by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Dear Mr. O’Connor and Mr. McKinnon,
I read with interest many of the reviews of Jeb Bush’s tax plan. As a CPA for the past 40 years, I find his plan overall to be a good start.
However, in your article in the Wall Street Journal, you included a quote from Ms. Holly Shulman of the Democrat National Committee, who declared, “What’s Jeb’s plan? More massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, all while exploding the deficit or shifting the burden onto the middle class.” As we both know, her claim is utterly outrageous.
Why, then, would you just accept a sound-byte quote without even asking if it is the result of an actual reading and analysis of his tax plan? It’s merely just a knee jerk reaction that she thought a gullible writer might just print. It represents the quintessential example of a pundit talking point. Perhaps the better article would have been that a Democrat spokeswoman made the aforementioned claim, but it was obvious that she never even looked at Jeb’s plan; her comments are simply untrue.
In fact, you yourself contradicted her attacks later in your article when you showed that “the most provocative component of Mr. Bush’s plan is his proposal to scrap many tax breaks for businesses and the wealthy”, which included the elimination of “convoluted, lobbyist-created loopholes”, and capping deductions “used by the wealthy and Washington special interests.”
As journalists who are knowledgeable about economics, if you knew the DNC commentary was detached from any economic reality and basic facts, why would you include it in your article?
Yours very truly.
Dear Mr. O’Connor and Mr. McKinnon,
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
It was refreshing to read an Op-Ed about overregulation in the Washington Examiner today. Presidential candidate Jeb Bush is absolutely correct that the explosive expansion of regulations during Obama’s Administration has been a major factor in the tepid economic recovery. I enjoyed seeing a candidate speak to this issue. Below are his remarks in full:
“President Obama has presided over a massive expansion of the federal government during his six and half years in office. He shepherded Obamacare into law — a $1.7 trillion spending bill that vastly increased Washington’s role in the healthcare industry. He has raised taxes by nearly $2 trillion, while adding $8 trillion to the national debt. The president has also imposed more than 2,500 new regulations on the American economy that carry a staggering price tag of $670 billion.
It should come as no surprise then that our economy has limped along during the Obama presidency. The anemic two percent rate of growth on his watch is one of the weakest recoveries in American history and it has resulted in labor force participation falling to a 38-year low. Middle class families’ incomes have fallen by $2,000 and there are six million more people living in poverty today than when Barack Obama took the oath of office.
Right now, federal regulations cost our economy $1.9 trillion a year. This works out to an average of $15,000 per household. We need to cut excessive federal red tape and unleash the entrepreneurial spirit in our nation.
Obama-era regulations such as those in Dodd-Frank, Obamacare, and his War on Coal are having a chilling effect on our economy. As president of the United States, I will conduct a spring cleaning of existing regulations to get rid of the ones that are too costly or not providing value to the American people. I will establish a regulatory budget that ensures that for every new dollar of regulations we impose on the American people we cut a dollar of existing regulations somewhere else. I will appoint judges to the judiciary who are committed to reining in regulatory excesses and preventing unelected regulators from exceeding the intent of Congress.
Finally, I will sign into law the REINS Act, which will provide another check on executive agency regulatory authority. The REINS Act would ensure that major rules and regulations are approved by Congress before they can take effect.
Regulations act as a hidden tax on the American people. Reining in their cost is just as important as reducing taxes. When coupled with my bold plan to reduce tax rates and simplify our tax code, my regulatory reform agenda will help drive America to four percent annual growth. Together, these policies will result in the average family seeing their income increase by $3,000 and their tax burden decline by $2,000. This is a significant boost in a middle class family’s budget that will make it easier for them to pay the mortgage, buy groceries, save for college and build a nest egg for retirement.
I know how to do this, because as governor of Florida, I cut taxes every year, by $19 billion total. I streamlined regulations and made my state the national leader in small business creation. During the final seven years of my governorship, Florida led the nation in job creation. Our unemployment rate fell to 3.5 percent and we added 1.3 million new jobs. Over the course of my full two terms in office, Florida averaged 4.4 percent economic growth.
Secretary Hillary Clinton will double down on the massive expansion of taxes, debt and regulations we have seen under President Obama. I am offering the country a different vision that will empower entrepreneurs and American businesses to grow and provide better wages and benefits to the American people. I look forward to having the debate with Hillary Clinton and her allies on the defeatist Left about how best to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit in America and provide a boost to a middle class that hasn’t seen its wages rise in 15 years.”
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The recent Wall Street Journal article discussing the pitfalls of raising interests rates in near future was so utterly fully of incorrect information and assumptions, that I felt compelled to call out the author, Mr. Narayana Kocherlakota, for his pomposity. He contends that raising the interest rates — we’re talking .25% here — would “create profound economic risks….given the prevailing economic conditions.” Though Mr. Kocherlakota recognizes the fragility of our current economy, he fails to recognize that Obama’s economic policies and the Fed’s meddling are the chief sources of the malcontent.
So here we have the current president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis blathering on and on as if his point of view — that very low interest rates are necessary and good — is a foregone conclusion. But it’s not. Any economist worth his salt knows that the problem all along is one that Mr. Kocherlakota has not even considered, because it is the exact opposition of his world view. Low interest rates have been the problem all along, not the solution. Yet we have this Fed chief who can’t even understand basic economics and has the audacity to pontificate from the Wall Street Journal on a point that is incorrect.
These sustained low interest rates have been harmful to our recovery. The assertion that inflation is merely 0.3% (and therefore well under the “target 2% rate”) is laughable. Ask anyone who has purchased food or paid energy costs in the last several years, and they will tell a different story. Everything is more expensive than it was a few years ago. Compound that with soaring healthcare costs, rising taxes (at all levels of government) and stagnant wages, and the result is an anemic economy.
For Mr. Kocherlakota to suggest that a .25% rate hike, therefore, would “discourage spending” and “create a drag on economic activity” is a slap in the face to all the Americans who diligently saved for their retirement golden years — only to watch their investments and savings shrink because of the non-existent interest rates and loss of Return On Investment (ROI).
These Fed officials are just out of touch with reality. For instance, QE1, 2, and 3 were miserable failures. The open-endedness of floodgate printing left consumers and investors unsure of what to do with their money for a very long time; now that quantitative easing has ended, with no measurable positive results, we have prolonged, and thus weakened, our ability to recover satisfactorily. But officials like Mr. Kocherlakota believe otherwise.
Case-in-point: Mr. Kocherlakota suggests that, “when the public comes to doubt a central bank’s commitment to its goals, the economy can land in a permanent low-interest-rate trap. The central bank is then much less able to fight recessions effectively.” This is patently untrue. The public doubt stems from ineffective policy by the Fed, which creates market uncertainty and a reluctance to invest. Smart Americans know that the best way to fight recessions are curbing government spending, promoting entrepreneurship, and letting the market correct itself without excessive, unconventional tinkering by a central bank. The public doubt is mainly about the Fed leaders — like Mr. Kocherlakota — who fail basic Economics 101.
What Mr. Kocherlakota and many other Fed officials and Washington bureaucrats fail to recognize, is that artificial monetary policies do not create jobs or businesses, which are the greatest source of expanding an economy. This is achieved by a free market and private capital, with minimal government regulation and reduced government spending. Anything else than that, such as prolonged low interest rates, is a recipe for failure.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Now this is pretty interesting. Last week, a federal district judge ruled in favor of the House of Representatives against the Obama Administration with regarding to Obamacare payments and Congressional appropriations. Specifically, the ruling allow for House to continue their lawsuit which claims that the Executive Branch (via Health and Human Services and the Treasury Department) has overstepped its authority by overspending on Obamacare beyond what was appropriated to them by Congress.
Rollcall has a great overview of what is at stake, how difficult the question it, how it affects the Constitution, and what it says about the Separation of Powers. You should take a few minutes and read it in full, as this type of lawsuit is fairly rare.
The House can pursue some constitutional claims in a lawsuit against the Obama administration over appropriations and implementing the health care overhaul law, a federal district judge ruled Wednesday.
The ruling means Congress has cleared a high procedural hurdle in the separation of powers case, one that usually stops the judiciary from stepping into fights between lawmakers and the executive branch.
The House has legal standing to pursue allegations that the secretaries of Health and Human Services and Treasury are spending $175 billion over the next 10 fiscal years that was not appropriated by Congress, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., wrote in the 43-page ruling.
The House lawsuit asks the court to declare the president acted unconstitutionally in making payments to insurance companies under Section 1402 of the health care overhaul law (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) and to stop the payments.
House Speaker John A. Boehner said the court’s ruling showed that the administration’s “historic overreach can be challenged by the coequal branch of government with the sole power to create or change the law. The House will continue our effort to ensure the separation of powers in our democratic system remains clear, as the Framers intended.”
Wednesday’s ruling does not address the merits of the claims. Collyer acknowledged that the court was taking a rare step, but doing so carefully into a high-profile dispute, so that it wouldn’t give the House standing to file other similar lawsuits.
“Despite its potential political ramifications, this suit remains a plain dispute over a constitutional command, of which the judiciary has long been the ultimate interpreter,” Collyer wrote. “The court is also assured that this decision will open no floodgates, as it is inherently limited by the extraordinary facts of which it was born.”
The dispute focuses on two sections of the health care overhaul law. The administration felt it could make Section 1402 Offset Program payments from the same account as Section 1401 Refundable Tax Credit Program payments. House Republicans say the health care law doesn’t permit that.
The Obama administration, during the fiscal 2014 appropriations process, initially asked Congress for a separate line item for 1402 payments. Congress did not include money for such a line item. During oral arguments in the case in May, Collyer questioned government lawyers about why the administration could ignore Congress and then argue that the House couldn’t sue them.
The administration argued that the House has other options, such as political remedies or passing other legislation, they said.
Jonathan Turley, the attorney for the House, said in a statement that the ruling means that the House “now will be heard on an issue that drives to the very heart of our constitutional system: the control of the legislative branch over the ‘power of the purse.’ We are eager to present the House’s merits arguments to the Court and remain confident that our position will ultimately prevail in establishing the unconstitutional conduct alleged in this lawsuit.”
Turley said the administration had argued that Congress couldn’t seek judicial enforcement of its constitutional status. “The position would have sharply curtailed both the legislative and judicial branches. The Court has now answered that question with a resounding rejection of this extreme position,” he said.
The case at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, No. 14-cv-1967.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
A piece from the Washington Times this week hammers out what most of us already know — that Obamacare is lagging severely behind its initial projections for participants. The lackluster enrollment in turns impacts the financial side of Obamacare because it has missed key targets that were counted on in budget planning.
The Obama Administration has tried all sorts of gimmicks so far to tout Obamacare as a success. First it was caught counting dental plans among enrollment figures to bolster numbers, and then it slashed last year’s CBO estimate for 2015 enrollees by more than three million down to 9.1 million in order to show success if it passed the target amount (hint: it did, at 9.9 million).
Additionally, the Obama Administration has delayed implementing various parts of the bill due to backlash from citizens and businesses alike over plan availability, and also as an effort to stave off sharp premium increases which we were told would never happen. Remember how Obamacare would save $2500/family?
The article is a good overview of the current state of Obamacare. It’s worth it to read in full below:
President Obama will need to more than double the number of Americans enrolled in Obamacare exchange plans to reach 21 million next year, the target set in budget projections, in what is shaping up as the next major test for the health care law.
As of June, the Department of Health and Human Services counted 9.9 million customers who have bought plans through the federal HealthCare.gov portal and a handful of state-run exchanges.
That puts the administration ahead of it’s own estimates for 2015, but is less than half what the Congressional Budget Office projected for 2016, showing just how much work officials have ahead of them as the next round of enrollment begins in less than two months.
That puts the administration ahead of it’s own estimates for 2015, but is less than half what the Congressional Budget Office projected for 2016, showing just how much work officials have ahead of them as the next round of enrollment begins in less than two months.
“It is definitely something that people pay attention to,” said Rachel Klein, director of organizational strategy at Families USA, a nonprofit that advocates for affordable health care.
The tax during the first year was $95 or 1 percent of income above the filing threshold — a relatively minor bite. This year, the penalty will be $325 or 2 percent of income, and by 2016 it will be $695 or 2.5 percent of income.
“The substantial increase in penalties under the individual mandate next year is a big wild card,” said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy organization. “We’re in unchartered territory here about how effective these bigger penalties will be in nudging people to get insured.”
“The marketplaces are working,” Mr. Levitt added, “but higher enrollment would both improve the insurance risk pool and reduce the number of Americans uninsured.”
The individual mandate was included in the Affordable Care Act of 2010 to make sure enough healthy Americans signed up, spreading out the costs for higher-risk customers.
A divided U.S. Supreme Court upheld the mandate in 2012 as an appropriate use of Congress’ taxing power.
But congressional Republicans are still intent on scrapping the health care law, and may use a fast-track budget procedure known as “reconciliation” to take a swing at it.
GOP leaders say they may not be able to eviscerate the law through the budget, but Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, said repealing the individual mandate is “definitely on the table.”
“This law is only being held together by mandates and coercion, and that’s why we continue to look at ways to repeal the mandates and give people more freedom and choices,” Mr. Buck said.
Even as it struggles to meet the 2016 enrollment projection, the Obama administration is on track on other measures, including a CBO estimate that 17 million fewer people lack insurance this year because of the health care law.
But in setting lofty goals for the exchanges, the CBO estimated the effect of the individual mandate and other potential changes, including the belief that employers would shift workers onto the exchanges or that customers would enter the Obamacare marketplace ahead of late 2017, when they can no longer hold plans that do not comply with the law.
Under political duress, the White House let customers transition to compliant plans to keep Mr. Obama’s notorious promise that people who like their plans can keep them under his law.
Sizing up reality versus long-range estimates, Health and Human Services has begun to set its own, more modest goals for exchange enrollment, ignoring CBO’s guess of 12 million for 2015 and setting the mark at 9.1 million enrollees. So far, it’s besting its less ambitious goal.
The agency says it is doing its own evaluation of the marketplace and will likely announce its enrollment targets for 2016 before signups begin in November.
“At this point, the Congressional Budget Office’s projected enrollment total for 2016 seems overly optimistic,” Mr. Levitt said. “Enrollment may reach that level eventually, but I doubt it will happen by next year.”
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, TAXES
It is perfectly fine for an owner of a private business to decline to participate in an event or produce a product if it requires violating one’s religious beliefs. It’s another thing entirely for a person who works for the government — on behalf of the taxpayer and paid by taxpayer funds — to decline to do the job required of them.
Kim Davis is no hero. Her job is to process marriage licenses. If she felt she could no longer consciously do her job, she had an obligation to step aside. No only did she not do that, she barred the rest of her staff from executing their duties as well and ceased issuing all marriage licenses. A reasonable accommodation could have been made for Ms. Davis by allowing her other assistants to process that with which she disagreed. But she chose all-or-nothing, to stop doing her job entirely. For that, she should resign.
Ms. Davis was perfectly free to choose not to process the licenses with which she had disagreement, but in making that choice, the only logical and honorable conclusion was resignation — because she could no longer fulfill the oath she swore to when she was elected.
Not only is her judgment on the matter incorrect, but she is also mucking up the opportunity for those who deserve an honest day in court when they have faced persecution for their beliefs in the private sector.
As stated by Judge Andrew Napolitano, “The free exercise clause guarantees individuals the lawful ability to practice their religion free from government interference. It does not permit those in government to use their offices to deny the rights of others who reject their beliefs. That is the lesson for Kim Davis”.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, POLITICS
This quote from Virgil’s Aeneid sums it up:
God bless America.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, TAXES
Kasich recently discussed the minimum wage while on the campaign trail Kasich was receptive to the possibility of raising the minimum wage 1) if the hike was “reasonable.” and 2) and when it made “sense” between management and labor.” Giving his answer in fairly broad terms allowed to Kasich to appear supportive of this policy at least in some circumstances, while also recognizing that such policy is not always beneficial, thereby satisfying potential voters on both sides of the aisle.
Kasich also went on to say that he favored state-level minimum wage policy over federal, because of the variation in economies and standards of living; his answer guarded him against outright supporting a blanket federal minimum wage rate hike — and it should. Even if Kasich were for state-level minimum wage increases, there is virtually no excuse for him to support a federal one. Anyone trying to argue that the minimum wage level should be the same in both New York and Arkansas is ludicrous. People may think that it helps, but when the minimum wage is way out of proportion for a jurisdiction in which it applies, the policy becomes especially harmful to businesses and workers.
Though Kasich’s answer was okay, he could have taken a better position. You can understand someone not wanting to take an absolute firm position on the minimum wage, considering that ⅔ of Americans favor it in some form or another. But it is also not honest to suggest that you are for it, without making it clear that your receptivity is merely to accommodate the will of the people, without trying to get the message out that the minimum wage, is in fact, a terrible thing.
What Kasich should say is that it is unfortunate that most people in the country do not understand that a minimum wage is a bad thing for the economy. It would have been preferable for him to explain that a minimum wage keeps people remaining in poverty — — but if that is what the people want, he won’t stand in the way. For his part, Kasich is not a full-throated advocate of a minimum wage, but he could have done a better job educating the voters on the pitfalls of such policy.
