by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
The Club for Growth recently announced it is compiling a policy series called the “Presidential White Papers” in an effort to contribute to Election 2016 discussions. Their goal is to examine what candidates have said and done on matters of economic freedom.
From their website: “From journalists to the candidates themselves, the Club’s White Papers are widely regarded as the go-to source on economic policy facts. The truth is in their record, not their rhetoric – but we’ve sifted through it all and found the facts. Whether you’re looking to get some quick facts before the debates or you want to fact-check the candidates’ statements about these policy issues, the White Papers will be your best resource.”
So far, the Club for Growth has added eight candidates to the series, including,
*Jeb Bush
*Chris Christie
*Ted Cruz
*Mike Huckabee
*Rand Paul
*Marco Rubio
*Donald Trump
*Scott Walker
According to the Club for Growth, “the papers found that there are strong pro-growth candidates in the 2016 presidential race, including Senators Ted Cruz (TX), Rand Paul (KY), and Marco Rubio (FL). Governor Scott Walker has also frequently governed Wisconsin with pro-growth policies, and Jeb Bush showed many of the same tendencies when he was governor of Florida.”
As the election season continues and more candidates provide economic policy plans, the Club For Growth will release more white papers accordingly.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
Washington Free Beacon had a sobering article about the lack of fiduciary responsibility in the Social Security Administration. A report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that for 5 years (FY2009-FY2013), disability payments totaling $371.5 million were overpaid to many individuals. “The report examined how concurrent Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) payments affect Disability Insurance (DI) overpayments.”
The most recent annual Social Security Trustees report showed that the projected date of insolvency for the Social Security Disability Insurance Trust Fund is late 2016, a date that remained unchanged from the prior year. With this crisis looming in the background, the report of overpayments is especially concerning. From the article:
“The GAO found that SSA did not detect concurrent FECA payments for about 1,040 individuals during at least one month from July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2014.
To test SSA’s internal controls, GAO randomly selected 20 beneficiaries for review. In all 20 cases, SSA’s controls failed to detect and prevent overpayments. In seven of the cases, SSA did not detect overpayments for more than a decade, and each of these individuals received $100,000 in overpaid benefits.
One of these seven individuals received FECA benefits in the 1980s and was approved for disability benefits 14 years later in 1994. The GAO found that this individual received $200,000 in overpayments for more than 20 years.
The SSA’s “internal controls” rely on beneficiaries to self-report overpayments.
“SSA officials told us that if beneficiaries do not self-report benefits, there are no system prompts that would alert SSA staff to ask beneficiaries if they are receiving any workers’ compensation benefits, including FECA payments,” states GAO. “SSA officials agreed that relying on beneficiaries to self-report benefits presents a challenge in identifying overpayments related to the concurrent receipt of FECA benefits.'”
Congress is aware of the projected date of insolvency, but has yet to agree on a path forward. What’s more, the date roughly coincides with the 2016 election, so of course no one is willing right now to make any decisions or provide any possible solutions. Without any changes, benefits will be reduced by nearly 20%. Currently the Disability Trust Fund provides more than $100 billion a year to roughly 11 million recipients, making it the largest government assistance program in the country.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
If a higher minimum wage, higher regulations, the Jones Act, and other protectionist rules are actively destroying Puerto Rico’s economy, how can those same policies not also be harming the United States? Can Puerto Rico be considered the experiment proving this?
On June 28th, Puerto Rico announced that it was unable to pay back the $72 billion in public debt that it owed, money that was borrowed repeatedly to bolster an anemic economy for the last decade. Puerto Rico’s GDP has contracted an average of 1.7% yearly since 2005. Much of that can be attributed to the repeal of the IRS Code 936 which had encouraged specific industries to headquarter on Puerto Rico. The subsequent loss of business has resulted in tepid revenue collection which has not been enough to cover the government’s social programs and bloated government payroll. You can read the Puerto Rican Debt Report here.
In order to help Puerto Rico back on a path to economic recovery, it is imperative that more systemic changes are needed. The Manhattan Institute outlined some major ideas, such as repealing the Jones Act. For a more in-depth discussion on the Jones Act in relation to Puerto Rico, check out their article. Other suggestions include “offering Puerto Rico an exemption to the federal minimum wage, loosening territorial labor laws, and reducing benefits that disincentivize work.”
These very policies have impeded the economy’s ability to grow and recover from the fiscal woes that began last decade. When minimum wage requirements are high relative to the local average, employers hire less workers. And when receiving benefits can be more generous and lucrative than working full-time, less people participate in the workforce.
These types of policies have been shown to be extremely detrimental to Puerto Rico, and yet our country continues to expand them here. We see the effects in our own sluggish recovery, yet the Obama Administration ignores it, and then deflects the blame elsewhere. Puerto Rico should be a wake-up call for the U.S., but it’ll likely be ignored too.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, TAXES
Bloomberg did a feature this week on the long-term outlook on pension funds for several major cities, and found that it is swiftly becoming a fiscal tsunami in several places. Part of this stems from severe under-funding of pension plans over many years, while the other part is accounting tricks.
As Bloomberg notes, “Moody’s, which in 2013 began using a lower rate than governments do to calculate future liabilities, has estimated that the 25 largest U.S. public pensions alone have $2 trillion less than they need.” This rate gimmick ultimately hides the true cost of retirement liabilities in municipalities. Additionally, “officials have been able to lower the size of the liability by counting on investment earnings of more than 7 percent a year, even after they expect to run out of cash. New rules from the Governmental Accounting Standards Board require a lower rate to be used after retirement plans go broke. Many reported shortfalls will grow as a result.”
Already, many U.S. cities each face billions in costs, resulting in trillions of dollars in municipal-bond market deficit. By now, many places have been downgraded — even down to junk — and thus face higher yield demands from investors.
For example:
Cincinnati and Minneapolis have already been lowered. Chicago was already downgraded to junk this past May as a result of a $20 billion pension deficit, and “was forced to pay yields of almost 8 percent on taxable bonds maturing in 2042, about twice what some homeowners can get on a 30-year mortgage.”
Houston was put on notice in early July by Moody’s that their bond rating was lowered to “negative” due to unfunded pensions costs. Houston’s revenue faces limitations from property tax caps, and thus funding the pension promises properly for three pension systems at this point has become increasingly difficult. It faces an unfunded liability of about $3.4 billion.
Likewise, in Dallas, the firefighters and police pension system deficit is poised to triple its shortfall “to $4.7 billion because of the accounting-rule shift.”
Perhaps the most egregious example is the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the biggest pension system in the United States. They reported this week that “it earned just 2.4 percent last fiscal year, one-third of the annual return it projects. The California State Teachers’ Retirement System, the second-biggest fund, gained 4.5 percent, compared with its 7.5 percent goal.” Years of over-generous promises have resulted in an enormous and unsustainable debt that ultimately taxpayer will have to foot the bill for.
When the public sector and unions signed off on lavish pension provisions for the employee, they hoped there would be enough growth and investment returns to cover it way down the road. There were no provisions made to handle the possibility of a low-interest rate society or a fledgling economy like we’ve experienced the last six years; they took their chances and their fallback was always that they could suck money from the taxpayer by raising taxes to cover budgeting shortfalls. That is reckless and irresponsible.
Years of fiscal mismanagement in the public sector has resulted in this fiscal nightmare. Because the public sector does not have the economic forces of competition to keep compensation levels in check, as the public sector does, it was always incumbent upon public negotiators to manage contracts properly. Failing to properly negotiate, making cozy deals, and maintaining unsustainable defined-benefit plans has created the soaring budget and pension deficits we are experiencing.
And its only going to get worse.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
From my friend, Michael Cannon:
It appears that Medicaid-expansion enrollees are going to cost states a lot more than they thought. According to a just-released “2014 Actuarial Report on the Financial Outlook for Medicaid” from the Department of Health and Human Services, ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion is costing significantly more than projected:
“In 2014, the average benefit costs of newly eligible adult enrollees are expected to have been substantially greater than those for non-newly eligible adult enrollees in the program. Newly eligible adults are estimated to have had average benefit costs of $5,517 in 2014, 19 percent greater than non-newly eligible adults’ average benefit costs of $4,650. These estimates are significantly different from those in previous reports, in which average benefit costs for newly eligible adults in 2014 were estimated to be 1 percent lower than those of non-newly eligible adults.”
So the Obama administration had projected newly eligible Medicaid enrollees would cost about $50 less than other Medicaid-enrolled adults, but they actually cost nearly $1,000 more. Nice.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
During oral arguments of the Burwell v Obamacare case before the Supreme Court, the U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli made the case that the “court should defer to the interpretation of the Internal Revenue Service, which said the tax credits apply nationwide.” When the Obamacare decision was announced, it is clear that SCOTUS did apply deference, which was absolutely the worst possible solution.
The idea of “deference” refers “ to “Chevron deference,” “a doctrine mostly unknown beyond the halls of the Capitol and the corridors of the Supreme Court. It refers to a 1984 decision, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and it is one of the most widely cited cases in law. Boiled down, it says that when a law is ambiguous, judges should defer to the agency designated to implement it so long as the agency’s decision is reasonable.”
Given the current catastrophic state of the IRS, SCOTUS should have run from this idea as quickly as possible. The IRS has proven overwhelmingly in the last few years that no decision it makes is “reasonable” and therefore cannot be trusted as an unbiased, independent agency capable of carrying out a professional opinion on this or virtually any manner.
Even more unfortunately, not only did SCOTUS apply deference, which allowed the IRS rule to stand, it did so by taking expanding the concept of “Chevron Deference” even further in order to validate its decision. George Will, in a column written just after the Obamacare ruling was handed down, described how the decision now allows the executive branch to apply deference in situations that are not just ambiguous, but also “inconvenient for the smooth operation of something Congress created.” This is not interpreting law — this is legislating.
Therefore, the actions of the IRS — that is, willy-nilly creating rules which expanded the scope of Obamacare beyond its text — were indeed endorsed and given political cover by Roberts and his majority as they applied Chevron Deference. Instead of sending Obamacare back to the legislature for clarification, the judicial branch decided to step in and interpret the law for the sake of alleviating “inconvenience”. But this is wrong. Convenience, ease, and expediency should never be a rationale for the judicial branch to go beyond the scope of deciding whether or not a law is constitutional, as they did here.
The judicial branch, with this decision, seemed to act more in harmony with the legislative and executive one, instead of serving as a check against the others. What’s more, “besides violating the separation of powers, this approach raises serious issues about whether litigants before the courts are receiving the process that is due to them under the Constitution. It would result if its branches behaved as partners in harness rather than as wary, balancing rivals maintaining constitutional equipoise.”
Will summed up the damage Roberts has done, which is likely to have lasting effects in the courts for years to come. Roberts goes “beyond “understanding” the plan; he adopts a legislator’s role in order to rescue the legislature’s plan from the consequences of the legislature’s dubious decisions. By blurring, to the point of erasure, constitutional boundaries, he damages all institutions, not least his court.”
How the Supreme Court uses and applies Chevron Deference in the coming years, in the way they did with this decision, will be especially interesting, given the expanded roles of many government agencies such as the EPA and FCC.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
Dear Governor Rauner,
You have an enormous task before you in trying to navigate pension reform. Through political duplicity, the state legislature in cahoots with the public service unions have fashioned for themselves retirement benefits far in excess of any reasonable amount. The Courts, appointed by the same players, have determined that it is not even legal to revisit the magnitude of these retirement benefits. It must be difficult to draw up a plan when your hands are legally tied from being able to make actual changes to the pension system in order to alleviate the $100 billion in debt. As such, I propose an alternative solution:
Since the courts refuse to allow you to negotiate with the workers for lower pension benefits, then take the negotiations to the worker’s base pay. Simply take the costs of the excessive retirement benefits for each employee and subtract it from the worker’s base pay in determining the new base pay under the new contract. The Courts may not allow a reduction in retirement benefits, but there is certainly no Constitutional provision preventing the negotiating of a lower base salary.
There is no rule that someone must be paid the same base pay amount as last year. If you are constrained from the pension end of the contract, then you ought to change their next offer and reduce their overall compensation from the base pay end, thereby restricting compensation and benefits to amounts no greater than what those skills would command and be realistically afforded in the private sector.
Overhauling the contract process from this end will provide an opportunity for fiscal reform. This will ensure that, going forward, no worker be paid more in any new contract then what can be actually afforded, without regard to what the prior contract provided. Once a current contract ends, there is nothing on the table; nothing prevents any new contract from offering less that the prior contract, especially where pay and benefits of the prior contract are out of line and hamstrung by ironclad guarantees.
The people of Illinois realized when they elected you, that decades of fiscal mismanagement needed to end in order to ensure that Illinois has a chance. Even though it may be politically difficult and unpalatable, anybody representing the taxpayers has an obligation to those taxpayers. Budget reform and deficit reduction will naturally follow once compensation levels have been stabilized and brought in line with realistic affordability. Contract negotiations must happen in order for long term sustainability to be achieved.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT
Frederic Bastiat, one of the brightest and most eloquent economists and authors France has ever produced, was born on this date in 1801. Some selections of his wisdom:
“The State is the great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.”
“[T]he bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.”
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”
“[A]t whatever point on the scientific horizon I begin my researches, I invariably reach this one conclusion: The solution to the problems of human relationships is to be found in liberty.”
If you haven’t read “The Law”, start there to get a good introduction to Frederic Bastiat. The Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEE), has a free download, as well as many other economic writings available.
Happy Birthday Bastiat!
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Daniel Mitchell, a libertarian economist and Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute, offered an overall positive review of Rand Paul’s tax plan that was released today. He had three minor quibbles and one major concern with the proposal. It his his evaluation of Paul’s 14.5% business activity tax that is the interesting point for discussion — Mitchell asserts is a Value-Added Tax (VAT) for all intents and purposes.
Paul’s argues that he “would also apply this uniform 14.5% business-activity tax on all companies…. This tax would be levied on revenues minus allowable expenses, such as the purchase of parts, computers and office equipment. All capital purchases would be immediately expensed, ending complicated depreciation schedules.”
As Mitchell points out, the high corporate tax rate (35%) would be reduced down to 14.5% which is obviously a great thing. His bone of contention is the “business-activity tax doesn’t allow a deduction for wages and salaries” and therefore, “he is turning the corporate income tax into a value-added tax (VAT).” In theory, he argues, a VAT would not be a terrible thing because “is a consumption-based tax which does far less damage to the economy, on a per-dollar-collected basis, than the corporate income tax.”
However, the VAT’s place in other economies have proven to be, as Mitchell suggests, “a money machine for big government”, and therefore Mitchell cautions against its implementation in the United States.
Mitchell contends,
“The VAT helped finance the giant expansion of the welfare state in Europe. And the VAT is now being used to enable ever-bigger government in Japan. Heck, even the IMF has provided evidence (albeit inadvertently) that the VAT is a money machine. All of which helps to explain why it would be a big mistake to give politicians this new source of revenue.
Indeed, this is why I was critical of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan four years ago. It’s why I’ve been leery of Congressman Ryan’s otherwise very admirable Roadmap plan. And it’s one of the reasons why I feared Mitt Romney’s policies would have facilitated a larger burden of government.
These politicians may have had their hearts in the right place and wanted to use the VAT to finance pro-growth tax reforms. But I can’t stop worrying about what happens when politicians with bad motives get control. Particularly when there are safer ways of achieving the same objectives.”
Mitchell gives an alternative suggestion for reforming the corporate part of the tax code. He calls for “an incremental reform”, consisting of the following:
–Lower the corporate tax rate
–Replace depreciation with expensing
–Replace worldwide taxation with territorial taxation
His suggestion is that if there is enough support within Congress to potentially reform the corporate income tax (and replace it with a VAT), there should also be support for an alternative reform done incrementally, which would be far better in the long run than introducing a VAT for good.
So are Mitchell’s concerns about Paul’s “business activity tax” valid? Is it essentially a VAT? Pretty much. The VAT gets added to products along the way in the process of production and distribution, and is ultimately passed on to the consumer in the form of the final price.
One could certainly argue that the VAT is not a positive solution for reasons such as the fact that European economies which have the VAT are also in shambles. Also, though many of the VATs started out small, most VATs average nearly 20%. That would likely happen here too — while we still continue to collect an income tax. What’s more, it also tends to disproportionately affect small businesses because they often can’t pass along the cost increases associated with the VAT, and compliance will be burdensome and expensive.
Overall, though, Mitchell was pleased with Rand Paul’s plan, which is to be expected from a fellow libertarian economist. His points about the business activity tax are fair, but Paul’s roadmap is overall a decent one. As more contenders for 2016 release their tax plans, we’ll evaluate them here. Thoughts?
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
Rand Paul blew up the pages of the Wall Street Journal this evening with his Op-Ed he released a few hours ago on his plan to reform the tax code. The formal announcement comes tomorrow, but his tax plan is what he calls “The Fair and Flat Tax”.
The basic tenets call for a 14.5% tax for both individuals and businesses, elimination of the payroll tax, gift tax, and estate tax, and more. He’ll keep mortgage and charitable deductions, as well as the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the first $50,000 of income of a family of four will not be taxed.
Rand Paul boosts working with Stephen Moore and Arthur Laffer and says his plan will jump start the economy. The only thing he didn’t really delve into was how much federal income his plan would bring.
You can read the entire proposal below, but I’ll give Rand Paul credit for talking about our byzantine, convoluted tax code and making it a focal point of his campaign. Let me know what you think in the comments below. Here it is:
Some of my fellow Republican candidates for the presidency have proposed plans to fix the tax system. These proposals are a step in the right direction, but the tax code has grown so corrupt, complicated, intrusive and antigrowth that I’ve concluded the system isn’t fixable.
So on Thursday I am announcing an over $2 trillion tax cut that would repeal the entire IRS tax code—more than 70,000 pages—and replace it with a low, broad-based tax of 14.5% on individuals and businesses. I would eliminate nearly every special-interest loophole. The plan also eliminates the payroll tax on workers and several federal taxes outright, including gift and estate taxes, telephone taxes, and all duties and tariffs. I call this “The Fair and Flat Tax.”
President Obama talks about “middle-class economics,” but his redistribution policies have led to rising income inequality and negative income gains for families. Here’s what I propose for the middle class: The Fair and Flat Tax eliminates payroll taxes, which are seized by the IRS from a worker’s paychecks before a family ever sees the money. This will boost the incentive for employers to hire more workers, and raise after-tax income by at least 15% over 10 years.
Here’s why we have to start over with the tax code. From 2001 until 2010, there were at least 4,430 changes to tax laws—an average of one “fix” a day—always promising more fairness, more simplicity or more growth stimulants. And every year the Internal Revenue Code grows absurdly more incomprehensible, as if it were designed as a jobs program for accountants, IRS agents and tax attorneys.
Polls show that “fairness” is a top goal for Americans in our tax system. I envision a traditionally All-American solution: Everyone plays by the same rules. This means no one of privilege, wealth or with an arsenal of lobbyists can game the system to pay a lower rate than working Americans.
Most important, a smart tax system must turbocharge the economy and pull America out of the slow-growth rut of the past decade. We are already at least $2 trillion behind where we should be with a normal recovery; the growth gap widens every month. Even Mr. Obama’s economic advisers tell him that the U.S. corporate tax code, which has the highest rates in the world (35%), is an economic drag. When an iconic American company like Burger King wants to renounce its citizenship for Canada because that country’s tax rates are so much lower, there’s a fundamental problem.
Another increasingly obvious danger of our current tax code is the empowerment of a rogue agency, the IRS, to examine the most private financial and lifestyle information of every American citizen. We now know that the IRS, through political hacks like former IRS official Lois Lerner, routinely abused its auditing power to build an enemies list and harass anyone who might be adversarial to President Obama’s policies. A convoluted tax code enables these corrupt tactics.
My tax plan would blow up the tax code and start over. In consultation with some of the top tax experts in the country, including the Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore, former presidential candidate Steve Forbes and Reagan economist Arthur Laffer, I devised a 21st-century tax code that would establish a 14.5% flat-rate tax applied equally to all personal income, including wages, salaries, dividends, capital gains, rents and interest. All deductions except for a mortgage and charities would be eliminated. The first $50,000 of income for a family of four would not be taxed. For low-income working families, the plan would retain the earned-income tax credit.
I would also apply this uniform 14.5% business-activity tax on all companies—down from as high as nearly 40% for small businesses and 35% for corporations. This tax would be levied on revenues minus allowable expenses, such as the purchase of parts, computers and office equipment. All capital purchases would be immediately expensed, ending complicated depreciation schedules.
The immediate question everyone asks is: Won’t this 14.5% tax plan blow a massive hole in the budget deficit? As a senator, I have proposed balanced budgets and I pledge to balance the budget as president.
Here’s why this plan would balance the budget: We asked the experts at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation to estimate what this plan would mean for jobs, and whether we are raising enough money to fund the government. The analysis is positive news: The plan is an economic steroid injection. Because the Fair and Flat Tax rewards work, saving, investment and small business creation, the Tax Foundation estimates that in 10 years it will increase gross domestic product by about 10%, and create at least 1.4 million new jobs.
And because the best way to balance the budget and pay down government debt is to put Americans back to work, my plan would actually reduce the national debt by trillions of dollars over time when combined with my package of spending cuts.
The left will argue that the plan is a tax cut for the wealthy. But most of the loopholes in the tax code were designed by the rich and politically connected. Though the rich will pay a lower rate along with everyone else, they won’t have special provisions to avoid paying lower than 14.5%.
The challenge to this plan will be to overcome special-interest groups in Washington who will muster all of their political muscle to save corporate welfare. That’s what happened to my friend Steve Forbes when he ran for president in 1996 on the idea of the flat tax. Though the flat tax was surprisingly popular with voters for its simplicity and its capacity to boost the economy, crony capitalists and lobbyists exploded his noble crusade.
Today, the American people see the rot in the system that is degrading our economy day after day and want it to end. That is exactly what the Fair and Flat Tax will do through a plan that’s the boldest restoration of fairness to American taxpayers in over a century.
