The Left’s Iron Curtain

…is getting a bit taller. I wrote earlier about the Democratic-Progressive Party’s wish to erect an Iron Curtain to keep American companies from leaving for more economically (read: tax) sound environments. Now, Democratic-Progressive Party Presidential candidate and proud Progressive Hillary Clinton is enlarging her Iron curtain. Clinton now is proposing this:

Companies that move jobs and production out of the US would lose previous years’ tax breaks under a proposal Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton released Friday during a speech in Detroit.

The US would seek to “claw back” previous tax incentives for research and development and for domestic manufacturing associated with facilities or jobs that move abroad.

On top of that,

The Clinton campaign didn’t have an estimate of how much money its tax plan would generate for the government.

Of course not. The purpose isn’t to recover monies foregone as incentives to do this or that, it’s strictly to imprison private enterprises within the US, Soviet-style—because private enterprises aren’t jobs factories, rather they are, according to this candidate, jobs welfare programs.

Remember this in the fall.

Trump’s Plan for Replacing Obamacare

Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump finally has made public his plan for eliminating and replacing Obamacare. His plan consists of the following seven points:

  1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
  2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
  3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
  4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
  5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
  6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
  7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

The first point seems confusing. Repealing Obamacare would include elimination of the Individual Mandate. However, would simply repealing the IM satisfy this candidate on this point? The rest of Obamacare is damaging enough separately from the IM.

The second point seems internally inconsistent. A plan that complies with one state’s requirements won’t necessarily comply with another state’s requirements, and so that plan could not be sold in both states. This failure, though, does not prevent a vendor from offering insurance in any state; there are a plethora of vendors—UnitedHealth, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Aetna, for instance—already sell health coverage plans in any state; they just don’t sell the same plan across state lines.

Regarding his sixth point, I’d add the requirement that those block grants be reduced by 10% of the first year’s grant (which would be taken as the baseline grant for a given state) every year until the grants reach zero. Simply block granting is a good start, though.

On the whole, the plan is based on free market principles, as Trump claims on his Web site. Subject to clarifying the two points of confusion, this outline looks like a good start to a candidate debate on competing health care reform plans. Marco Rubio has a somewhat less specific, but generally market-oriented plan, and John Kasich has one that’s centered on the health care and health cost coverage providers. The three plans should be explored in detail in the coming debates. The outcome then would form the core of a useful Congressional debate in the coming term about how to reform and salvage the health provision and health cost coverage industries that have been so heavily damaged by the Democratic Party and its Obamacare.

Can’t Have That

The European Commission, the bloc’s antitrust watchdog, in January ordered Belgium to recoup about €700 million ($765 million) from some 35 companies after concluding that a Belgian tax-discount plan for multinationals was distorting competition within the EU’s single market.

Distorting, sure. Because competition existed in a manner that didn’t suit the Know Betters who are the Commission. The “scheme” in question, alleged to be an excess profits scheme, was marketed by Belgium as Only in Belgium. This was another terrible affront to the Commission, which doesn’t like market differentiation that it hasn’t approved. Worse, it

allowed certain corporations to reduce their tax base by between 50% and 90%, the EU said.

Because leaving money in the hands of those who earned it means Know Betters can’t control the money’s disposition according to their own august whims.

Competition is bad. It puts customers—individuals—rather than Know Betters in charge of their affairs.

The PRC’s Currency

The PRC’s Premier Li Keqiang and its People’s Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan had some words about this at last weekend’s G-20 conference.

China emerged from the weekend Group of 20 meeting with a new measure of trust from major trading partners that it won’t significantly devalue the yuan.

Zhou was quite explicit.

There is no basis for persistent [yuan] depreciation from the perspective of economic fundamentals[.]

What this means, too, is that from within its centrally managed economy, the government is defining “economic fundamentals,” and so the government also has no intention of allowing the currency to float; it’ll continue to manage that value for government purposes in every respect.

A Dangerous Precedent

I’m hardly a Russian apologist; I’d as soon see the place cleared off and the land restored to the forest and steppe of an earlier era.

However.

Russia is setting up to issue $3 billion in bonds, and they’ve invited a number of European, PRC, and American banks to bid on the issue—a standard government bond issue process, except that these are Russian bonds. Aside from that, the bonds are highly risky, but like many high-risk plays, the payoff can be lucrative. The decision to run a risk of this sort ordinarily is a business decision, made in a free market by the business’ managers and owners.

However.

State and Treasury have

warned some top US banks not to bid on a potentially lucrative but politically risky Russian bond deal, saying it would undermine international sanctions on Moscow, people familiar with the matter said.

Our banks’ participation in the deal is entirely legal with those international sanctions in place. But State and Treasury don’t like them.

This isn’t a President using his bully pulpit to persuade Americans to do this, don’t do that, or support this other, though.

State in particular

warned of “reputational” risks of returning “to business as usual with Russia.”

This is an agency of the Federal government making sotto voce threats against an industry to force it to support a government policy that’s carefully not encoded in law or regulation.

The market, with its understanding of Russia, is fully capable of dealing “reputational” repercussions all by itself in a free economy.

Never mind that State and Treasury each have explicitly declined to set sanctions against Russian banking or the Russian government as a whole, or that either could, if such sanctions were useful. Never mind that Congress could legislate in that direction, if such a thing were useful.

That’s the dangerous precedent. Nice bank you got there. Be too bad if something happened….