by | BLOG, ELECTIONS, POLITICS
For years I have been following the candidates that have been supported by the Club for Growth, contributing to both their campaigns and to the Club. Although overall they do a decent job finding and supporting candidates , there are two areas in which they are weak.
The Club For Growth has always been an advocate of the free market, limited government, and low taxes — the same thing that the Tea Party originally intended to be. However, within this realm, there are four things that the Club For Growth does not focus on, but they need to. These are: immigration, tariffs, the Jones Act, and ethanol. So you can have a good libertarian, free market candidate, but if that person turns out to also have unfavorable stances in one or more of those areas, they weaken their position. The Club For Growth needs to expand their vetting to include these four areas in their overall approach.
Additionally, the Club For Growth needs to continue to monitor those who have taken office. While it is understandable that with somewhat limited resources, they want to use most of those resources to find new candidates, it does no one any good if the people they have recommended end up going off the rails. There has to be some sort of follow up. For instance, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, and Josh Hawley are all examples of people elected in no small part by the Club, but for which we now have serious buyers remorse. These three have taken inexcusable positions on tariffs, free markets, big government, etc.
It is disappointing and unacceptable to see Club For Growth focus only on getting new people elected while neglecting to hold these and other candidates accountable for their changed positions. It would be wise for the Club For Growth to practice better vetting and consistent follow up if they want to maintain being a trusted voice in the political landscape.
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, COVID, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT
The WSJ had a thoughtful opinion piece a couple of days ago. The author wanted to “quantify how many deaths were caused by delayed shutdown orders on a state-by-state basis”as a means to examine the efficacy of quick shutdown. Below are some key takeaways, and you can read the piece in full here.
“To normalize for an unambiguous comparison of deaths between states at the midpoint of an epidemic, we counted deaths per million population for a fixed 21-day period, measured from when the death rate first hit 1 per million—e.g.,‒three deaths in Iowa or 19 in New York state. A state’s “days to shutdown” was the time after a state crossed the 1 per million threshold until it ordered businesses shut down.
We ran a simple one-variable correlation of deaths per million and days to shutdown, which ranged from minus-10 days (some states shut down before any sign of Covid-19) to 35 days for South Dakota, one of seven states with limited or no shutdown. The correlation coefficient was 5.5%—so low that the engineers I used to employ would have summarized it as “no correlation” and moved on to find the real cause of the problem. (The trendline sloped downward—states that delayed more tended to have lower death rates—but that’s also a meaningless result due to the low correlation coefficient.)
No conclusions can be drawn about the states that sheltered quickly, because their death rates ran the full gamut, from 20 per million in Oregon to 360 in New York. This wide variation means that other variables—like population density or subway use—were more important. Our correlation coefficient for per-capita death rates vs. the population density was 44%. That suggests New York City might have benefited from its shutdown—but blindly copying New York’s policies in places with low Covid-19 death rates, such as my native Wisconsin, doesn’t make sense.”
The author then went on to examine Sweden’s policies (less restrictive than ours) and integrated those into his analysis:
“How did the Swedes do? They suffered 80 deaths per million 21 days after crossing the 1 per million threshold level. With 10 million people, Sweden’s death rate‒without a shutdown and massive unemployment‒is lower than that of the seven hardest-hit U.S. states—Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Louisiana, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey and New York—all of which, except Louisiana, shut down in three days or less.
We should cheer for Sweden to succeed, not ghoulishly bash them. They may prove that many aspects of the U.S. shutdown were mistakes—ineffective but economically devastating—and point the way to correcting them.”
Only time will tell what methodologies worked and what didn’t, but this is an important conversation to have, especially since the economy continues to worsen.
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, COVID, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT
It might not be so crazy after all for relatively young people who are going broke and having their lives torn out from under them to try to get back to normal in as careful a way as possible: going to gyms, salons, and other businesses. Might it be reasonable for some people to try it out to see if it can help with the infection rate? Can we trust people to be careful?
Some businesses such as FedEx, supermarkets, and medical practices are open and more are starting to or trying to open up, and yet they are not getting a lot of business because people are afraid, or told they need to be afraid. But why not open up and if people are willing to take the risk and practice social distancing and mask-wearing, we should let them.
The economy is horrific the way it is, and it just cannot remain like this. Many people’s lives are now devastated. For many, we have probably passed the point where the cure is worse than the disease.
We know by now that the virus does pose a risk of death, but we also know that in the vast majority of situations, the virus is more mild than it is lethal – especially for certain cohorts. People are well-educated enough to be able to make an informed decision as to what level of socializing they want to engage in for themselves. We should let them make that choice and start to get back to the business of doing business.
by | BLOG, COVID, ECONOMY, FREEDOM
One of the most important takeaways from this COVID affair is the clear evidence of how critically important free markets are. While the free market is developing workarounds for providing necessities and developing relevant new products, the government can’t get out of its own way in terms of what it is trying to do and is finding that an overabundance of regulations has hampered its responsiveness.
There have finally been some recent changes, such as allowing telemedicine across state lines, modifications of certificates of need, and loosening of licensing requirements; perhaps the CDC, FDA, and other agencies will realize they don’t need as much regulation in the first place and such barriers actually inhibit health and economic well-being. Temporary, but more importantly, permanent reductions in regulations would be a step in the right direction. Because what is missing right now is the robustness of the private sector – but we can see its potential.
We are witnessing the incredible ingenuity of the American people as they are finding new ways to respond to this crisis. People are out there trying to figure out how to meet toilet paper demands, create new testing mechanisms, make and provide medical equipment, ventilators, masks, and vaccines. Nearly all of this is being done without the government. It’s the 325 million people out there trying to figure out what they can do to make things better and providing for a new and different need. Services are being changed to provide a product without prolonged human interaction. Door-to-door deliveries are being established. Companies are learning how to find their own ways to adapt.
All of this, it must be noted, has virtually nothing to do with the government. Whether it’s Amazon, pharmacies, FedEx, or restaurants, people know their own industries. They’re changing for their customers and for their company. This is, quite simply, real people knowing best what they need to do instead of some faceless government bureaucrat or rule telling them what to do because someone thinks he knows better about industry operations than the movers and shakers do.
The COVID crisis is a great opportunity for growth and deregulation. This will be the strength of our economic recovery. This is the free market at its best.
by | BIDEN, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, TRUMP
Democrat Presidential Candidate Joe Biden not only wants to return capital gains to Obama-era rates, but furthermore he would increase them while simultaneously returning the top rate on ordinary income. Biden has said, “I believe we should, in fact, the capital gains tax should be at what the highest minimum tax should be; we should raise the tax back to 39.6 percent instead of 20 percent.”
Add to that the 3.8% Obamacare tax (NIIT) instituted in 2013, and he would have some taxpayers effectively paying a 43.4% long-term capital gains tax! The current total top rate is 23.8%
Biden should know better. The actual impact of raising the capital gains rate by the Obama administration was devastating to the economy. By discouraging the sale of assets, there was reduced capital available for new projects and opportunities, reducing job creation and wages, and resulting in lower revenue collection. Furthermore, the expected after tax rate of return on new projects went down, assuring that fewer of them went forward.
Additionally, there were a number of localities, like the state of California and New York City, which have tax rates of 12% or more and also a large concentration of wealthy people and high performing businesses. Obama’s capital gains rates of more than 37% brought elective capital projects to a crawl. And Biden wants to raise them even higher?
Shame on Biden. Why sell an asset to fund further investment and opportunity when the government takes a large share of the gain with the loss remaining all yours? It makes virtually no economic sense to do so. A higher capital gains rate put a stranglehold on risk-taking and available capital, and would negatively impact the economy.
by | BLOG, ELECTIONS, POLITICS
For years I have been following the candidates that have been supported by the Club for Growth, contributing to both their campaigns and to the Club. Although overall they do a decent job finding and supporting candidates , there are two areas in which they are weak.
The Club For Growth has always been an advocate of the free market, limited government, and low taxes — the same thing that the Tea Party originally intended to be. However, within this realm, there are four things that the Club For Growth does not focus on, but they need to. These are: immigration, tariffs, the Jones Act, and ethanol. So you can have a good libertarian, free market candidate, but if that person turns out to also have unfavorable stances in one or more of those areas, they weaken their position. The Club For Growth needs to expand their vetting to include these four areas in their overall approach.
Additionally, the Club For Growth needs to continue to monitor those who have taken office. While it is understandable that with somewhat limited resources, they want to use most of those resources to find new candidates, it does no one any good if the people they have recommended end up going off the rails. There has to be some sort of follow up. For instance, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, and Josh Hawley are all examples of people elected in no small part by the Club, but for which we now have serious buyers remorse. These three have taken inexcusable positions on tariffs, free markets, big government, etc. It is disappointing and unacceptable to see Club For Growth focus only on getting new people elected while neglecting to hold these and other candidates accountable for their changed positions. It would be wise for the Club For Growth to practice better vetting and consistent follow up if they want to maintain being a trusted voice in the political landscape.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM
An Open Letter to Tea Party Patriots:
Years ago, I joined the Tea Party in New York, because I sincerely believed in its simple, yet extremely powerful and direct message. The Party stood for low taxes, limited constitutional government, individual liberty, and rule of law — and nothing else. The Tea Party was not meant to be a political “Party” with positions on everything. It would only be involved in efforts that protected their core beliefs so as not to dilute their message.
Therefore, it is extremely disappointing that the Tea Party has lost its mind over issues that go against their core principles. For instance, what is this nonsense espousing substantial anti-immigration rhetoric? A large reason for such a high number of “illegal” immigrants is because the government has created arbitrary, low quotas which limit the amount of foreign-born workers allowed. How can someone espousing limited government, individual liberty, and rule of law be FOR crony capital government-imposed restrictions on businesses hiring who they want?
The current Tea Party was galvanized by the original (Boston) Tea Party and share the same disdain over high and unjust taxation. But the original “tea partiers” would be turning over in their graves by being associated with the current Tea Party’s anti immigration stance! Here we have people who work and are motivated enough to uproot and better themselves by living in another country. That is the best kind of ethic we need to continue to nourish and aspire to America, the way we always have.
For the Tea Party to be close-minded and protectionist on the issue of immigration flies in the face of the original Tea Partiers who inspired them. The Tea Party would do well to return to focusing on its core ideals if it wants to be any bit effective in the public square
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, TRUMP
I came across this article describing how the FDA is holding up a vaccine that’s being used in other countries. This the best concise explanation I have seen to describe the truth that the FDA drug oversight is a net negative to American’s health. From the article:
“In March, when the coronavirus arrived in the US in earnest, governments around the country locked down economies to prevent the spread of a virus that to date has claimed the lives of nearly 400,000 Americans. While these actions were being taken, a vaccine had already been developed. The mRNA-1273, a lipid nanoparticle–encapsulated mRNA-based vaccine, was made in a single weekend in January, two days after Chinese researchers published the coronavirus’ genetic code.
Developing the vaccine was the easy part, it turns out. Testing the vaccine and navigating it through the federal bureaucracy was the real challenge. Not until March 16, more than two months after the vaccine was developed, were the first trial participants vaccinated. And these trials were followed by more later-stage clinicals.
There was another option that would have made the vaccine available much sooner: challenge trials, a process that would have involved deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with SARS-CoV-2 to accelerate vaccine development. Reports show at least 25,000 people volunteered to do just that.
The FDA rejected this course.“
It’s definitely worth reading the analysis in its entirety. You can read the article here.
by | BLOG, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, HYPOCRISY, TRUMP
Democrat Kamala Harris is the latest Presidential candidate to peddle the myth about “pay gaps” for female workers, going so far as to make this an essential part of her platform. Harris has a plan to require larger companies with 100 or more employees to obtain an “equal pay certification” every two years in order to ensure that men and women are paid equally.
There are many reasons a pay gap to exist — but it isn’t because of one’s gender. It has been shown time and again that many women have alternative career paths by choice: different jobs, amounts of time worked, lifestyle flexibility, and risks in occupation to name a few; therefore, any difference in the pay is a result of those choices and not discrimination.
Taking these items into consideration, the pay gap myth shrinks almost entirely, likely no more than a 2% variance. This empirical analysis should not be surprising — in fact, it should be what any normal person, certainly any business person, would expect. Because the simple economic reality is that if women actually did make 23% less than men in wage costs for the same work, businesses would almost entirely hire women as a means to minimize labor costs and maximize profits. Since this does not actually happen, it is obvious that the 23% wage disparity merely a distortion perpetuated by the Left to score easy talking points.
It is also a false conclusion that a gender pay gap is damaging to women because women will likely have substantially less money saved and earned over her lifetime. Those such as Harris that push such nonsense don’t even consider that, for many women, working full time may be “damaging” to women who have alternative life goals — such as raising a family — and that amassing retirement funds might not be the ultimate end focus. Voters should reject Harris “equal pay certification” proposal as economic nonsense.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT
Missouri Senator Josh Hawley is leading the charge to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, essentially giving the government broad powers to regulate tech industry giants. This legislation undermines free speech and would be an egregious overreach of federal powers under the guise of “fairness.”
As Section 230 was construed, it’s aim “was to protect the openness of online culture while also protecting kids from online smut, and protecting the web at large from being overrun by defamatory, hateful, violent, or otherwise unwanted content.” The legal framework that was developed ensured that digital platforms are different entities from their users and are therefore not legally responsible for user content — good, bad, or otherwise. It was a way to protect First Amendment rights in an online world.
Hawley’s amendment would weaken the protections granted to social media companies by requiring them to first show regulators how they make decisions about content and then prove to those regulators that their moderation systems are neutral. Essentially, Hawley’s attempt to push back at various instances (real or imagined) of right-leaning users being treated unfairly or blocked by tech giants means that we have a Republican willing to not only institute severe regulatory behavior but also create anti-free speech monitors. Furthermore, facing possible legal repercussions from user content, companies would likely just ban or remove content others have flagged for any and all reason of being offended.
The antidote to bad speech is not good speech; it is free speech. Removing such free speech protections is an outrageous proposal, and putting the government in charge of deciding speech neutrality is even worse. Shame on Senator Hawley for attempting to regulate “fairness” and launching an assault on our First Amendment rights.
