 𝒅𝒊𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒔𝒂𝒚 20 𝒎𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒅𝒐𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒔 𝒅𝒊𝒑$𝒉𝒊𝒕. 𝑹𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒃𝒆𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒅𝒓𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒍."
"𝑨𝒅𝒅 𝒕𝒐 : 𝑷𝒆𝒈𝑾, 𝒄𝒂𝒏'𝒕 𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒍𝒍"
"𝑮𝒖𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝑷𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒓 $𝒖𝒄𝒌𝒆𝒓. 𝑰 𝒅𝒊𝒅𝒏'𝒕 𝒗𝒐𝒕𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒂 𝒄𝒉𝒐𝒊𝒓𝒃𝒐𝒚. 𝑰 𝒗𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒂 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒆𝒓."
"𝑲𝒆𝒗𝒚𝒏 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒈𝒐𝒐𝒅 𝒂𝒓𝒈𝒖𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏."
"𝑯𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅𝒏'𝒕 𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒕 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒐𝒘𝒏 𝒎𝒆𝒂𝒕!!!!"
"𝑰𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒅𝒊𝒑$𝒉𝒊𝒕..."
"𝑺𝒉𝒆'𝒔 𝒂𝒍𝒘𝒂𝒚𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒂 𝒑𝒊𝒆𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒔𝒉!"
"𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒏𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏 𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 $𝒉𝒊𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒍𝒆!"
"𝑳𝒂𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒆 𝑱𝒆𝒂𝒏 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒅𝒚𝒔𝒇𝒖𝒏𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 𝒅𝒚𝒌𝒆!"
"𝑫𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒄𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒔 𝒉𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑪𝒉𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒚"
"𝒀𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒐𝒏𝒆 "𝑭" 𝒆𝒅 𝒖𝒑 𝒉𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒏 𝒃𝒆𝒊𝒏𝒈"
"𝑫𝒖𝒎𝒃 𝑨$$""
"𝑺𝒐, 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒔𝒚𝒑𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒔 𝒂𝒔 𝒘𝒆𝒍𝒍 𝒂𝒔 𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒔?"
"...𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒃𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒌 𝒘𝒉𝒐 𝒗𝒐𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒅𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒄𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒔 𝒊𝒔 𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏."
"𝑰𝒇 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒅𝒐𝒖𝒄𝒉𝒆𝒃𝒂𝒈 𝒊𝒕 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒃𝒍𝒐𝒘 "𝑮𝒊𝒈𝒈𝒍𝒆𝒔" 𝒃𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒖𝒕!"
"𝑱𝒂𝒄𝒌 𝑺𝒎𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒊𝒔 𝒂 𝒑𝒊𝒆𝒄𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒔!"
"𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒚 “𝑩𝒊𝒈 𝑳𝒊𝒆” 𝒊𝒔 𝒚𝒐𝒖!"
"𝑷𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒃𝒐𝒕𝒉 𝒔𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 𝑱𝒆𝒓𝒌𝒐𝒇𝒇24."
"𝑻𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒐 𝑱𝒖𝒍𝒊𝒆𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒂 𝒉𝒐𝒎𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒙𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒕𝒓𝒐𝒍𝒍...𝑰𝒈𝒏𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒕...."
"𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒃𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒕 𝒐𝒇 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒔, 𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒑 𝒘𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕?"
"𝑻𝒉𝒆 "𝑺" 𝒂𝒇𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒔 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝑺𝑼𝑪𝑲𝑬𝑹...."
"𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒐𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒈𝒆𝒕𝒔 𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒅 "𝑭𝑶𝑶𝑳". 𝑰𝒕 𝒅𝒆𝒔𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒍𝒚!"
"𝑯𝒐𝒘 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒐𝒏𝒆-𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒐𝒏 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒂𝒔 𝒎𝒖𝒄𝒉 𝒔𝒕𝒖𝒑𝒊𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒂𝒔 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒅𝒐?"
"𝑰 𝒕𝒐𝒐 𝒇𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒎𝒚 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒚, 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒊𝒕'𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒍𝒆 𝒐𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒔 𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑩𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏!"
"𝑨𝒏𝒅 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒔𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒇𝒆𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘 𝒑𝒆𝒅𝒐𝒑𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒆𝒔!"
"𝑺𝒄𝒉𝒖𝒎𝒆𝒓 𝒊𝒔 𝒔𝒐 𝒔𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒚, 𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒏'𝒕 𝒌𝒆𝒆𝒑 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒈𝒍𝒂𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒏 𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒃𝒊𝒔𝒄𝒊𝒔!"
"𝑻𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒔𝒍𝒊𝒄𝒌 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒉𝒊𝒎. 𝑺𝒍𝒊𝒎𝒆 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒅𝒆𝒔𝒄𝒓𝒊𝒃𝒆𝒔 𝒊𝒕."
"𝑹𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒂𝒎𝒏 𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒍, 𝒅𝒊𝒑$𝒉𝒊𝒕."
"𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒅𝒐𝒎 𝒎𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒃𝒓𝒐𝒌𝒆𝒏 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒅."


And, Holy Cow, you even had the 𝒃𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒔 to even type this gem:

"Welcome. Brace yourself and thicken your skin, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆 𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒚 𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 on OPP."

Yeah, there certainly are, people just like you...

dwp66

You mean since Biden took office in the middle of a pandemic? Oh, yeah, Biden caused all of it!

Only someone totally out of touch with world economics, supply chains, our recent history - even simple Keynesian economics - would attribute inflation to 𝒂 𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒈𝒍𝒆 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒕𝒓𝒚. Perhaps you should widen your information sphere? Maybe do a Google search of worldwide inflation & it's causes? You could but you won't.

Btw, give us a link to your data or it's just bullshit.

dwp66

They more than make up tax revenue in Texas with 𝒆𝒙𝒐𝒓𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒕 property tax rates. That's a fact. I have a friend in Harris County (Houston) who pays $6,400 a year on a home valued at $349,000.

On the California Central Coast, I pay $3,100 a year on a home valued at $620,000.

You do the math.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

You DO realize that property taxes are assessed by the County, and, not the State, don't you?

Oh, and don't lecture on being snarky. You might break your glass house.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

This means you have owned the home for some time instead of paying 1% of the current assessed value. You can thank CA Proposition 13 for that, which the leftists have been trying to dismantle piece by piece for 46 years. Prop 13 came into being because of the inflationary 1970s, Jimmy Carter, and Jerry Brown. I watched counties erode the savings over the years on property taxes with all kinds of new fees and surcharges meant to circumvent Prop 13.
The Democrat demagogues in CA have been incrementally whittling away at Prop 13 for decades because they never met a tax they didn't like as long as other people are paying it. If you are so concerned with equity, pay the full 1% on your next tax bill to be on par with your new neighbors who have just purchased a home in your neighborhood. That's the liberal/leftist thing to do!

Oh, and CA has an income tax rate that tops out at 14%. But 50% of the state pays no state income tax. CA has the highest % of homeless, more than 1/3 of all homeless people, and more illegal aliens than any state. These are the people who rely on lots of free services provided by local, state, and federal governments. These aren't the 1%ers who pay 50% of the revenue collected by the state, and who, by the way, are leaving the state. How much income tax do you pay in CA? I'll venture a guess and say none.

Anyway, you are trying to defend the indefensible. The tax system is inherently unfair to rich and poor alike. The problem is that the government thinks taxpayers are a blank check to provide as much as they want to spend and to attract votes for their party.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

That's why I don't live in Houston or New York. But no one in their right mind is moving to New York. Especially after State AG James and NY DA Bragg have declared open war on the wealthy.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Hi Lon,

Hope you are well.

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

Too much free time on your hands. I like insulting snarky and snarly people because they are honest. There are a lot of insulting people on OPP. So what!

dtucker300 Loc: Vista, CA

https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=1926

How Monetary Policy Got behind the Curve—and How to Get Back
Michael D. Bordo, John H. Cochrane, and John B. Taylor
Published: Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 2023
Pages: xxvi, 398
Reviewed by: Thomas L. Hogan; American Institute for Economic Research


It is now widely accepted that the Federal Reserve’s overly expansionary monetary policy was a primary cause of abnormally high inflation in 2021–2023. Many questions, however, remain unanswered: Why was the Fed so wrong? Was fiscal policy also to blame? Can we prevent such mistakes in the future?

A book of essays edited by Michael Bordo, John Cochrane, and John Taylor considers these important questions. The book, which I will refer to as Behind the Curve, is a compilation of papers from a 2023 conference at the Hoover Institution. It provides a valuable combination of perspectives from academics and Fed officials. Rather than summarizing each of the fourteen chapters, I will discuss the main themes of the book with references to specific chapters.

Be warned: this is a book for academics. Though a few chapters are general public policy discussions, many are filled with equations or assume a sophisticated understanding of macroeconomic models. That said, the main themes can be understood without getting into the math. Hoover previously hosted a debate on what John Taylor dubbed the “r-star wars.” If you get that joke, you’ll probably be fine.

What caused the high inflation of 2021–2023? While the media obsesses over supply-chain problems and “greed-flation,” these topics are little covered in Behind the Curve. Most chapters simply assume the problem was monetary in nature. Ricardo Reis discusses how Fed officials’ misinterpretation of supply shocks early in the recovery caused them to keep monetary policy “extremely loose” (p. 224) as well as other factors such as their belief that inflation expectations would stay anchored, loss of credibility, and faulty assumptions about changes in r-star, which refers to “an equilibrium between savings and investment in the overall economy” (p. 221). Even former Fed Vice-Chair Richard Clarida admits that, while supply-side factors were evident in early 2021, the monetary factors should have been clear by late in the year.

One interesting question is whether and to what degree fiscal policy played a role in creating inflation. Lawrence Summers has consistently blamed fiscal policy for high inflation. He was a notable critic of the Biden administration’s spending programs, which he argued would drive up the price level. Cochrane, a proponent of the fiscal theory of the price level, explains with simple models how misinterpreting expectations could have misled Fed officials regarding the origins and persistence of inflation. He then turns to what he sees as its main cause: “the $5 trillion fiscal helicopter drop of 2020–21” (p.112). Tyler Goodspeed labels fiscal expansion as the “essential” causal component of inflation. Monetary policy, he says, could not have been the primary cause, although his short chapter does not thoroughly explore the monetary counterfactual. George Hall and Thomas Sargent assess the magnitude of Covid-era fiscal expansion relative to World Wars I and II, although Ellen McGrattan points out that recent spending mostly came in the form of transfer payments and subsidies.

Are transfer payments “monetary” policy if the debt issued to support them is monetized by the Fed? Cochrane describes this as fiscal policy because of the federal government’s role in distributing the funds. Monetarists might say it was a monetary injection that caused inflation, but the fiscal action of directing funds straight into peoples’ bank accounts made the distribution more effective, working as a “helicopter drop” in Milton Friedman’s famous metaphor. The distinction is important not only for how we understand the economy and study it in our economic models but also in how we assign authority for economic policy to the central bank or federal government. I hope to see more research on this topic. How, for example, would the price level and economy have been affected if fiscal spending had been distributed by other means, such as tax breaks, or if the Fed had not monetized the majority of the debt issued to support these fiscal expansions?

Was the Fed “behind the curve” with its slow response to high inflation? Most authors agree it was. Clarida, Summers, and Taylor all argue the Fed should have acted sooner. Michael Bordo and Mickey Levy document that the Fed’s response was slower than to other periods of inflation but was comparable to the 1970s. Cochrane, while attributing the source of inflation to fiscal policy, maintains that a monetary response was warranted, even if its effects would have been muted by fiscal expansion. The Fed, he notes, was clearly behind the curve since even as late as March 2022, the Summary of Economic Projections shows that Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) members still believed that “inflation will almost entirely disappear on its own, without the need for any period of high interest rates to bring down inflation” (p. 71, emphasis in original).

Despite this evidence, some Fed officials say the Fed was not behind the curve. James Bullard and Christopher Waller, who at the time of writing were respectively the President of Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and a Governor of the Federal Reserve System, independently argue that the Fed took action as early as September of 2021 by undertaking forward guidance to set market expectations of its future interest rate policy. Bullard (p. 324) shows that interest rates on two-year Treasuries began rising in October of 2021, which, he says, “increased substantially in advance of tangible Fed action.” Waller says (p. 340) that the FOMC’s September 2021 statement “indicated tapering was coming soon.” Including forward guidance, he argues, we should view rate hikes as “effectively beginning in September 2021.”

These arguments would be more convincing if forward guidance had indeed prevented inflation. It did not. If “behind the curve” means only that the Fed was doing something in late 2021, then perhaps these Fed officials’ arguments make sense. But the claim that the Fed was “behind the curve” is commonly understood to mean it was not doing enough to prevent high inflation. Since their policies failed to prevent high inflation, it seems obvious that the Fed was, indeed, behind the curve.

Randal Quarles, former Fed Vice-Chair of Supervision, has a different take. He agrees with Clarida that the FOMC should have raised interest rates sooner, in September or November of 2021. He emphasizes, however, that this was not an error of the Fed’s monetary policy framework. If properly implemented, the Fed’s flexible average inflation targeting framework “would not simply have allowed the Fed to move in September, it would have required it” (p. 330, emphasis in original). Quarles attributes the Fed’s error to “a good faith misapplication” due to “the sequencing of balance sheet and interest rate policy” (p. 330). The Fed had already committed to slowing its asset purchases at a pace that would continue until March of 2022. It was therefore, according to Quarles, unable to raise interest rates before that time so as not to implement contradictory policies.

This argument rings hollow for two reasons. First, the FOMC could simply have ended its asset purchases sooner than planned. Fed Chair Jerome Powell was hesitant to curtail asset purchases since he had promised “ample warning” before a change in policy. However, breaking this promise by tightening policy would likely have made the Fed appear more credible in the eyes of the public, not less. Second, Quarles prefers the Fed retain discretion in its asymmetric target rather than a “poindexterish” over-specification of monetary rules by “folks in their lab coats” (p. 327). While I, too, am skeptical of the “scientism,” to use Hayek’s term, of over-specified rules, I find Quarles’s position ironic given that he cites the Fed’s deviation from its stated policy as the main mistake that led to high inflation. He blames inflation on the Fed’s discretionary actions while also arguing it should maintain discretion.

If the Fed was behind the curve, would monetary rules effectively prevent such mistakes in the future? To no surprise, Taylor (p. 50) argues that “[c]entral banks should start now with rules the market understands.” Summers favors “resoluteness” over rules, citing the failure of flexible average inflation target as an example of explicit rules becoming “problematic” (p. 60). Monika Piazzesi similarly emphasizes the need for Fed credibility (p. 366) and acknowledges that a Taylor rule would accomplish this goal (p. 368). Bordo and Leavy (p. 176) recommend striking the “asymmetric” aspect of the Fed’s average inflation target, while Burns (p. 181) chides Fed officials for their “glib confidence” in their discretionary actions.

I enjoyed Behind the Curve both for the analytical discussions and the insider perspectives from Fed officials. It is a useful resource that I will cite in my own work. I hope others will find it a helpful starting point for future research.

Thomas L. Hogan
American Institute for Economic Research

NotMAGA Loc: Upstate NY - in a very red county

Hope it sinks in.