Category Archives: political economy

Romney’s Tax Plan and Obama’s Tax Plan

Posted on by
Reply

It’s interesting, at this juncture just after the third debate—on foreign policy—to look at the proposals the two Presidential candidates have for personal taxes and personal tax reform (yes, yesterday’s debate and tax policy have little to do with each other, but never mind about that).

The Wall Street Journal provided a description of Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney’s proposal.  Against a backdrop of an across the board rate cut of 20% (along with a reduction in the top business tax rate from the current 35% to 25%), Romney is proposing a cap on the total value of the deductions and credits an individual or family might take.

During the first Presidential debate, Romney proposed

What are the various ways we could bring down deductions, for instance?  One way, for instance, would be to have a single number.  Make up a number—$25,000, $50,000.  Anybody can have deductions up to that amount.  And then that number disappears for high-income people.

He repeated the concept in early October, suggesting a $17,000 cap with higher income people perhaps having a lower cap.

In the second debate, Romney again put forward his concept.

I’ll pick a number—$25,000 of deductions and credits, and you can decide which ones to use.  Your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit, and so forth, you can use those as part of filling that bucket, if you will, of deductions.

Of course Progressives and the NLMSM want yet more specificity, and Romney declines to provide it.  In the first place, it doesn’t get much more specific than a cap—no particular deductions or credits are on the table for elimination, so there’s nothing about which to be specific there.  In the second place, Romney acknowledges that there are, also, other

ways to reduce deductions that in any case would have to be negotiated with Congress.

This is quite a different approach to Obama’s concept of negotiation.

Why a cap, rather than eliminating outright several of these market distorting deductions and/or credits?  Each taxpayer would pick and choose the deductions and credits that are of value to him in his particular circumstance, in a particular year.  Thus, these deductions and credits would compete with each other for inclusion.  What a concept: competition and individual choice.  And we’d be accumulating empirical data about which deductions and credits really do have value for us taxpayers.  But those are anathema to Progressives, whose raison d’être would disappear the moment their dependents don’t need them anymore.

Moreover, this competition, coupled with the generally lower tax rates, would reduce the degree of market distortion that each deduction causes.

The cap also preserves, for now, the degree of progressivity in our tax code that in itself is market distorting, yet is politically necessary to get any reform be passed in today’s DC environment.  See the table below.

Notice how, under the current system, the average total of deductions and credits rises with income.  The Progressives’ evil rich would bear the brunt of the effect a deduction cap.  And middle income Americans wouldn’t feel the cap at all.

Set in apposition to Romney’s proposal is Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s tax plan.  We’ve seen his idea at the link above: raise taxes on those Americans whom he despises.  And for what purpose?  Not to pay down our national debt or even to reduce the Federal budget deficit.  No, Obama intends to use his tax increase to transfer funds to his favored Americans—union, and so-called green energy, cronies who will then fund his political power.  And he’ll use the monies to fund the rapidly increasing spending for which he called in the last two budget proposals he sent to Congress.

Hmm….

Econ 101

Posted on by
Reply

Milton Friedman had some thoughts on basic economics.

The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.

There is all the difference in the world…between two kinds of assistance through government that seem superficially similar: first, 90 percent of us agreeing to impose taxes on ourselves in order to help the bottom 10 percent, and second, 80 percent voting to impose taxes on the top 10 percent to help the bottom 10 percent….  The first may be wise or unwise, an effective or ineffective way to help the disadvantaged—but it is consistent with belief in both equality of opportunity and liberty.  The second seeks equality of outcome and is entirely antithetical to liberty.

Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else’s resources as carefully as he uses his own.  So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property.

And [emphasis added]

The economic miracle that has been the United States was not produced by socialized enterprises, by government-union-industry cartels or by centralized economic planning.  It was produced by private enterprises in a profit-and-loss system.  And losses were at least as important in weeding out failures, as profits in fostering successes.  Let government succor failures, and we shall be headed for stagnation and decline.

Stated Differently™, bailing out losing firms assures us of mediocre economic growth.  Winston Churchill also had a thought on this matter.

When losses are made, under the present system these losses are borne by the individuals who sustained them and took the risk and judged things wrongly, whereas under State management all losses are quartered upon the taxpayers and the community as a whole.  The elimination of the profit motive and of self-interest as a practical guide in the myriad transactions of daily life will restrict, paralyze and destroy British ingenuity, thrift, contrivance and good housekeeping at every stage in our life and production, and will reduce all our industries from a profit-making to a loss-making process.

 

™Judge Andrew Napolitano

 

h/t Power Line

Extortion

Posted on by
1

Fox News is reporting that the

White House confirmed Thursday that President Obama is prepared to veto legislation that would skirt the so-called “fiscal cliff”—a battery of tax hikes and spending cuts—unless Republicans consent to raise taxes on top earners.

Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama plainly willing to see our economy collapse into another recession every bit as deep as the one from which we’ve not yet recovered solely for the sake of the ego of his getting his way on tax increases.  Obama demands to raise taxes on the 2% of the wealthiest of Americans while leaving taxes alone for the remaining 98% of us.  That’s his number, 2%.  Even though his tax increases will impact far more Americans than that (like anyone with income over $250k—small businesses, for instance, which pass through their incomes to the mom and pop owners/partners for tax payment), let’s take his number for argument’s sake.  What Obama is saying is that he’ll cheerfully blow up our economic future because he can only get 98% of what he claims to want: unchanged taxes for the 98% of the rest of us.

This makes crystalline what Obama really wants: those taxes on that group of Americans which he despises so much.  Obama doesn’t care a whit about the middle class or the poor, whom he could help by calling off his self-imposed gridlock.  He’s only concerned about the rush he’ll get from getting his way and getting over on that unacceptable group of citizens.

But this failure goes far beyond petty ego or the damage done to our economic future; it hits at our ability to protect ourselves from our enemies.  By vetoing any bill that doesn’t have his precious tax increases, even though it would walk us back from the fiscal cliff (just a bit over two months off), he’ll also be vetoing any bill that would end the sequester of an additional nearly half-trillion dollars from our military capacity beyond the already built-in nearly half-trillion dollar cut in spending for defense.  This is having, today, a negative effect on defense-related jobs.  Worse, the veto will put our military’s welfare, training, equipage, and capacity in serious jeopardy.

Here is extortion the Chicago way.  Nice economy you got there….

Our Computers, Our National Security

Posted on by
Reply

First it was Russia and the People’s Republic of China.  Now it’s…Iran?  How far behind are we falling in cyberspace, the core of a modern society?  Now we’re hearing from The Wall Street Journal that Iran has been conducting an active cyberwar against us for some months.  (Notice that: we didn’t hear about this war voluntarily from our government, but from a newspaper which had to tease it out of our government.)

Iranian hackers with government ties have mounted cyberattacks against American targets in recent months, escalating a low-grade cyberwar[.]

The Iranian effort culminated in a series of recent attacks against US banks as well as electronic assaults this year on energy companies in the Persian Gulf.  The attacks bore “signatures” that allowed US investigators to trace them to the Iranian government, [US government] officials said.

Here are some of the battles waged in this war since the start of the year:

  • January 2012: Potent but smaller-scale denial-of-service attacks against US banks
  • July 2012: Cyberattack at Saudi Arabian Oil Co. unleashes a virus called ‘Shamoon,’ destroying data on 30,000 computers
  • August 2012: Cyberattack at Rasgas, a Qatari natural gas company, disabled websites and email system
  • September 2012: A group called “Qassam Cyber Fighters” announced plans for cyberattacks on US banks.  Powerful denial of service strikes hit Bank of America Corp, JP Morgan Chase & Co., US Bancorp, PNC Financial Services Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co
  • October 2012: The Qassam Cyber Fighters issued announcements, followed by cyber strikes, involving other US banks, slowing or interrupting consumer websites

A “senior defense official” said,

They have been going after everyone—financial services, Wall Street.  Is there a cyberwar going on?  It depends on how you define “war.”

How very Clintonesque of him.

My own speculation is that these relatively small attacks are just probes, both to test us and to test Iran’s developing cybersystems.

How well prepared are we to defeat a serious, concerted cyberattack, and how well prepared are we to go over to the offense and crush our attacker?  Apparently not very well.  Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said this:

An aggressor nation or extremist group could gain control of critical switches and derail passenger trains, or trains loaded with lethal chemicals.
They could contaminate the water supply in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country.
The most destructive scenarios involve cyber actors launching several attacks on our critical infrastructure at once, in combination with a physical attack on our country.  Attackers could also seek to disable or degrade critical military systems and communications networks.
The collective result of these kinds of attacks could be “cyber Pearl Harbor:” an attack that would cause physical destruction and loss of life, paralyze and shock the nation[.]

Panetta says the US is putting in place systems to defeat such cyberattacks, but I have to ask: how does that work in the face of Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s trillion dollar cuts to our defense establishment from the combination of his spending cuts for Defense and his sequestration of further Defense funds scheduled for the turn of the year?

Lies of the Democrats, Part 2

Posted on by
Reply

This is Part 2 of my series on the lies told by Democrats during the present administration’s term in office.  As I said earlier, I’m not concerned with his broken campaign promises so much as I am with the dishonesty while in office.

In this post, I’ll mention a few more economic lies.

The Democrats insist that their “Stimulus” spending and their diversion of part of the TARP funding “saved the American automobile manufacturing industry,” the latter itself of questionable legality, given the legislated purpose of the TARP funding.

This is nonsense.  In fact, only two car companies were at risk out of the seven major car companies that comprised, and still comprise, the American automobile manufacturing industry.  Those seven?  In no particular order, they are Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Toyota, Nissan, GM, and Chrysler.  But wait, you say, Ford, GM, and Chrysler are the only American car manufacturers; the other four are foreign—and two of those three were threatened with bankruptcy.  How is saving those two not saving the American automobile manufacturing industry?

The fact is, none of those seven car manufacturers manufacture anything in the US, including the American three.  All seven of those companies do have major plant complexes in the US whose function is to produce cars for sale in the US.  That production, though, is limited to final assembly.  Every plant, for every car manufacturer, imports all of their cars’ parts—chassis, body panels, engines, batteries, even tires and wheels—from other countries: Mexico, Taiwan, the People’s Republic of China, India, wherever the costs of parts production is lowest.  Thus, every automobile manufacturer in that American industry is on an even footing with every other auto manufacturer: they all do final assembly (and only final assembly), of imported parts, in the US, for sale to American customers.  Those seven, not only the American three, are the American automobile manufacturing industry.

Now, of those two car companies that were saved, what was the nature of the rescue?  Normal bankruptcy procedures were bypassed, and the Obama administration forced senior creditors to the back of the line—the funds went first to the auto manufacturing unions (vis., the United Auto Workers and the Canadian Auto Workers Unions), while those senior creditors wound up getting nothing.  This stood bankruptcy law and order of precedence for creditors on their collective head.

And the bailout of the two American car companies went so well that one of them—Chrysler—is now an Italian car company.