Monthly Archives: July 2013

Federal Climate Plan and Crony Capitalism

Posted on by
Reply

George Russell, writing for Fox News, had this on the efficacy of President Barack Obama’s national plan to fight “climate change:”

a separate, groundbreaking study by the National Research Council has warned that those kinds of subsidies are virtually useless at quelling greenhouse gases .

The study, which looks at the subsidies and other incentives embedded in U.S. federal tax law after the past several years of climate change initiatives, concludes that they  have done little or nothing so far to cut U.S. contributions to global carbon emissions, and are unlikely to do much more before 2035, the project’s research horizon.

And

[T]he study declared that “their combined impact is less than 1% of total US emissions” over the next 25 years, and they are a lousy bargain to boot:  “Very little if any GHG reductions are achieved at substantial cost with these provisions.”

[T]he study concluded “current tax expenditures and subsidies are a poor tool for reducing greenhouse gases and achieving climate-change objectives.”   They “achieve small reductions in GHG emissions and are costly per unit of emissions reduction.”

The full cost was something the study was unable to make entirely clear.  It estimated that the federal government had spent some $48 billion in just the past two years on “tax expenditures”—meaning subsidies, credits, and other incentives—related to the energy sector, and also noted that few were specifically enacted to reduce greenhouse gases.

Obama’s plan also ignores the erroneous nature of its assumptions about what is a significant GHG.  It includes all of their assumed GHGs, for instance including atmospheric CO2….

Worse, for the short term,

[T]he probe underlined how little is yet known about the relationship between government tax-and-spend activity and actual climate change results, especially as government spending gets embedded in a growing thicket of regulations and initiatives created to solve different parts of the greenhouse gas puzzle, but all touted to achieve the same ends.

And

[T]he plan also calls for $7.9 billion in additional funding for advanced clean energy technology, a hike of about 30%.  This includes investment in a range of energy technologies, from advanced biofuels to nuclear mini-reactors.

Never mind that this is a waste of money.  If the technology can’t compete in the free market without subsidies, it’s not commercially viable.  And so does not warrant subsidization—assuming government subsidies are ever appropriate.

The ludicrosity goes on, but you get the idea.

It’s hard to believe that Obama and his colleagues in the Executive Branch and allies in the Legislative Branch didn’t know this stuff a priori; earlier studies, for instance, have debunked the very concept of serious human impact on evolving climate.  But he, and they, do know full well the pecuniary benefit of this plan for the plan’s recipients.

The study itself can be found here.

A Thought on Global Tax Reform

Posted on by
Reply

UK Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne said he hoped the G-20 countries would commit to the [OECD plan to close international tax law loopholes].

And

The plan aims to plug the gaps created by a complex web of bilateral tax treaties that has expanded since the 1920s, and which now allows for “aggressive” tax planning, where companies adopt legal structures designed to shift their profits to the lowest-tax jurisdictions, regardless of where those profits are earned.

“These gaps have facilitated tax planning by globalized players.  The goal of the action plan is to close down the avenues that we have left open,” said Pascal Saint-Amans, director of the OECD’s Center for Tax Policy and Administration.

And

The UK Parliament’s public-affairs committee has held a number of heated public hearings over the past six months examining whether large companies are paying enough tax.

Never mind that of course business executives engage in careful “tax planning”—they have a fiduciary duty to their bosses, the business owners, to minimize costs and maximize profits.

Nor is there any consideration of whether the G-20 nations (other than, say, Ireland) are charging too much in the way of taxes, cynically without justifying governments’ claimed need for OPM.

And this from Ángel Gurria, OECD Secretary-General.

Although of course we do not expect [businesses] to very happily go there and deposit their more substantive check, I think they will understand that this is a way to keep the systems running better and the trains running on time.

Shades of Alexander Hamilton:

There are some who maintain that trade will regulate itself and is not to be benefitted by the encouragements or restraints of government.  Such persons imagine that there is no need of a common directing power.  This is one of those wild speculative paradoxes among us, contrary to the uniform practice and sense of the most enlightened nations.

As Adam Smith and the empirical evidence of the US’ experience until the early 20th century have shown, Hamilton was wrong then, and Gurria is wrong today.

Here’s a thought: standardize on low/no corporate tax rates.  It’s not government’s money, anyway; the money is the property of the companies and the people who own them.

An Implication

Posted on by
Reply

One of the aspects of the Detroit bankruptcy is this:

…shrinking…[Detroit]’s work force to the point where employee contributions can’t keep pace with the needs of current pension recipients.  The city has just 9,700 workers but 21,000 retirees drawing benefits.

That has meant larger and larger payments by the city to keep the funds solvent.

This is the future of Social Security and Medicare, absent privatization of each and serious immigration reform (which the Senate bill is not).  The outcome nationally, since we don’t get to declare bankruptcy (we can only welch on our debts by repudiating them or by repaying with debased money), is higher taxes and more debt.  And national failure.

Economic Performance

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s Benn Casselman noted the stagnant condition of our economy.

Note that the graph indicates lowering expectations for our GDP’s performance for the second quarter (just completed): last month, the expectation was for a miserly 1.9% growth; economists’ July forecast is for an even more miserable 1.5% growth.  We’ll know in a few days, when the first official government guess is published.

Casselman also wrote that

There also are signs that consumers—whose spending has helped prop up the economy for much of the past year—are beginning to tighten their belts.  Retail sales grew a paltry 0.4% in June, Commerce Department figures showed, and would have been even worse if higher gasoline prices hadn’t forced drivers to spend more at the pump.

Read that carefully: even this limited consumer spending growth was more about paying higher prices (good for the immediate seller) than it was about buying more stuff (good for actual economic growth).

Things aren’t expected to get any better soon, but, then, neither are this administration’s policies.

Some prognosticators are more optimistic, though, noting for instance that a rebounding housing market remains present.  But I have to ask, against the backdrop of this failed recovery and stagnating economy: a “rebounding housing market” means lots of new mortgages as families buy these expensive assets.  How stable, really, is the families’ income; how certain is their ability to continue paying their mortgages were the present economy, so close to a tipping point into a new recession, actually to tip over?

Detroit and the Nation

Posted on by
Reply

In Detroit’s bankruptcy filing, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (R) included a letter outlining his reasons for his approval of the filing.  Here are some of them [emphasis added].

  • The City’s unemployment rate has nearly tripled since 2000 and is more than double the national average.
  • Its citizens wait an average of 58 minutes for the police to respond to their calls, compared to a national average of 11 minutes.
  • The City’s police cars, fire trucks, and ambulances are so old that breakdowns make it impossible to keep up the fleet or properly carry out their roles.
  • The City has more than $18 billion in accrued obligations.
  • Detroit tax rates are at their current legal limits, and that even if the City was legally able to raise taxes, its residents cannot afford to pay additional taxes. Detroit simply cannot raise enough revenue to meet its current obligations….
  • The City’s population has declined 63% from its peak, including a 28% decline since 2000.
  • A decreasing tax base has made meeting obligations to creditors impossible.

Horribly high expenditures against a tax system that’s already very expensive for the citizens has driven Detroit into the ground and forced restructuring through bankruptcy.

What are the implications for the nation as a whole?

On the one hand, bankruptcy—legal bankruptcy—is not an option for the US.  Nations have no bankruptcy system available to them; all a bankrupt nation can do is to repudiate its debts or debase its currency, repaying with devalued (dollars)—to repudiate its debts through subterfuge.

Here lies the United States: we have horribly high expenditures (see Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid transfer payments, Social Security, Federal public service union pensions, Stimulus spending, etc) against a tax system that is hammering the paying population into the ground while, by design, excluding half the tax base from tax obligations.   This combines to create on the national level massive annual deficits, exploding national debt, and increasing costs to borrow (presently low, Bernanke’s artificially suppressed interest rates will not be able to stop the market’s assessments of our national creditworthiness).

Detroit is the future of the United States under our current policies.  In that light, notice the loss of population as Detroiters fled the disaster—28% of its people just since 2000.  As our national disaster unfolds—unless we move to terminate our Federal government’s destructive policies and put aside our own disdain for work and responsibility—where will Americans go?