by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
With all the discussion swirling with regard to Jonathan Gruber, the stupidity of the American voter, and the funny scoring of Obamacare by the CBO, it’s worth it to note that CBO trickery is still ongoing.
Hats off to The Weekly Standard last month for delving into the question of true Obamacare costs. The Senate Budget Committee (SBC) took the time to analyze the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections related to Obamacare and this is what they found:
**”The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has not actually scored the deficit impact of Obamacare since the summer of 2012″.
Why is this the case? Is it to leave rosier information available to the public so Obamacare backers can continue to peddle positive talking points and obfuscate the financial impact of this legislation?
The most recent CBO scoring was done using the 2013-2022 ten year budget window — and the estimate was that Obamacare would reduce the deficit by $109 billion at that time. So the SBC took the same growth rate used to tabulate that projection and applied it to a new, more relevant 10 year window, 2015-2024.
The SBC found that the surplus would have grown to $180 billion for 2015-2014… ”if nothing had changed in the interim” . And that’s the key. So much has changed in with regard to Obamacare in the last two years that the surplus will now be a deficit — but they don’t want you to know that yet.
What has changed since the summer of 2012? We had the fumbled rollout of the Obamacare exchanges in 2013. We also had Obama declining to enforce the employer and individual mandates on schedule per the law. Both of these significant items affect revenue and costs, and certainly make it clear that the CBO projections on deficit impact from 2012 are no longer meaningful, relevant, or accurate.
Interestingly, the CBO has found the time to make “technical adjustments to its baseline projections for federal health spending, has updated its economic forecasts, and has scored the legislation’s effect on labor markets.” But it just hasn’t gotten around to updating the impact of Obamacare on the deficit. In two years.
How does the CBO go about determining deficit impact? There are three areas that comprise this figure, which, added together, provides the deficit number in its totality. They are:
1) “‘Net changes in the deficit from insurance coverage provisions.’ That’s the spending side of Obamacare (or at least its net spending on insurance coverage provisions).”
2) “‘Net changes in the deficit from other provisions affecting direct spending.’ That’s the money that would have been used to fund Medicare (or, to a lesser extent, other federal health programs) but is now slated to be used to fund Obamacare instead.”
3) “’Net changes in the deficit from other provisions affecting revenues.’ That’s the taxes, fees, and penalties under Obamacare that don’t have much, if any, relation to insurance coverage provisions. (The taxes that do relate to insurance coverage provisions — namely, the tax on “Cadillac plans” and the fines for those who violate the individual or employer mandates — are instead included in the first area.)”
Only the first of those three areas has been updated — the spending side of Obamacare — and that was done in April of 2014. Noting the “lower-than-expected enrollment in the Obamacare exchange, changes in health cost assumptions, and reduced penalties collected from individuals and employers due to the president’s selective enforcement of the law”, the CBO updated its numbers regarding the “net spending on insurance coverage provisions”, from $1.171 trillion in 2012, to $1.383 trillion in 2014.
But what of the revenue side of the deficit numbers? That’s the part that has not been updated since 2012. This includes the revenue from Medicare, as well as “non-coverage-related taxes, fees, or penalties”.
By not updating these important revenue figures, the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) found that the CBO therefore “hasn’t incorporated the technical adjustments it has made to its baseline projections for federal health spending as they pertain to Medicare, its updated economic forecasts, or its scoring of Obamacare’s effects on labor markets”. That’s a huge problem. Essentially, they are still hanging onto pre-Obamacare roll-out projections and assumptions in these areas as it relates to revenue.
The Senate Budget Committee (SBC), therefore, has taking the time to calculate the revenue side of the deficit tally, specifically using the technical adjustments the CBO made to its baseline projections when it updated the federal health spending numbers earlier in 2014. Here’s the results of the analysis:
For the area related to Medicare and other federal health programs, (#2 above), the SBC found that the
“baseline changes reduce the amount of projected federal health care savings from the other provisions affecting direct spending in the legislation by a total of $132 billion over the 10-year period, from $979 billion under the CBO 2012 extrapolation to $847 billion based on the SBC staff calculation.”.
In other words, the expected revenue from Medicare and other federal health programs over the newest 10 year period is estimated to be $132 billion less than what was projected in 2012 before Obamacare started.
In the final area which deals “other provisions related to revenue”, such as taxes, fees, and penalties, the lack of expected revenue is even more substantial. (Interestingly, a recent TIGTA report analyzing the just the medical excise tax in this regard corroborates the finding that they are not meeting Obamacare revenue estimates).
Ultimately, the provisions “related to revenue” all concern the labor market — and not in a good way. As noted above, the CBO did score the affect of the labor market’s effect on Obamacare in order to update its federal health spending numbers. That was done in Feb 2014, and the CBO found that “by 2024 the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time workers will exit the labor force as a result of the law. The CBO estimates the law will reduce the total number of hours worked by 1.5 to 2 percent during the FY 2017–2024 period and will reduce aggregate labor compensation by 1 percent over the same period.”
Therefore, the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) took this updated labor analysis and applied it to the third area, specifically looking at how that reduction in aggregate labor compensation would affect taxable income. The SBC found that “based on these assumptions, Obamacare is now projected to get $262 billion less in (non-coverage-related) revenue because of its detrimental effect on job growth, a notion that wasn’t registered in the CBO’s July 2012 scoring.”
And what was the final tabulation of Obamacare’s impact on the deficit?
“So, compared to the deficit surplus of $180 billion for 2015-24 that a straight extrapolation from the CBO’s 2012 scoring would yield, current projections now indicate that Obamacare’s decreased spending (in relation to prior expectations) will reduce deficits by another $83 billion (bringing the estimated surplus to $263 billion), but those projected surpluses will be more than offset by the projected $132 billion decrease in Medicare revenue and $262 billion decrease in tax revenue due to lower job growth.
In all, therefore, CBO projections indicate that Obamacare will increase deficit spending by $131 billion from 2015-24. That’s a $311 billion swing from the extrapolated 2012 numbers, a $240 billion swing from the actual 2012 numbers, and a $255 billion swing from what we were told when Obamacare was passed.“
That’s a mighty big change in only 2 years. How will Obamacare make up the revenue? Will it be an increase in premiums? We still don’t know. Unlike last year, when Obamacare enrollment began on October 1, this year, Obamacare enrollment was held off until November 15 — 11 days after midterm elections.
As recently as this past Monday, the NYT reported that, the Administration lowered its estimate of enrollees by about 30%, “projecting that “9.1 million people would have such coverage at the end of next year. By contrast, the Congressional Budget Office had estimated that 13 million people would be enrolled next year, with the total rising to 24 million in 2016. In the past, the White House has used the budget office numbers as a benchmark for success under the Affordable Care Act.”
4 million fewer enrollees is a large difference in target numbers. So when will the CBO update its data so that the public can accurately ascertain Obamacare’s impact on the deficit?
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Mitch Romney’s appearance on Fox News Sunday the weekend before Election Day confirmed that he should not be a candidate for President in 2016. Indeed, his inability to answer any of Chris Wallace’s questions made it painfully clear why he lost his election bid in 2012.
The first question had to do with the old “outsourcing jobs” bit, which has been an omnipresent theme in several races, such as Quinn for Governor in Illinois, and Perdue for Senate in Georgia. The way Chris Wallace asked about it gave Romney the perfect chance to explain how the outsourcing attack is utter nonsense, but instead, he ignored the question and derided the Democrats for making ad hominem attacks.
Even though the aforementioned candidates won their bid, much of America still honestly believes the “exporting jobs” claim against Republicans — which is why the Democrats tried so hard with it. Had it been a different election cycle, it may very well have stuck better in those race. And Romney missed the opportunity to explain how “outsourcing” those relocated jobs can and do strengthen American business. But he didn’t.
He said nothing about how when the U.S. economy can’t compete in the world market with these lower level jobs here in the US, moving the jobs abroad increases global sales which grow the higher level (administrative, executive, engineering, research and development) jobs remaining here. And nothing about how, in some scenarios, not exporting jobs to stay globally competitive often means, as a result, firing people and closing the business outright. But Romney — the businessman, mind you — ignored all of this and acted as if the other side was right…but just mean.
The second question Romney messed up was in regard to immigration reform. Wallace suggested that the Senate passed a comprehensive plan but that the House GOP refused to pass it. Here, Romney ignored this point again, saying that well, if the GOP gets control of the Senate, they can make immigration laws too. That’s not the point He totally failed to discuss at all how the comprehensive immigration bill was a Democrat style bill which contained provisions unacceptable to the GOP regarding spending and border control. That is the entire reason why it has been rejected soundly by the Republicans.
The last question was in regard to Reince Priebus’ recently published “11 points”. Wallace asked Romney if he thought it was a mistake for the GOP to have made these points. Romney basically ignored it. He could have talked about how, once the elections are over and Republicans victorious, the GOP can move forward. He had the opportunity to build up the Republican brand, to wax poetic about why Republicans are better and use even some of the 11 points to discuss it. But he didn’t. He said nothing.
To use a baseball analogy, it was strike three. Romney is not a good contender. In an arena as easy as Chris Wallace and Fox News Sunday, it was extremely disappointing We need someone that knows how to answer the damn question. To articulate the positions of the GOP on their feet. To prepare the points that need to be made. To get the sentences out swiftly and succinctly. The nominee for 2016 needs to be able to think on his feet, defend liberty, promote prosperity, and speak the principles that we hold dear. Romney has proven, once and for all, that he is unable to do such a thing.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, TAXES
The Legatum Institute’s 2014 Prosperity Index scored Norway as the most prosperous country in the world, with the United States ranked as the 10th. 142 countries that are ranked in the Index. Central Africa Republic is the least prosperous
There are eight factors that go into the ranking. They are:
Economy
Entrepreneurship
Governance
Education
Personal freedom
Health
Security
Social capital
The Legatum Institute has released the Prosperity Index for seven years. The top ten this year are:
1 Norway
2 Switzerland
3 New Zealand
4 Denmark
5 Canada
6 Sweden
7 Australia
8 Finland
9 Netherlands
10 United States
In 2008, the first year of the Index, the United States ranked 6th place. 2009 it was 9th place, 2010 and 2011 it was 10th place, 2012 it was 12th place, 2013 it was 11th place, and now in 2014 it’s back to 10th place.
Legatum is a private, United Arab Emirates-based, investment organisation and thinktank. It’s headquarters are in Dubai International Financial Centre. It is interesting to see such a scoring from a perspective on the other side of the world.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, POLITICS, TAXES
The Tax Foundation released its yearly State Business Tax Climate Index. This index measures the impact of taxes on business activities by looking at how much the citizen is taxed and also the amount of compliance. Five taxes are considered: 1) individual; 2) corporate; 3) sales; 4) property; 5) unemployment insurance.
Wyoming lead the states in growth, with a GDP gain of 7.6%. At the bottom, predictably, are New York (49th) and New Jersey (50th). New Jersey saw GDP growth of only 1.1% last year, while New York’s was only 0.7%. According to the report, New Jersey secured last place because “suffers from some of the highest property tax burdens in the country, is one of just two states to levy both an inheritance and an estate tax, and maintains some of the worst structured individual income taxes in the country.” Contrast that with Wyoming, which has no corporate or individual income tax.
The most surprising finding from the report was that North Carolina, which previously ranked 44th, was now ranked 16th. According to the Tax Foundation, “North Carolina’s largest improvement was in the individual income tax component section, where legislation restructured the previously multi-bracketed system” with a top rate of 7.75% to a single-bracket system with a rate of 5.8% “and a generous standard deduction of $7,500.”
The WSJ also noted that, “North Carolina is also reducing its corporate income tax rate—to 6% this year from 6.9% last year. The rate could drop as low as 3% by 2017 if the state achieves certain revenue targets for its general fund. North Carolina also received credit in this year’s ranking for a simplified sales tax system.”
The ten best states this year are:
1. Wyoming
2. South Dakota
3. Nevada
4. Alaska
5. Florida
6. Montana
7. New Hampshire
8. Indiana
9. Utah
10. Texas
8 of these top ten do not have of the five major taxes noted above. Indiana and Utah do have five, “but levy them with low rates on broad bases.”
The ten worst states are:
41. Iowa
42. Connecticut
43. Wisconsin
44. Ohio
45. Rhode Island
46. Vermont
47. Minnesota
48. California
49. New York
50. New Jersey
They earned this spot because all of the states “suffer from the same afflictions: complex, non-neutral taxes with comparatively high rates.”
In sum, “Taxes matter to business. Business taxes affect business decisions, job creation and retention, plant location, competitiveness, the transparency of the tax system, and the long-term health of a state’s economy. Most importantly, taxes diminish profits. If taxes take a larger portion of profits, that cost is passed along to either consumers (through higher prices), employees (through lower wages or fewer jobs), or shareholders (through lower dividends or share value). Thus, a state with lower tax costs will be more attractive to business investment and more likely to experience economic growth.”
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Businesses are constantly make decisions about where its people need to be do their jobs. They follow the incentives to be the best company, to manufacture their product in the strongest and least intrusive way. Oftentimes that means, at some point, part of their operation moves abroad.
Opening up new foreign markets doesn’t lose jobs. Relocating work overseas typically is a reaction to proximity to supply chains, developing interests in new consumer markets, and keeping costs low for customers here — much more than the mantra that “shipping jobs overseas” is about labor costs and profitability for the business owner.
A business owner has to do what is best for his company. His competitor is doing the same thing — what he needs to do to survive. If the business policies in the United States are making it difficult to succeed and compete, that’s not the fault of the business owner. Those who wish to level this attack at business owners would do well to first take a critical eye to the policies that affect businesses here.
Businesses “ship jobs overseas” only if it needs to be done. Rarely does it have to do with the fact that labor is cheaper abroad. Blame can be placed squarely in the government imposed obligations and regulations and the pervasive anti-business climate. Businesses do not go into business to comply with government dictates — but to make things, provide a product, a service. If some of the processes to stay in business are found better abroad, the owner will follow suit in order to survive and thrive.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Thomas Perez was Obama’s Labor Secretary pick 15 months ago, and he’s emerging as top contender for Attorney General as well. Is it any wonder that he gave a major speech at the National Press Club this week to share his vision of America? Entitled, “Calling for an Economy That Works for Everyone”, Perez discusses the concept of “shared prosperity”.
How many times did he use that phrasing? Try 20 times. These phrases were bold in the speech:
*”An economy that works for everyone is one where prosperity is broadly shared.”
*”The principal unfinished business of this recovery is to ensure that prosperity is broadly shared, and that we build an economy that works for everyone.”
So what is “shared prosperity”? Perez describes, “Step one involves tearing up the talking points and understanding history. Shared prosperity is not a fringe concept cooked up by socialists. Historically, both parties have embraced it with their words and their actions. In fact, it’s a principle as American as apple pie, and it’s the linchpin of a thriving middle class.”
He then cites Teddy Roosevelt, Goldman Sachs CEO, and Janet Yellen as supporters of this concept.
Perez went on to describe three major initiatives which consisted of: raising the minimum wage, more federal spending on infrastructure, and immigration reform. Perez states that a majority of small businesses support a minimum wage increase. He further declared that “shared prosperity” is found in “big bold policy initiatives”, such as “comprehensive immigration reform” (hint: amnesty). Perez claims that immigration reform would raise the GDP 5.4% over the next 20 years and raise wages for workers. This is in contrast to the CBO report that suggests wages would actually be lowered.
Other facets of Perez’s vision of prosperity include: paid leave, job training, and the “importance of the worker voice”, via collective bargaining. Perez particularly praised the collaborative efforts of the SEIU and UAW, calling unions a “critical step” in “shared prosperity”.
Additionally, Perez’s “shared prosperity” called for leadership. Perez’s vision is that of Obama’s: “First, we need leadership from Washington. And if Congress won’t do its part, President Obama has demonstrated that he’ll use his executive, regulatory and convening authorities — his pen and his phone, as he says — to provide that leadership.”
Interestingly, (coincidentally?), “Shared Prosperity” was “Resolution 6” at the Annual AFL-CIO Conference in August 2013. This was held less than a month after Perez became Labor Secretary, and many of its tenets sound remarkably like those championed by Perez, such as:
“• a secure job that pays a living wage in a safe workplace for all who seek one;
• a voice at work—through our unions and through collective bargaining with our employers”
The resolution further describes, “The values of shared prosperity are locked in conflict with the agenda of financial elites and global corporations. But in the end this conflict is self-defeating. A world of radical inequality is not in anyone’s long-term interest. That is why we seek a global economy where worker rights and the environment are protected, an economy where global finance is regulated and put to work to increase shared prosperity.”
You can read the entire agenda here. And apparently, the Washington State Labor Council was so impressed with this idea, they announced their own “shared prosperity” agenda in January 2014. Will other state councils follow suit?
“Shared prosperity”, however, is really nothing new. Hillary Clinton discussed this very concept in a campaign speech from 2007, entitled “ECONOMIC POLICY: Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity”. And at a campaign fundraiser in 2012, Obama also called for “shared prosperity” in his own speech when he asked folks in Chicago: ““Do we go forward towards a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared? Or do we go backward to the same policies that got us in this mess in the first place?”.
As our current Secretary of Labor, Perez wished to implement this vision of “shared prosperity” into labor practices for America. If Perez is on the short list for Attorney General, how does he feel about the law? One more excerpt from his speech:
“Leadership also means enforcing the law fairly and independently. At the Labor Department, we’re being more strategic and aggressive than ever about cracking down on wage theft, misclassification and other violations. During the Obama Administration, we’ve recovered more than $1 billion in back wages. We’ve taken enforcement to a whole new level — not only because it gives workers the pay they’ve earned, but also because it levels the playing field and helps the vast majority of employers playing by the rules. Laws are only as effective as the political will of those enforcing them.”
Thomas Perez’s previous position before becoming Labor Secretary was serving as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice. No wonder he is a front runner to succeed Eric Holder.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Michelle Nunn has been getting a lot of traction on the “shipping jobs overseas” rhetoric in an effort to paint her opponent, David Purdue, as unsympathetic to American workers. It’s a tactic toward anyone who is in business to demagogue them for shipping jobs overseas, just like they did to Romney in 2012.
Michelle’s cheap shots have lead her to create an ad campaign specifically focused on this narrative. Hours of countless searching has turned up a deposition from 2005, during which David Perdue “answered a question about his ‘experience’ with outsourcing by saying: ‘Yeah, I spent most of my career doing that.’”
Unfortunately, she made a bad decision about whom she chose to highlight — it turns out the ad features a businessman, Roy Richards Jr, whose company has also outsourced jobs. Perhaps she should have done her homework on him instead.
Politifact of Georgia couldn’t even make the stretch that Purdue’s career outsourcing meant that he “was proud to have sent jobs overseas”. Politifact noted, “it is accurate to claim Perdue’s sworn statement is that he spent most of his business career outsourcing. But that doesn’t translate into callous indifference to American workers – or even a tenure that did nothing more than ship jobs abroad. We continue to rate the claim Half True.”
The Washington Examiner goes more in-depth to the nature of his business dealings:
“Perdue was not referring to outsourcing as most understand it – that is, the process of firing American workers in favor of cheap labor overseas — but rather a business plan for his former company, Pillowtex, to save some American jobs, as Politifact noted.
“There is nothing to suggest he was narrowly moving jobs overseas just to increase profits or give himself a bonus,” said Rob Bliss, a finance professor at Wake Forest University in an interview with Politifact. “Moving jobs overseas would have been an effort to make the company more competitive. It’s a perfectly legitimate thing to do.”
Politifact also noted other companies where Perdue worked that did outsource jobs, but said those companies were “in industries where jobs were being lost to both cheaper foreign production — outsourcing — and also to technology and global business trends far outside his scope of control.”
As for the attack ad trying to substantiate that Perdue despises American workers, National Review Online called it “seriously hypocritical” since the featured businessman apparently also engaged in outsourcing at his own company. The Atlantic Journal-Constitution gives a rundown here. And NRO noted that “Cato’s Dan Ikenson has explained in Forbes, relocating jobs overseas can have as much to do with costs for customers, proximity to supply chains, or interest in new consumer markets as it does with labor costs and profitability.” Simply put, it’s a stretch to boil down “outsourcing” as simply disdain for the American worker for the sake of profit. But that is what Michelle Nunn wants you to believe.
Businesses continuously make decisions about where to get jobs and how to keep a company afloat. If the policies here in the United States are making it difficult to succeed and compete, or the market and demand has changed, that’s not the fault of the business owner. They must be willing to adapt or risk going out of business. Someone as ignorant as Michelle Nunn about basic economics should not be elected to Senate.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
During a speech at UNLV this week, Hillary Clinton discussed higher education and her opinion that “more needs to be done to assure young people can achieve their dreams and free students from debt.”
While making higher education more affordable is certainly a worthwhile endeavor, the means by which the Democrats have made changes — and continue to push for more change — to the student loan system will cause even higher tuition costs, unsustainable taxpayer debt, and create another rail of entitlement.
The first wave of detrimental change came in 2010 with the Pay-As-You-Earn Program implemented in 2010. Essentially, PAYE has repayment options based on 10% of discretionary income. However, if the payment doesn’t cover the accruing interest, the government pays your unpaid accruing interested for up to three years from when you begin paying back your loan under the PAYE program.” That means the taxpayer.
Obama expanded that 10% income cap this past June with an Executive Order. Its purpose is to extend “such relief to an estimated five million people with older loans who are currently ineligible”, according to the New York Times.
Though this Executive Order — and its 2010 law counterpart — may sound well and good, financially it is a disaster. The 10% income repayment does not help any young person get off on a solid financial footing. Likewise, because some sectors allow for loan forgiveness after a period of time, that amount gets written off by the federal government, thereby substantially adding to the federal debt.
And what of the federal debt? Earlier this summer, CNS News compared the current cumulative outstanding balance on federal student loans to the balance owed in January 2009, and found it had skyrocketed 517.4 percent:
“The balance owed as of the end of May was $739,641,000,000.00. That is an increase of $619,838,000,000.00 from the balance that was owed as of the end of January 2009, when it was $119,803,000,000.00, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement”.
They then compared it to George Bush’s tenure:
“During President George W. Bush’s time in office, the amount of outstanding loans increased from $67,979,000,000.00 in January of 2001 to $119,803,000,000 in January of 2009, an increase of 76.2%. This means that under President Obama, the amount of federal direct student loans increased 579% more than under President Bush.”
The most influential factor in this rapid rise of student loan debt is the PAYE program repayment terms. Besides the 10% option, students also have two other possibilities of loan help, known as “forgiveness:”
1) The balance of your loan can be forgiven after 20 years if you meet certain criteria, OR 2) Your loan can be forgiven after 10 years if you go to work for a public service organization (known as Public Service Loan Forgiveness, or PSLF).
The Wall Street Journal recently discussed the impact of “loan forgiveness” when it highlighted a report from the New America Foundation, which analyzed the PLSF impact. The WSJ noted that the report found “it will not be a small population of borrowers standing in line for this gift from taxpayers. The federal government estimates that a quarter of all jobs may qualify”.
Furthermore, the study concluded that:
“it could become common for the government to pay for a student’s entire graduate education via loan forgiveness” if those kids take jobs at a nonprofit or in government. The new payment terms for such borrowers “are unlikely to cause many graduate and professional students to fully repay their loans—even if they earn a competitive salary in their chosen careers or a salary that places them among upper-income Americans.”
and also,
“This will likely provide an incentive for graduate and professional students to borrow more rather than less, particularly for some professions. It should also make graduate students less sensitive to the price of a graduate or professional degree, allowing institutions to charge higher tuitions, especially for certain programs like healthcare, social work, education, and government, where borrowers would go on to qualify for PSLF.”
The government meddling in higher education and loan programs has perpetuated more crises, which in turn has created more government “fixes”, and hence, a new-tier of entitlements — this time, for education. And that’s not all. Senator Elizabeth Warren proposed a bill earlier this year allowing student loan holders to refinance their loans at a lower rate. How? You guessed it: a bailout to be paid for by yet another tax on the wealthy. President Obama, of course, has endorsed this legislation, but it has yet to pass Congress.
The long-term effect of such an education policy is that a new generation of youth will be raised to pursue careers in the public and non-profit sectors by the dangling carrot of free education money — instead of slugging it out in the private sector.
Do we need more regulators and bureaucrats? Where is the encouragement for innovation, for entrepreneurship, for capitalism? Where is the risk-taking? Why risk-take when you can get your education paid for by taxpayer-funded loan forgiveness and a comfortable government or non-profit job?
Small businesses have been the backbone of America. Our country was built upon those who were willing to invest their time and money to become great. This approach to education is undeniably detrimental to our future by saddling taxpayers with unseemly debt while discouraging our young people from seeking private enterprise. That is not the American Dream.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAX TIPS
This Washington Times piece did a nice overview of FY2014:
The Treasury Department unveiled its Fiscal Year 2014 numbers, which showed that the government’s revenue, for the first time ever, hit the $3 trillion mark. However, the government still overspent its revenues, leaving a $483 billion deficit.
Supporters of President Obama are touting the “success” of a $483 billion deficit by pointing out its the lowest deficit since 2008. A “mere” $483 billion deficit is not something to be celebrated. It means that, despite record revenues, the government still engages in out-of-control spending.
By comparison:
“The government first hit the $1 trillion revenue mark in 1990, then hit the $2 trillion mark in 2000. But President George W. Bush’s tax cuts and the bursting of the 1990s Internet bubble cut into revenue, dropping it to $1.8 trillion in 2003, before it began the shaky climb to $3 trillion.
Just five years ago, in 2009, the trough of the recession, revenue was only $2.1 trillion. That means it’s leapt $900 billion in just five years.”
And here’s where the dichotomy lies. The Left sees high government revenue as something to be celebrated, while the Right understands that high government revenue means less money for the private sector. “Every one of those $3 trillion is sucked out of the private-sector economy and makes the private sector smaller,” said Chris Edwards, director of tax-policy studies at the Cato Institute. “The $3 trillion isn’t free. It comes out of our pockets and from the private economy.”
Contrast his analysis with Jack Lew’s, Treasury Secretary. “The president’s policies and a strengthening U.S. economy have resulted in a reduction of the U.S. budget deficit of approximately two-thirds — the fastest sustained deficit reduction since World War II,” Mr. Lew said.
What are those “president’s policies”? Successful tax hikes. The highest 2% earners saw their tax margins increase; all earners saw their payroll taxes go up. And don’t forget the Obamacare taxes. The full list of all of Obama’s tax increases can be found here.
Perhaps the most profound statement can be summed up here: “Spending, meanwhile, has remained relatively flat at about $3.5 trillion.”
When spending is “flat” at $3.5 trillion, we definitely have a problem. Each year since 2009, the Obama Administration has spent over $3 trillion, the only president to ever do so: From 2009 – 2013 respectively, here are the numbers of spending in per year: 2009: $3,517,677; 2010: 3,457,079; 2011: $3,603,059; 2012: $3,537,127; 2013: $3,454,605. For a full chart of historical federal spending per year, go here. Federal spending has remained consistent at around $3.5 trillion/year — consistently high. Over-budget. And adding deeply to the deficit each year.
It will be interesting to revisit this next year at the end of FY2015, when Obamacare, the crowning Obama policy achievement, really gets going. Remember how Obamacare was going to reduce deficits? About that. The Weekly Standard recently did a thorough analysis of Obamacare projections and found that:
“So, compared to the deficit surplus of $180 billion for 2015-24 that a straight extrapolation from the CBO’s 2012 scoring would yield, current projections now indicate that Obamacare’s decreased spending (in relation to prior expectations) will reduce deficits by another $83 billion (bringing the estimated surplus to $263 billion), but those projected surpluses will be more than offset by the projected $132 billion decrease in Medicare revenue and $262 billion decrease in tax revenue due to lower job growth.
In all, therefore, CBO projections indicate that Obamacare will increase deficit spending by $131 billion from 2015-24. That’s a $311 billion swing from the extrapolated 2012 numbers, a $240 billion swing from the actual 2012 numbers, and a $255 billion swing from what we were told when Obamacare was passed.
So, this fiscal year was more of the same. Government overspending, gleefully celebrated by record tax collections of your hard earned dollars. The rapacious government needs to be fed.
by | BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, TAXES
Last week, I wrote about the population shift from the northeastern states to other parts of the country due to the high taxation. It seems that the Yankees aren’t the only ones concerned enough with crushing taxes that they are willing to relocated — the French are too.
From the Independent:
“France’s unemployment rate is hovering around 10 per cent. As for high-earners, almost 600 people subject to a wealth tax on assets of more than €800,000 (£630,000) left France in 2012, 20 per cent more than the previous year. Manuel Valls, the Prime Minister, announced in London this week that the top income tax rate of 75 per cent would be abolished next January after a number of business tycoons and celebrities moved out.”
Hélène Charveriat, the delegate-general of the Union of French Citizens Abroad, concurs. Charvariat noted that the “young people feel stuck, and they want interesting jobs. Businessmen say the labour code is complex and they’re taxed even before they start working. Pensioners can also pay less tax abroad.”
Though the repeal of the 75% is a start, the loss of French citizens to other parts of the world is going to hamper economic recovery in France. I wrote about this probability in 2012 when Hollande first proposed his “rich tax” scheme. The Laffer Curve effect has been proven here in France as it did in England last year: namely, that increasing tax rates beyond a certain point will be counterproductive for raising further tax revenue.
As we can see, high taxes drives away citizens who wish not to hand over to the government the money they have saved and earned — just to see it misspent and frittered away.
