by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, POLITICS, TAXES
It’s kind of funny that the AP is reporting a story that has not been “news” for years to tax professionals. The state of Illinois is running out of taxpayer money, as its obligations exceed its revenue intake. This is what happens when a state has been mismanaged for decades by incompetent Democrats: From CHICAGO (AP):
The Illinois official responsible for paying the state’s bills is warning that new court orders mean her office must pay out more each month than Illinois receives in revenue.
Comptroller Susana Mendoza must prioritize what gets paid as Illinois nears its third year without a state budget.
A mix of state law, court orders and pressure from credit rating agencies requires some items be paid first. Those include debt and pension payments, state worker paychecks and some school funding.
Mendoza says a recent court order regarding money owed for Medicaid bills means mandated payments will eat up 100 percent of Illinois’ monthly revenue.
There would be no money left for so-called “discretionary” spending – a category that in Illinois includes school buses, domestic violence shelters and some ambulance services.
Is Illinois going to be the first state to become truly insolvent? Is Illinois going to file for bankruptcy? The situation is critical enough that we need keep an eye on it in the coming weeks and months.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FED
In an interesting move this week and true to the Fed plan to raise rates three times this year, Fed Chair Janet Yellen raised interest rates .25%. It’s worth it to note that at the same time, the Feds downgraded the forecast for inflation:
The central bank now believes inflation will fall well short of its 2 percent target this year. The post-meeting statement said inflation “has declined recently” even as household spending has “picked up in recent months,” the latter an upgrade from the May statement that said spending had “rose only modestly.” The statement also noted that inflation in the next 12 months “is expected to remain somewhat below 2 percent in the near term” but to stabilize.
At the same time, the Feds up the forecast for GDP growth slightly to 2.2%, up from a 2.1% forecast. They also anticipated a drop in unemployment as well, from 4.5% to 4.3%.
The Fed vote to go up a quarter-percent was not unanimous, however. “Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari on Friday said he voted against an interest-rate hike this week because he wasn’t convinced the recent spate of soft inflation readings was due to one-off factors…We should have waited to see if the recent drop in inflation is transitory to ensure that we are fulling our inflation mandate” to get inflation back to 2%, Kashkari said. Kashari was the only dissenting vote out of nine.
Earlier this year, the Federal Reserve tentatively planned three rate hikes in 2017 and three rate hikes in 2018. So far, they’ve completed two, and seem to want to stay on that track. Time will tell if this rate hike and pathway are good for the economy.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, TAXES
I always look forward to CNSNews each month when they do a roundup of the prior month’s spending and revenue. Their numbers come directly from the Monthly Treasury Statement released by mid-month for the previous month. Because they’ve been doing it for so long, they are able to often do comparison for previous months and years, which provide nice little tidbits of info.
The big takeaway from this month is, despite record revenue, the Trump administration still ran a deficit due to excessive spending. Their summary is reposted below in its entirety:
“The U.S. Treasury hauled in $240,418,000,000 in total taxes in the month of May, setting a record for inflation-adjusted tax revenues for that month of the year, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released this week.
Despite these record revenues, however, the federal government still ran a deficit of $88,426,000,000 in May—because it spent $328,844,000,000 in the month.
In the first eight months of fiscal 2017 (October through May), the federal government hauled in $2,169,160,000,000 in total taxes and spent $2,602,013,000,000—thus, running a deficit of $432,853,000,000. Fiscal 2017 will end on Sept. 30, 2017.
Prior to this year, fiscal 2006 held the record for most federal taxes collected in the month of May. That year, the Treasury collected $232,837,160,000 (in constant 2017 dollars) during May.
The third largest tax haul the federal government ever achieved in the month of May was last year (fiscal 2016), when the Treasury collected $228,814,030,000 (in constant 2017 dollars.)
While the $240,418,000,000 that the Treasury collected this May set a record for federal tax revenues in the month May, federal tax collections in the first eight months of fiscal 2017 (October through May) did not set a record.
That distinction is still held by fiscal 2016—the last full fiscal year of President Barack Obama’s tenure.
In October through May of fiscal 2016, the Treasury collected $2,179,362,400,000 in total tax revenues (in constant 2017 dollars). That was $10,202,400,000 more than the $2,169,160,000,000 that the Treasury collected in October through May of this fiscal year.
(Tax revenues were adjusted to constant 2017 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.)
The $240,418,000,000 in taxes the federal government collected in the month of May 2017 equaled approximately $1,572 for each of the 152,923,000 people the Bureau of Labor Statistics said had a job in the United States during the month.
The $88,246,000,000 deficit the Treasury ran during May equaled approximately $577 for each of the 152,923,000 people with a job.”
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES
We’ve written about the collapse of many Obamacare markets as well as the removal of several insurers from the Obamacare system across multiple states and exchanges. Earlier this year Aetna Inc. and Wellmark Inc. announced that they would not participate in Iowa for 2018 due to unsustainable costs; only the insurer Medica would be available in the state.
In response, Bloomberg reports that “Iowa is asking the Trump administration to let it reallocate millions of dollars and create a stopgap program that would provide health insurance options for 72,000 Iowans covered by the Affordable Care Act.
Under the proposal made public on Monday, the state would use $352 million in federal money to provide backup funding for insurers and overhaul Obamacare’s subsidies for consumers next year. The state would also create a single standardized plan that insurers would offer.”
Iowa’s proposal has three main pieces:
- It would create a standard plan, pegged to Obamacare’s mid-level silver offering. Insurers and consumers who want the extra help would need to buy that plan.
- The state would use about $220 million of funding to provide the new subsidies.
- And the state would create a reinsurance program, funded with an estimated $80 million, to help insurers deal with high-cost claims.
The program needs to be approved by the Trump administration and would be known as a “Stopgap” measure while the future of Obamacare gets played out in Congress. Nonetheless, the current form of Obamacare is financially unstable; expect to see more of these types of proposals in the coming months.
by | BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, OBAMA, POLITICS
The idea of “disparate impact” holds that a defendant can be held liable for racism and discrimination for a race-neutral policy that statistically disadvantages a specific minority group even if that negative “impact” was neither foreseen nor intended. This tactic was increasingly used in recent years during the Obama Administration, most often by Loretta Lynch, Obama’s Attorney General, and Thomas Perez, his Secretary of Labor.
It follows then that minimum wage laws are racist and discriminatory. There’s no question that the effect these policies have on minorities are unfavorable. The citizens who are going to lose their jobs or will be unable to get jobs as a result of raising the cost of wages are disproportionately larger populations of minorities. If you can impute and infer racial bias because of an adverse impact and then use it to determine the legality of a law, it is unequivocally clear that minimum wage laws should be deemed unconstitutional.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, POLITICS
23% of Puerto Ricans voted today for a statehood referendum, and 97% of them cast a vote in favor of it. 1.5% percent voted for independence from the United States, according to Decision Desk HQ, while 1.3% voted to keep the current status of a territory of the United States.
The catalyst for this vote for statehood — the first one since 2012 — was the declaration of a form of bankruptcy in early May. Many did not vote because the vote actually did nothing. Congress would still have to formally agree to statehood, which is highly unlikely due to its crippling debt.
Last month, Puerto Rico sought financial relief in federal court, “the first time in history that an American state or territory had taken the extraordinary measure. The action sent Puerto Rico, whose approximately $123 billion in debt and pension obligations far exceeds the $18 billion bankruptcy filed by Detroit in 2013, to uncharted ground.”
I have written numerous times on Puerto Rico in the past due to business there over the years. My take has always been about reduction; reducing the size and scope of government is a major key part of getting Puerto Rico back on track.
Puerto Rico’s debt crisis is the result of years of government mismanagement. Dozens of agencies and publicly owned corporations have run deficits year after year, making up the difference by borrowing from bond markets, though there was a brief respite during the year of Governor Fortuño. Puerto Ricans must have to first experience tough reforms and cutbacks help Puerto Rico thrive once again.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE
From the LATimes:
A proposal to adopt a single-payer healthcare system for California took an initial step forward Thursday when the state Senate approved a bare-bones bill that lacks a method for paying the $400-billion cost of the plan.
The proposal was made by legislators led by Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) at the same time President Trump and Republican members of Congress are working to repeal and replace the federal Affordable Care Act.
The bill, which now goes to the state Assembly for consideration, will have to be further developed, Lara conceded, adding he hopes to reach a consensus on a way to pay for it.
Republican senators opposed the bill as a threat to the state’s finances.
“We don’t have the money to pay for it,” Sen. Tom Berryhill (R-Modesto) said. “If we cut every single program and expense from the state budget and redirected that money to this bill, SB 562, we wouldn’t even cover half of the $400-billion price tag.” (emphasis added)
Lara’s bill would provide a Medicare-for-all-type system that he believed would guarantee health coverage for all Californians without the out-of-pocket costs. Under a single-payer plan, the government replaces private insurance companies, paying doctors and hospitals for healthcare.
The California Nurses Assn., which sponsored the bill, released a fiscal analysis this week that proposed raising the state sales and business receipts taxes by 2.3% to raise $106 billion of the annual cost, with the rest proposed to come from state and federal funding already going to Medicare and Medicaid services.
Even if the bill is approved, it has to go to Gov. Jerry Brown, who has been skeptical, and then voters would have to exempt it from spending limits and budget formulas in the state Constitution. In addition, the state would have to get federal approval to repurpose existing funds for Medicare and Medicaid.”
The state of California is already facing severe financial difficulties. To try to actually implement something like this, at so staggering a cost, would be reckless for the taxpayers of California. Hopefully, commonsense will prevail.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
President Donald Trump told the American public that he wants to keep Obamacare, at least to the extent of the provisions that protect individuals with pre-existing conditions and allow 26 years olds to stay on their parent’s plan.
This is, in fact, a ridiculous comment. Most people (myself included) believe that a competent Health Plan would contain these provisions. And they will. But they will be part of a new plan which will be entirely rewritten. No part of Obamacare should be retained. It needs to be repealed in total.
The new replacement for Obamacare can (and should) have provisions for people with pre-existing conditions to get insurance and even keeping 26 year olds on the plan (possibly), but not in the way the law is currently written. Free market pricing will keep overall costs down, and with respect to individuals whose premiums become unaffordable (due to pre-existing conditions, low income, etc) there could be risk-pools and/or subsidies to deal with the issues. The Obamacare method of forced overpayments and intrusively detailed regulation with perverse incentives on every component of health care, has failed. That’s why we’ve been seeing an exodus of insurers; they simply cannot sustain their fiscal health they way the current system is.
Only by replacing the law with one that focuses on free-market solutions can we make progress in fixing our health system to actually help our citizens and in a fiscally sound way.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, OBAMACARE, TAXES
Last year, Aetna announced it would cease providing insurance in 11 states. Then in April, Aetna said that it would leave Virginia and Iowa, leaving just a few states with Aetna coverage. Now, Aetna has announced that it will leave Obamacare altogether, citing cost as the major factor.
According to Bloomberg, “Aetna had indicated it might pull out earlier this month, when Chief Financial Officer Shawn Guertin said the company would take steps to limit its financial losses in the program. Aetna has said it expects to lose more than $200 million on individual health plans this year in the four states where it’s still selling Affordable Care Act plans.”
As has been the case with other insurers like Humana, who have left the healthcare system, Aetna has been derailed by the dysfunction of Obamacare: the amount of Obamacare enrollees has been far fewer than originally projected (off by nearly 50%!) and those who have signed up have been more ill than expected.
The recent enrollment period was abysmal. “A total of 9.2 million Americans signed up for plans sold on HealthCare.gov, which serves 39 states, by the close of open enrollment. That’s about 400,000 people fewer than had signed up last year.”
It’s clear that Obamacare has been a catastrophic financial failure, so it’s no wonder that insurers have continued to flee the system. It’s damage to the economy over the last few years has been brutal and yet Obamacare stalwarts continue to blame everyone else except themselves and a poorly written, poorly executed law. How to fix the irrevocable damage remains to be seen.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM
In this morning’s Washington Post, George Will penned a column proclaiming, “[G]ood news: You are as rich as John D. Rockefeller. Richer, actually.” Will drew inspiration for his column from my good friend Don Boudreaux, who is an economist at economist at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center and creator of one of my favorite blogs, Cafe Hayek.
“Boudreaux asks if you would accept this bargain: You can be as rich as Rockefeller was in 1916 if you consent to live in 1916.”
At various times on Cafe Hayek, Boudreaux explores the grandeur of being a billionaire 100 years ago along with the living conditions of the time and finds a stark contrast. As Will concurs, “Having bestowed the presidency on a candidate who described their country as a “hellhole” besieged by multitudes trying to get into it, Americans need an antidote for social hypochondria. So, thank Boudreaux for making you think about this: How large would your net worth have to be to get you to swap the life you are living in “hellhole” America for what that money could buy in 1916?”
Will’s article is worth reading in its entirety, and Boudreaux’s blog is invaluable for any serious student of economics.
