by | BLOG, IRS
The Internal Revenue Service is inept to such a degree that it could rightly be called criminal. The problems go beyond the numerous cited issues, such as only answering 10% of taxpayer calls or a backlog of 21 million unprocessed tax returns. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (Tigta) 2017 report stated that the IRS took to seizing property from its targets before even conducting interviews. Tigta also reports that even when interviews were conducted, the IRS failed to advise the accused of their rights or the interview’s purpose and to consider “realistic defenses or explanations.” Tigta found that “most” of those targeted (owners of gas stations, jewelry stores, scrap-metal dealers, restaurants) had not committed crimes, though many were never able to regain their property. The IRS is engaged in theft on a scale, not of thousands or millions, but billions of dollars. The IRS is rotten to the bone and giving them more funding will only exacerbate the corruption.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.” A conglomerate of heavy government hitters, including Sen. Joe Manchin, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and last but not least, President Joe Biden, have come together to unleash what they call “beast mode” executive power. The bill would increase by 600x the current annual IRS budget over ten years from $12.6 billion to $80 billion. Let’s not mince words. Despite this President’s claims, the IRS will not be targeting the 1%; they will be targeting middle-class Americans and small business owners like they always have. The Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’s official tax scorekeeper, says that 78% to 90% of the money raised from under-reported income would likely come from those making less than $200,000 a year. Only 4% to 9% would come from those making more than $500,000. This is because the middle-class is ill-prepared to defend themselves; the IRS knows that wealthy individuals have the funds available to hire accountants and lawyers to put up a fight. But even those who fight do not go unscathed as there is a tremendous cost to defense, so even those who “successfully” defend themselves are out roughly the $200 to $400 per hour they pay their tax attorney. Like a bully picking on the smallest kid on the playground, the IRS comes after the electrician, firefighter, supermarket worker, and small business owner. Like the Government, the IRS is not your friend and will undoubtedly fail to solve this country’s money problems.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, COVID, ECONOMY
When the CDC admitted failure this week for its COVID response, one might have felt a bit vindicated regarding the lockdowns and disruptions — but only for a moment. Because it turns out that the CDC actually means is that they didn’t go far enough in their response measures and that next time it should be even more restrictive. This flies in the face of copious amounts of data that show the deleterious effects COVID response had on basically every facet of society — economic, mental, physical, educational, etc. John Tierney does a decent job taking to task this unreasonable CDC outlook. The WSJ article is printed in its entirety below.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention belatedly admitted failure this week. “For 75 years, CDC and public health have been preparing for Covid-19, and in our big moment, our performance did not reliably meet expectations,” Director Rochelle Walensky said. She vowed to establish an “action-oriented culture.”
Lockdowns and mask mandates were the most radical experiment in the history of public health, but Dr. Walensky isn’t alone in thinking they failed because they didn’t go far enough. Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to the president, recently said there should have been “much, much more stringent restrictions” early in the pandemic. The World Health Organization is revising its official guidance to call for stricter lockdown measures in the next pandemic, and it is even seeking a new treaty that would compel nations to adopt them. The World Economic Forum hails the Covid lockdowns as the model for a “Great Reset” empowering technocrats to dictate policies world-wide.
Yet these oppressive measures were taken against the longstanding advice of public-health experts, who warned that they would lead to catastrophe and were proved right. For all the talk from officials like Dr. Fauci about following “the science,” these leaders ignored decades of research—as well as fresh data from the pandemic—when they set strict Covid regulations. The burden of proof was on them to justify their dangerous experiment, yet they failed to conduct rigorous analyses, preferring to tout badly flawed studies while refusing to confront obvious evidence of the policies’ failure.
U.S. states with more-restrictive policies fared no better, on average, than states with less-restrictive policies. There’s still no convincing evidence that masks provided any significant benefits. When case rates throughout the pandemic are plotted on a graph, the trajectory in states with mask mandates is virtually identical to the trajectory in states without mandates. (The states without mandates actually had slightly fewer Covid deaths per capita.) International comparisons yield similar results. A Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of studies around the world concluded that lockdown and mask restrictions have had “little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.”
Florida and Sweden were accused of deadly folly for keeping schools and businesses open without masks, but their policies have been vindicated. In Florida the cumulative age-adjusted rate of Covid mortality is below the national average, and the rate of excess mortality is lower than in California, which endured one of the nation’s strictest lockdowns and worst spikes in unemployment. Sweden’s cumulative rate of excess mortality is one of the lowest in the world, and there’s one particularly dismal difference between it and the rest of Europe as well as America: the number of younger adults who died not from Covid but from the effects of lockdowns.
Even in 2020, Sweden’s worst year of the pandemic, the mortality rate remained normal among Swedes under 70. Meanwhile, the death rate surged among younger adults in the U.S., and a majority of them died from causes other than Covid. In Sweden, there have been no excess deaths from non-Covid causes during the pandemic, but in the U.S. there have been more than 170,000 of these excess deaths.
No one knows exactly how many of those deaths were caused by lockdowns, but the social disruptions, isolation, inactivity and economic havoc clearly exacted a toll. Medical treatments and screenings were delayed, and there were sharp increases in the rates of depression, anxiety, obesity, diabetes, fatal strokes and heart disease, and fatal abuse of alcohol and drugs.
These were the sorts of calamities foreseen long before 2020 by eminent epidemiologists such as Donald Henderson, who directed the successful international effort to eradicate smallpox. In 2006 he and colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh considered an array of proposed measures to deal with a virus as deadly as the 1918 Spanish flu.
Should schools be closed? Should everyone wear face masks in public places? Should those exposed to an infection be required to quarantine at home? Should public-health officials rely on computer models of viral spread to impose strict limitations on people’s movements? In each case, the answer was no, because there was no evidence these measures would make a significant difference.
“Experience has shown,” Henderson’s team concluded, “that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.” The researchers specifically advised leaders not to be guided by computer models, because no model could reliably predict the effects of the measures or take into account the “devastating” collateral damage. If leaders overreacted and panicked the public, “a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”
This advice was subsequently heeded in the pre-Covid pandemic plans prepared by the CDC and other public-health agencies. The WHO’s review of the scientific literature concluded that there was “no evidence” that universal masking “is effective in reducing transmission.” The CDC’s pre-2020 planning scenarios didn’t recommend universal masking or extended school and business closures even during a pandemic as severe as the 1918 Spanish flu. Neither did the U.K.’s 2011 plan, which urged “those who are well to carry on with their normal daily lives” and flatly declared, “It will not be possible to halt the spread of a new pandemic influenza virus, and it would be a waste of public health resources and capacity to attempt to do so.”
But those plans were abruptly discarded in March 2020, when computer modelers in England announced that a lockdown like China’s was the only way to avert doomsday. As Henderson had warned, the computer model’s projections—such as 30 Covid patients for every available bed in intensive-care units—proved to be absurdly wrong. Just as the British planners had predicted, it was impossible to halt the virus. A few isolated places managed to keep out the virus with border closures and draconian lockdowns, but the virus spread quickly once they opened up. China’s hopeless fantasy of “Zero Covid” became a humanitarian nightmare.
It was bad enough that Dr. Fauci, the CDC and the WHO ignored the best scientific advice at the start of this pandemic. It’s sociopathic for them to promote a worse catastrophe for future outbreaks. If a drug company behaved this way, ignoring evidence while marketing an ineffective treatment with fatal side effects, its executives would be facing lawsuits, bankruptcy and probably criminal charges. Dr. Fauci and his fellow public officials can’t easily be sued, but they need to be put out of business long before the next pandemic.
Mr. Tierney is a contributing editor to City Journal and a co-author of “The Power of Bad: How the Negativity Effect Rules Us and How We Can Rule It.”
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, IRS
You have the Editorial Board at the WSJ taking the IRS to task. The following article outlines numerous problems listed in multiple agency audits, and yet Congress is still eager to give the IRS an extra $80 billion. I’ve reprinted it below.
The new Inflation Reduction Act has many damaging provisions, but for sheer government gall the $80 billion reward to the Internal Revenue Service stands out. The money will go to hire 87,000 new employees, doubling its current payroll. This is also doubling down on incompetence, as anyone can see in the official reports of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (Tigta).
We’ve read those reports for the last several years so you don’t have to, and the experience is a government version of finding yourself in a blighted neighborhood for the first time. You can’t believe it’s that bad. The trouble goes beyond the oft-cited failures like answering only 10% of taxpayer calls, or a backlog of 17 million unprocessed tax returns. The audits reveal an agency that can’t do its basic job well but will terrorize taxpayers whether deserving or not.
***
Consider the agency’s chronic mishandling of tax credits. By the IRS’s own admission, some $19 billion—or 28%—of earned-income tax credit payments in fiscal 2021 were “improper.” The amount hasn’t improved despite years of IRS promises to do better.
• A January Tigta audit found that an estimated 67,000 claims—totaling $15.6 billion—for the low-income housing tax credit from 2015 to 2019 “lacked or did not match supporting documentation due to potential reporting errors or noncompliance.”
• A May audit found that 26% ($1.9 billion) of its American opportunity tax credits for education expenses were improper in fiscal 2021, and 27% ($541 million) of its net premium tax credits (ObamaCare) were improper in fiscal 2019 (the most recent year it estimated). The same May audit said the IRS acknowledged that 13% ($5.2 billion) of its enhanced child tax credit payments were improper.
• How did it handle $1,200 stimulus checks, the sick and paid family leave credit, or the employee retention tax credit? Unknown, since the agency didn’t estimate failure rates—for which Tigta rapped its knuckles.
• A September 2021 audit found the IRS in 2020 issued 89,338 notices to taxpayers insisting that “balances were owed even though the taxes were not actually due.” Why? Because the feds had extended the filing deadline amid Covid but the IRS apparently didn’t notice.
• A February audit found the IRS department responsible for ensuring retirement-plan tax compliance suffered a 23% decline in the quality of its examinations from fiscal 2018 to fiscal 2020. In the past seven months, Tigta has issued searing reports on IRS mismanagement of everything from its partial-payment program for delinquent taxpayers, to its auditing of partnerships, to its struggle to handle internal employee misconduct.
• This ineptitude extends to programs Democrats insist will now raise revenue—those targeting higher earners. In 2010 Congress passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, which was supposed to identify wealthy Americans using undisclosed foreign accounts. Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation said this would raise some $9 billion in revenue by fiscal 2020. Yet an April Tigta audit noted that while the IRS has spent $574 million to implement the law, the agency has drummed up only $14 million in compliance revenue.
• A July 2021 audit related the failure of the IRS small-business/self-employed division’s strategy, which began in 2010 to examine more returns from “high-income individual taxpayers.” The IRS defines high earners as those with income greater than $200,000. Yet from fiscal 2015 to the end of fiscal 2017 (when the strategy was shut down), 73% of returns targeted by the strategy fell below $200,000.
Democrats say a turbocharged IRS won’t pursue taxpayers earning less than $400,000, but don’t believe it. Middle-income Americans are easier marks, as they are more likely to write a check than engage in years of costly litigation.
***
The Tigta site shows the IRS is good at one thing: punishing those who resist its demands. A March audit chastised the IRS for using lien foreclosure suits to confiscate “principal residences” from delinquent taxpayers, a process that does “not provide [taxpayers] the same legal protections as seizures.”
A March 2017 report related the agency’s crackdown on businesses flagged as potentially evading a law that requires financial institutions to report currency transactions exceeding $10,000. The IRS took to seizing property from its targets before even conducting interviews. Tigta reports that even when interviews were conducted, the IRS failed to advise the accused of their rights or the purpose of the interview, and failed to consider “realistic defenses or explanations.” Tigta found that “most” of those targeted (owners of gas stations, jewelry stores, scrap-metal dealers, restaurants) had not committed crimes, though many were never able to regain their property.
This is the IRS that Democrats are now arming with more money and manpower to unleash on Americans. The $80 billion is a demonstration of their priorities, and further proof of the rule that failure in government is invariably rewarded with a bigger budget.
by | BIDEN, BLOG, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY, TAXES
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is a scam, and the very name insults the American populace. Our President, Joe Biden, was quoted saying, “Yesterday, I spoke with both Senator Schumer and Manchin and offered my support for a historic agreement to fight inflation and lower costs for American families. It’s called the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.” Inflation is quickly approaching 10% the last time we’ve seen it this high was over 40 years ago, in the 1980s. The bitter irony is that the Biden administration knows what causes inflation, yet virtually nothing in the new law will make matters better.
The claim is that the bill is “fighting inflation” because it reduces the deficit by $300 billion over ten years, which is 1% of GDP. But the deficit reduction doesn’t start until the fourth year, so for the next three years it makes inflation worse!
And let’s look at the numbers. How could a $300 billion reduction in the deficit over ten years be a massive step forward in fighting inflation when the law passed last year increased the deficit by an estimated $1.7 trillion in one year? Utter nonsense.
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is a spending bill, first and foremost, and a repackaging of the American Rescue Plan of 2021. Unfortunately, despite their best efforts, they could not disguise the stench; trash is funny like that. The main push in the bill is to encourage investment in renewable energies and allow Medicare to negotiate Rx drug prices. God forbid we cut the deficit by meaningful reductions in spending.
Regardless of your feelings on energy consumption, it is undisputed that green energy is more expensive than traditional forms, evidenced by the fact that we pump billions every year into the industry via subsidies to keep it afloat. We know that the inflation we are experiencing is due to a surplus of money in the economy and demand exceeding supply. Yet, this administration’s solution is to put further pressure on supply via taxes and thereby disincentivizing production. Furthermore, increasing corporate tax rates will put additional pressure on supply; none of Biden’s plans make any sense.
The Democrats claim that the bill will reduce the deficit by roughly $300 billion spread over ten years is meaningless. With government spending approaching $7 trillion in 2021 (with a $3 trillion deficit), and the two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth (recession) we’re experiencing, the light at the end of the tunnel just got a lot further away.
by | BIDEN, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM
Let’s concede the claim that man-made climate change is real and poses significant harm to humanity as a whole. That statement is then used as a rallying cry to inflict irrevocable damage on today’s generation, both the rich and the poor. So often in American society, we see a problem, and the immediate reaction of our politicians is to invoke a top-down approach to “fix it,” which often does more harm than good. Frederich Hayek said it best, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”
The Biden Administration and the Democratic party have started a never-ending push to wage war on Climate Change and reduce our carbon footprint. Well, how’s it going you may ask? Per one model, eliminating all U.S. emissions would reduce global temperature by less than 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. Our current administration would offer you up, today’s citizens, in hopes of saving some future person that has yet to exist in their futile war. They throw us in the fire, yet the Earth grows hotter still; their reprehensible actions are all for naught.
The EPA says, “the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities in the United States is burning fossil fuels for electricity, heat, and transportation.” The Biden Administration then takes that statement and runs with it. Even with theoretical efficiency in their crusade, the costs of their policies would be staggering. The economy would, in aggregate, lose $7.7 trillion of gross domestic product (GDP) through 2040, which is $87,000 per family of four. What then should we do, you may ask? Well, the best shot we have going forward is a market-based approach. The government should reduce red tape surrounding proven superior energy sources, like fusion energy, reduce unrealistic mandates, and allow people to innovate as they do best. In short, this administration needs to cease and desist their self-proclaimed climate war; the cost paid in American lives is too steep.
by | BLOG, ECONOMY
It appears that many people now believe that a place like China, which dictates the economy from the top down, provides better economic results than the free market in the United States, and that the Chinese are somehow doing better than us. This is absolutely not true. The top-down decisions arising a non-free market economy show China making egregious mistakes. But the reason why China — given the detriment of a non-free market economy — appears that they are doing better to some people is really quite basic. It’s not smart centralized planning or lower wages and costs in China but rather, the actual ability of a business to conduct day-to-day activities unburdened by the government at all levels. China does not hamper their every move or require horrific environmental or other useless regulatory burdens.
We are part of a global economy now, but foreign countries such as China have always been more user-friendly than our own. We overburden our businesses with convoluted tax codes, unnecessary paperwork, and regulatory holdups. The host of local, state, and federal regulations becomes a cost of every product we make and every service we sell.
I have a close relative who is an owner and executive of a substantial manufacturing operation in China precisely because of its business-friendly environment. I’ve heard from him many times that he went into business, not to comply with government diktats, but to make things. Here, we face climate regulations, environmental restrictions, unnecessary specialty licenses, partisan individuals not allowing projects, and so much more that the Chinese do not have to deal with. Simply put, expensive and complex regulations have rendered the United States less globally competitive. Without major changes, we are destined to decline while China rises.
by | BLOG
In the economic nightmare we are in, it was refreshing to open up the pages of the Wall Street Journal and find an Op-Ed that championed free trade over tariffs as a means to fight inflation. What’s more, the piece was written by two Democrat members of Congress: Jake Auchincloss and Stephanie Murphy. Tariffs clearly and consistently hurt the consumer and taxpayer by driving costs up to everybody in amounts far in excess than any benefits given to beneficiary companies. In fact, tariffs are cronyism of the highest order.
You can read the article, which is reproduced below:
Free Trade Can Fight Inflation
And other reasons Biden should reduce or lift Trump-era tariffs
“To fight inflation, President Biden should repeal or reduce Trump-era tariffs. Economists across the political spectrum agree that trade lowers prices and expands choice for consumers, and trade deals open markets for American businesses. Smart trading pacts forge deeper ties with allies, and they serve as a counterweight to Beijing’s aggressive efforts to buy global influence.
The official Congressional scorekeeper finds the bill would raise taxes on nearly everyone. Will Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema go along? Plus, moderate House Democrats might vote for a bill that doesn’t have the state and local tax deductions they were insisting on.
That’s why the Trump tariffs should go. And instead of being defensive about the decision, the Biden administration—and both parties in Congress—should pivot toward an unapologetically pro-trade agenda.
Despite the known benefits, both parties have grown more hostile to trade in recent years. For too many U.S. politicians, trade has become anathema. And as a result, the U.S. has missed opportunities to move forward through economic statecraft. In some cases, we’ve instead taken steps backward.
The Trump administration’s decision to pull out of the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership was a gift from Washington to Beijing in the contest for influence in the Indo-Pacific region. It was met with disappointing silence from both parties in Congress.
Section 232 tariffs on aluminum and steel imports, imposed on friend and foe alike, raise production costs and consumer prices. Even worse, Section 301 tariffs levied on an array of Chinese products have done little to change China’s abusive trade practices. These tariffs contribute to inflation and impede our commitment to clean-energy independence. They also place American companies at a competitive disadvantage, because China (predictably) slapped retaliatory tariffs on our exports. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby recently acknowledged that tariffs have “increased costs of American families and small businesses” without “addressing some of China’s harmful trade practices.”
The failure of U.S. policy makers to reauthorize the Generalized System of Preferences program is another error. The GSP waives tariffs on certain goods from about 120 lower-income countries. It encourages U.S. firms to get products from a diverse set of emerging partners, promotes international development through trade (not only aid), and lowers prices for U.S. consumers. It’s a tool of soft power that we have removed from our toolbox.
Congress must step up. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution confers the taxing power on Congress. We must not yield this prerogative to the executive, regardless of who occupies the White House.
This administration has pledged that its foreign policy, including trade, will benefit the middle class. That’s a laudable goal, but actions need to match the rhetoric. Congress should insist that U.S. trade policy actually address the most vexing challenge that working families face: the decline of their purchasing power.
Trade liberalization policies, such as removing 301 and 232 tariffs, could save the average American household almost $800 annually—far more than the president’s proposed gas-tax holiday. It’s no cure-all, but for struggling American families and businesses, every dollar in price relief counts.
Congress should also extend and modernize GSP.
In addition, Congress should update the Trade Adjustment Assistance law, which supports American workers hurt by foreign trade. Workers should be compensated if they are harmed by restrictive measures such as tariffs, not only by liberalization policies such as trade agreements. This would be a more balanced approach, rooted in the recognition that protectionism comes at a cost.
Finally, the president and Congress must understand that expanding trade relations, including by reconsideration of our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, is crucial to outcompeting China. American policy makers can’t claim to be tough on China if they aren’t willing to promote a muscular trade policy.
Opponents will contend that trade liberalization drives a race to the regulatory bottom. But we know how to prevent that. The trading system should be rules-based. Trade deals should impel U.S. companies to innovate, not force them to compete against foreign firms unrestrained by labor, environmental and intellectual-property standards. U.S. officials have these templates at hand, but they can’t enact them if elected leaders don’t start negotiations.
Detractors sometimes blame trade liberalization for hollowing out communities. The evidence is clear, however. Trade creates jobs and lowers costs. Automation has been far more disruptive to local economies than trade has. Where dislocation does occur, adjustment assistance should help smooth it out.
American families and businesses are grappling with high prices. Lowering tariffs can provide immediate relief. The president and Congress should act now.”
Mr. Auchincloss and Ms. Murphy, both Democrats, represent, respectively, Massachusetts’ Fourth and Florida’s Seventh congressional districts.
by | BLOG, ECONOMY, POLITICS, POTUS
The Committee to Unleash Prosperity recently reminded folks that the prospect of inflation was raised and rejected by a plethora of Nobel prize winning economists as early as last September. As Congress was debating Biden’s $5 Trillion Build Back Better plan, 17 economists signed an open letter urging passage of this atrocious spending bill (coming on top of an extra $3 trillion in spending, mind you).
The letter opened and closed with these two absurd statements: “The American economy appears set for a robust recovery in part due to active government interventions over the past year and a half” and “[the agenda] will ease longer-term inflationary pressures.” At the time of their writing, inflation was at (only) 6% and now we are past 8%. How much more egregious would things be had Congress actually passed this spending behemoth? And even more critically, how is it that 17 prize-winning economists managed to get their economic forecast so wrong?
Readers would be wise to steer clear of the following economists:
- George A. Akerlof, Professor, Georgetown University
- Sir Angus Deaton, Professor, Princeton University
- Peter Diamond, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Robert Engle, Professor Emeritus and Co-Director of the Volatility and Risk Institute, New York University
- Oliver Hart, Professor, Harvard University
- Daniel Kahneman, Professor, Princeton University
- Eric S. Maskin, Professor, Harvard University
- Daniel McFadden, Professor, University of California, Berkley
- Paul Milgrom, Professor, Stanford University
- Roger Myerson, Professor, University of Chicago
- Edmund S. Phelps, Professor and Director of the Center on Capitalism and Society, Columbia University
- Paul Romer, Professor, New York University
- William Sharpe, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University
- Robert Shiller, Professor, Yale University
- Christopher Sims, Professor, Princeton University
- Robert Solow, Professor Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Joseph Stiglitz, Professor, Columbia University
It must also be noted that Paul Krugman, another Nobel winner, did not sign the letter but did actively discuss it in his NYTimes column.
These economists had exactly one job: to tell the truth about spending and inflationary policies, namely that increased government spending as a means of intervention will typically result in higher inflation. But they didn’t do that. They would rather tell Congress what it wants to hear, instead of what it needs to hear, and they ought to be ashamed.
