by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Obama’s budget for FY2016 claimed $1.8 trillion in deficit savings over a ten year period, 2016-2025. He used PAYGO (pay-as-you-go) rules to determine this figure, which basically means paring tax increases and spending reductions on one side to pay for new spending programs and tax credits on the other side, with anything left over going to the deficit.
However, his numbers for overall deficit reduction appear to be overstated, according to an analysis by the Committee For a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), by “using a baseline which effectively ignores the costs of extending or repealing certain policies and assuming a large increase in spending in the future to claim savings from extending spending limits after 2021.”
The Chicago Sun-Times did a decent summary of the CRFB report. Essentially, Obama makes a series of assumptions about future budget items to achieve his number for deficit reduction ($1.8 trillion), so that it comes close to the amount of tax hikes in the budget ($2 trillion), making it somewhat politically palatable — at least for his side. Here are the major points:
“MANDATORY AUTOMATIC CUTS
In the budget table summarizing the $1.8 trillion in deficit cuts, there’s a line that adds back funds to replace the automatic, across-the-board cuts to a variety of mandatory programs, including a 2 percentage point cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients.
That’s a major assumption on Obama’s part about the fate of the automatic cuts, part of the deal he struck with Congress in August 2011.
Cost: $185 billion over 10 years.
MEDICARE FEES
There’s a proposal to permanently fix a flawed Medicare formula that threatens doctors with an even bigger 21 percent fee cut. Lawmakers typically “patch” the formula for a year or two but hope for a long-term solution this year.
Cost: $108 billion.
REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS
A set of refundable tax credits — tax refunds that go out to low-income people who don’t owe federal income tax — expire in 2017. So does a maximum $2,500 tax credit for the cost of college. Obama’s budget simply assumes they get extended.
Cost: $166 billion.
INFLATED SPENDING BASELINE
This one’s tricky and requires background. Under budget rules, official scorekeepers at the Congressional Budget Office are supposed to set an arbitrary baseline for annual agency budgets passed by Congress each year that rises each year with inflation at a relatively generous pace.
The 2011 Budget Control Act slashed this spending increase by $900 billion by setting spending “caps” well below this baseline. Well, the caps are lifted after 2021, but Obama’s 10-year budget covers four more years. The White House assumes the baseline would jump to inflated levels that pretend the 2011 law never happened. Then it claims huge savings when cutting them back in 2022-25 to more realistic levels.
Questionable savings: about $310 billion.
DEBT SERVICE
Additional debt would have to be issued to cover the above policies, and interest costs on that debt are considerable. Cost: about $105 billion
GRAND TOTAL: $874 BILLION
In summary, Obama’s budget claims $1.809 trillion in deficit savings. Take away $874 billion accruing from accounting tricks and there’s about $935 billion left.”
There you have it. $935 billion is vastly different than $1.8 trillion — essentially saving only half of what Obama claims. For those who want to get into the nitty-gritty, you can read the full CRFB analysis here.
The government is always playing around with numbers and accounting tricks. Here are past examples of fuzzy math for Social Security gimmicks, Obamacare deficit scoring, and boosting Obamacare enrollment numbers. So this latest one is anything but surprising.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Since we’ve been discussing it recently.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Ben Casselman penned a piece a year ago in the Wall Street Journal, which documented the decline of risk-taking in business ventures. Hard data showed that both the number of new companies and the use of venture capital is waning. He rightfully suggested that this downward trend is a major contributor to the fact that the recovery from the recent recession is so painfully slow and anemic.
Casselman went on to explain that economists aren’t entirely sure what is behind the decline and gave some potential causes: health care costs, licensing requirements, an aging population, and an increase in large corporations are among some of the suggestions. While these factors do contribute, Casselman missed the glaring elephant in the room: the government, and her anti-business policies, do more to stifle free business activity than any other than any other single mitigating circumstance. Looking at the article a year later, the situation has continued to decline. Here’s how.
This administration has been exceedingly heavy-handed in its efforts to demonize businesses, while promising that businesses will be highly taxed and regulated. Whether it is labor regulation by the NRLB or environmental regulation by the EPA, government interference has been overreaching and restrictive.
Additionally, there have been huge increases in both criminal rules and regulations about what businesses are allowed and not allowed to do — from nitpicky labor rules, to dictating employee minutiae, to minimum wage requirements, all which restrict business hiring — and even employee firing. The EEOC has joined in with several lawsuits against private businesses, deemed by one judge as “laughable”, “based on unreliable data”, and “rife with analytical error”.
More unfortunately, Obama has provided the background for a litigation-friendly environment. If a larger, more financially stable company wants to steal something from a smaller company, they can sue them or just threaten with a costly legal battle. Or, if labor doesn’t like them, they can force them to shut them down as an alternative to litigation. What’s worse, Obama’s Labor Secretary, Thomas Perez, particularly favors the use of “disparate impact” theory with business labor disputes, because, as NRO noted, it “sets a very low bar for proving discrimination. Under it, prosecutors need not prove intent, merely that minorities have suffered a disparate impact from some action”. This man very nearly became the next Attorney General nominee.
More recently, the Obama Administration has decided to wage war on business inversions, by declaring companies who wish to move their headquarters abroad to be “unpatriotic”, and “tax dodgers”. Instead of fixing the root problem — which is that the United States is the only major nation to tax American companies on foreign profits as well as domestic — he instead suddenly tightens the rules for companies and calls the perfectly legal process of inversion to be a “loophole”. Couple that with the fact that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and its no wonder that the United States recently ranked 32 out of 34 countries in the new “International Tax Competitiveness Index”.
Of course, there will be some successes. It just now takes a higher level of skill, ideas, and money to exercise your entrepreneurial spirit. It’s not like there won’t be the Jeffrey Bezos or the Bill Gates or the Steve Jobs. They’ll still come through everything despite the immense impediments. The problem is that it is the middle entrepreneurs who are having a hard time getting started, and even when they do, they will likely get discouraged in the mess. Yet it is precisely this middle group, the bread-and-butter of small businesses, that have made this country great. That future is threatened, as we are seeing now in subtle shifts within the realm of business making.
The future of this country will continue to decline if the anti-business sentiment that Obama has unleashed is allowed to continue. The middle entrepreneurs, the mom-and-pops, the family businesses are the ones that make up the difference between the very tepid growth that we are seeing and the strong growth and recovery that could be better if businesses actually had better opportunity.
Businesses go into business not to comply with government dictates, but to provide a product, a service, to make things. The very liberty for Americans to have the opportunity to succeed and fail, to take risk, to survive, and to thrive is under siege.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
President Obama just told the country during his State of the Union address that he is going to increase the capital gains rate again in order to raise revenue for new spending programs. Given that Obama already knows that raising the capital gains rate actually REDUCES revenue, we are left with a President who believes that we can pay for increased spending by reducing revenue. He acknowledged this in 2008 during a televised debate against Hillary Clinton, but went on to state that rates should be hiked – despite its effect of reducing revenue – because it was more “fair” taxation (ludicrous, but a subject for another day).
Extraordinarily and equally disappointing about this fundamental economic error is that no one in the major press outlets, on the day after the State of the Union speech, pointed out the President’s gaffe. Do we really have a President who pushes for paying for increased spending projects with policies that reduce revenue? Or do we have a President who puts forth an initiative that he knows has very little chance of realization, but chooses to do so anyway so he can characterize the Republicans as protecting the wealthy while he can claim to protect the middle class? And did he believe that the press was so clueless that they would not laugh at him the following day?
Capital gains are unusual in that the taxpayer has the ultimate decision as to whether and when to sell his asset (stock, his business, a work of art, etc.) The higher the tax rate, the LESS likely he is to sell, seeing as he will only be able to enjoy or reinvest what is left of the proceeds AFTER TAX. History has borne this out – capital gains tax collections go down in the periods after increases, and go up in the years after decreases.
The actual impact of raising the capital gains rate is also devastating to the economy. By discouraging the sale of assets, there is reduced capital available for new projects and opportunities, reducing job creation and wages, and resulting in lower revenue collection.
Furthermore, with higher capital gain rates, the expected after tax rate of return on new projects will go down, assuring that fewer of them will go forward.
Additionally, there are 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. Couple that with the proposed increase to the federal capital gains rate and you could see total capital gains rates of more than 44%, A capital gains rate this high would virtually bring elective capital to a standstill. This would amount to a rate more than twice the rate during the Bush Administration (15%) – when growth and the economy were very strong..
Raising the capital gains rate will put a stranglehold on risk taking and available capital. 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, and the result means an already anemic economy will continue to struggle.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Back in 2008 when Obama was debating Hillary Clinton on national TV, Obama discussed with the moderator how raising the capital gains rate would likely reduce federal revenue collections, but he insisted it was good policy anyway — because it was a policy of “fairness”.
Why would raising the capital gains tax be a revenue loss? The effect of higher taxes slows the economy because those paying the higher capital gains have less money to invest. Unfortunately, such a policy was implemented in 2013 when capital gains went from 15-20% and was coupled with the new 3.8% surtax on investment income to pay for Obamacare, making the rate 23.8%.
Now he wants to tax, yet again, the very type of taxpayers who have money to create jobs and/or invest, by raising the capital gains rate up to 28%. This is essentially about an 18% tax hike on high income earners — two years after the last capital gains rate increase. That’s practically doubling the rate in just a few short years. And during this time, the economy has remained sluggish.
It’s a shame that Obama continues to push for policies that would have a negative effect on jobs and the economy in an effort to promote “fairness through taxation” and pay for his pet projects (such as free community college!). The concept of an American President continuing to go after people making a lot of money it is particularly loathsome; it also displays an absolute lack of familiarity with and respect for how people get wealthy — he just wants their hard-earned money.
Back in 2008 during that same debate, Obama claimed, “What I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools. And you can’t do that for free.”
But with Obama, you can do it by wealth transfer.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The question of raising the minimum wage keeps getting pushed at the federal level, as well as across many states. If we are to educate the populace on the pitfalls of arbitrary “minimum wage” hikes, we must be sure to argue the inherent flaws of suggestion that minimum wage hikes help some people and therefore are good for everyone.
This was illustrated recently on an episode of CNBC’s “On the Money” with Becky Quick. On one side was Dan Mitchell of CATO, who has done admirable work on fiscal policy and economics over there for many years. Opposite him was Jared Bernstein, a former Chief Economist and Economic Adviser to Vice President Joseph Biden. Mitchell’s appearance on the show, however, was a bit of a disappointment on the issue of minimum wage.
There were two major points he seemed to miss. The first was in regard to the effect of a minimum wage hike on workers. Mitchell pointed out, correctly, that 500,000 people would lose their jobs, to which his opponent, Jared Bernstein, countered that 24 million people would gain more money (“get out of poverty” per the CBO), and therefore, quantitatively, people would benefit in a 50-1 ratio. But that is wrong!
Those 24 million, though they may benefit from a raise, will really one see a few cents more an hour. Those that lose their jobs, will lose not only $7.50 an hour in comparison, but also the opportunity to learn working skills and actually have a job from which they can advance in the workforce. Even if Bernstein’s figures were perfectly accurate – which they were not – having 24 million people earn a few more cents per hour versus the entire loss of jobs and livelihood do not make raising the minimum wage worthwhile.
But that point is secondary. The primary issue – and the one that Mitchell (as well as all of us who understand the economics of minimum wage) seem to be unable counter to the Jared Bernsteins of the world – relates to the economic cost of a minimum wage. He needed to explain to Mr. Bernstein that the apparent extra money going to those getting the higher minimum wage is, in fact, detrimental to the economy as a whole, and therefore ultimately to even those people it was intended to help.
Economics 1a would explain (looking for “what is unseen” ) that the extra money going to those benefiting must be coming from somewhere (though providing no extra result). It is coming from either a) lower wages paid to other employees, b) lower profits to the business, which lowers rate of return directly reducing new investments in that business and reducing the likelihood that new businesses will be started, or c) higher prices to the consumer, which (Economics 1a again) shows will reduce total sales volume, and therefore GDP as a whole..
Though Mitchell did successfully argue the merits of how minimum wages certainly shouldn’t be a federal law, but rather a state consideration, he missed entirely the ability to counter the false argument concerning the minimum wage altogether. If we don’t oppose and expose the core flaws, we will certainly continue to lose in the public square on the issue of minimum wage.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Everyone knows that Greece is so far in debt that it is actually impossible for them to ever repay it all. France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and most of the rest of the EU is not much better. Even worse than Greece is Japan’s debt; at over 200% of GDP — and growing — it seems hopeless, despite some reputable economists thoughts that since a large portion of the debt is owed by one branch of their government to another, it is somehow not all that bad.
The U.S. debt is now $18 trillion and still growing at a rate higher than it ever was before Obama took office (Obama and Democrat protestations being wrong). We recently issued $1 trillion in new debt just to pay off old debt, despite bringing in record revenues. And when unfunded promises to pay for Social Security and Medicare benefits are factored into our liabilities, this debt becomes more than $100 trillion – an amount that has no more likelihood of being paid than Greece’s debt.
Yet all of these countries are fighting over the same issue. Every country knows that its debt was honorably borrowed, and needs to be repaid. One would think that, like an individual or family that incurred too much debt, government spending needs to be reduced to below the level of income, with the excess going to pay down debt. A program to stabilize must present itself as fiscally sustainable so businesses, citizens, and creditors can have renewed confidence.
But the Keynesian mentality – which would argue that such austerity measures would contract the size of the economy, thereby making it even more difficult to pay down debt – is unfortunately winning the day.
I do not believe that many honorable and intelligent people actually believe in this Keynesianism. It is just so much easier politically to tell your constituents that government handouts don’t need to be cut — because in doing so, you risk losing reelection. And populist leaders have a great time casting their (responsible) opponents as scrooges, taking advantage of the lesser educated and poorer individuals who will ultimately be hurt most by these irresponsible, spendthrift policies.
Why do I believe that the Keynesian theory is wrong? Not because of some sophisticated economic theory, but rather some simple history and logic, in no particular order:
1) Government spending wholeheartedly crowds out private spending, substituting inefficient political and crony-based spending for free-market, give-the-public-what-they want spending.
2) After World War II, government spending (military, etc.) dried up overnight. But a free-market, non-coercive environment at the time, allowed private investment to flourish and more than make up for the decline in government spending.
3) The outrageous level of U.S. spending in the last six years has resulted in the poorest recovery since the New Deal; FDR’s meddling only prolonged America’s anemic recovery. But the current sluggish economy should not be surprising either, since Obama’s policies are taken directly from FDR – raising taxes, bad mouthing as well as over-regulating businesses, giving organized labor excessive power, instituting policies that discourage people from working, and hurting international trade.
4) There is no evidence, in the last 50 years, that Keynesian theory worked in the real world. On the contrary, one need not look too far to Northern Europe vs Southern Europe — Latvia compared to Greece — to see the results of strict austerity measures vs fiscal tepidness, and each government’s current level of sustainability. Keynes fails wholeheartedly.
The bottom line is, if you borrow money, you have to pay it back. Just because you irresponsibly spent the money does not give you an out. Just because you can think of reasons to delay repayment, doesn’t mean that you should. Just because you are a government doesn’t mean you are exempt from your fiduciary responsibilities. Historically, the only countries to get their debt under control have been those that have cut spending.
Get spending under control and start paying down the national debt!
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, TAXES
The Wall Street Journal unveiled the existence of a new investment plan that was created without Congressional approval. To be fair, we first heard about it during last years State of the Union address in January, 2014; Obama announced that he would instruct the Treasury to craft a new retirement plan, which the WSJ noted “was puzzling because such plans are normally created by law, not Presidential order”
Sure enough, Obama kept his word. It’s called “myRA”, and it is a retirement plan that invests solely in government debt. Here’s more:
“A form of Roth Individual Retirement Account that allows people to save after-tax dollars and watch them grow tax-free until retirement, the new myRA offers a single investment option. It’s a private version of the G Fund that is available to federal workers and has lately been delivering annual returns of about 2% on its portfolio of Treasury securities.
Intended for those who haven’t started saving for retirement, don’t have a retirement plan at work, and make less than $129,000 per year ($191,000 for married couples filing jointly), the myRA requires no minimum investment to open an account and promises no fees for investors.”
There are no other investments except in Treasury bonds. No stocks, no corporate bonds. Just Treasury bonds. And the Treasury department is funding the program.
The WSJ confirmed that the Treasury Department didn’t actually receive any authority to start his program. Instead, it is using the budget from the “Bureau of the Fiscal Service” to do so. “The assertion here is that existing law allows this part of the Treasury to hire financial agents as part of its mission to efficiently finance the federal government.” In order to manage the new program, the Treasury hired a group called Comerica and its partner, “Fidelity National Information Services”.
The WSJ raises some good questions pertaining to the existence of the program, its purpose, and its funding:
“[F]ar from delivering efficiencies for the taxpayer, this program is designed to subsidize the investors. Not that a low-yielding Treasury securities fund is the right move for these first-time investors. But this is a deal they cannot find in the marketplace because it would be unprofitable for any company to offer it, given that the investor pays no fees and can contribute as little as he wishes in regular payroll deductions. Taxpayers are covering the costs, though their elected representatives in Congress never voted to create the program. So far Treasury also hasn’t told us the fees it is paying Comerica.
The subsidies in myRAs are likely to be small at first, but the history of government programs is that they expand over time. And if such a subsidy scheme can be enacted administratively, does anyone think this will be the last time such power is exercised?
New investors should be encouraged to consider ways to build wealth beyond simply lending money to the feds. And if politicians want taxpayers to support another retirement program, they should do so through law, not White House whim.”
You can read more about myRA by going to the Treasury page. myRA is touted as “a simple, safe and affordable retirement account created by the United States Department of the Treasury for the millions of Americans who face barriers to saving for retirement.”
All this program seems to do is create another fund that is guaranteed by taxpayers, whose accounts invest in a government program — the Treasury Bond — essentially acting like a prop. How much it will cost the taxpayers remains to be seen.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The practice of asset forfeiture by the IRS has been highlighted in recent months due to a high-profile case involving a woman who had roughly $33,000 of her money seized by the IRS. The IRS claimed her “pattern” of depositing the money she earned from her restaurant — typically cash and often in sums under $10,000 — was suspicious enough to warrant the plundering of her account.
Several weeks after the public outcry about this woman’s plight, the IRS dropped the case and agreed to return her funds. But here’s the problem. It’s not enough to just give the money back. The IRS needs, at the very least, to pay civil damages. They took assets from a woman who committed no crime, who wasn’t even charged with any crime.
More importantly, the IRS needs to investigate how this case even came about. There was no preponderance of evidence that any crime occurred. There was virtually nothing. The case occurred because an IRS representative watched her accounts over a period of time, and decided – with no basis, investigation, or even inquiry with the taxpayer – that her method of deposits (for which she had a perfectly valid reason in connection with her perfectly legal, decades-owned business) violated a law typically meant to catch money launderers and drug dealers. That is reprehensible.
A few days after the article came out about the case, the IRS issued a policy change over the practice. The IRS stated, “the agency will no longer pursue asset forfeiture in cases in which the source of the funds is legal except in exceptional circumstances and only with the approval of the director of field operations.” This means nothing and changes nothing — because someone higher up on the IRS food chain can still sign off on cases, or when someone within the IRS deems it “an exceptional circumstance”. It’s not good enough.
If the IRS is sincere about regaining the public trust, it needs to clean house, starting with the agents involved in this and other similar forfeiture cases.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Peter Shumlin, a Democrat governor from one of the most liberal states, made a jaw-dropping admission when he released his much-awaited plan for a single payer health system in Vermont. Shumlin’s proposal called for massive tax increases to pay for the system, which Shumlin himself called “detrimental to Vermonters”. Shumlin stated,
“These are simply not tax rates that I can responsibly support or urge the Legislature to pass. In my judgment, the potential economic disruption and risks would be too great to small businesses, working families and the state’s economy.”
Support for this proposal was tepid at best. His plan, which he eventually submitted after missing two financing deadlines, called for “businesses to take on a double-digit payroll tax, while individuals would face up to a 9.5 percent premium assessment.” Shumlin also stated that federal funding for the transition into such a health system was now expected to be $150 million less than originally planned, a huge amount of money at stake for such a tiny state.
Perhaps feeling the heat from the extremely narrow election in November (which he actually hasn’t officially won yet), Shumlin basically denounced his own proposal as soon as it was released. What’s more, Obamacare is particularly odious in his state right now as well, as Vermont shelled out some $400,000 in taxpayer funds to Jonathan Gruber, for health care “consulting”.
Shumlin is finally learning that, with socialism, you eventually run out of other people’s money.
