Tag Archives: economics

A US Appellate Court Thinks Americans Are Grindingly Stupid

Posted on by
Reply

Kellogg’s makes Cheez-Its, a cheesy, corny confection that’s attractive to lots of folks, especially at boring parties.  Some versions of this snack are marketed as “Whole Grain” or “Made With Whole Grain,” and the text on the packaging makes plain that this means 5 to 8 grams of whole grain for each 29-gram serving along with the primary ingredient being “enriched flour.”

This is too confusing for three women to bear, so they sued.  One of the women went so far as to claim she was injured by all of this, yet, were the packaging only changed, she would continue to purchase the products in the future (where are the feminists over this feigned stupidity?).  There started out some sanity in this idiocy:

A federal judge dismissed the case in 2017, ruling that the “Whole Grains” wording was factually correct. In toto, the label “would neither mislead nor deceive a reasonable consumer.”

Amazingly, the 2nd Circuit reversed.

Additional verbiage on the front and side of the package is no defense, the court said.

The 2nd Circuit thinks Americans are just too stupid for words.  Or it finds entirely reasonable that Americans are too mind-numbingly lazy to read a simple label.

Tax Cuts Don’t Have Long-Term Benefits

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the claim of ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Jason Furman in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.  It’s an accurate claim, too, when tax cuts are taken in isolation, as Furman took them throughout his piece.  That loneliness was emphasized by his closing remarks.

Going forward, policy makers should aim for a reformed tax system that is more stable, economically efficient, simple, and directly supportive of the middle class. Do this right, and the results could be higher economic growth and higher wages without the higher deficits. That’s a combination that’s proved elusive to date.

“Tax system,” not “tax and spend system.”  Leave it to an Obama staffer to miss the boat on this. The major reform remaining is to make the existing individual income tax cuts permanent (much less, lower)—an action the Progressive-Democrats in Congress will actively block. The necessary dual to tax cuts, though, is completely inconceivable to folks like Furman and his Progressive-Democrat cronies: cutting spending to fit within the lowered tax revenues.   After all, it’s those associated spending cuts in combination with the tax cuts, that produce the mid- and long-term benefits.

It’s true enough that feckless members of the Republican caucuses contribute to this failure, but their failure centers on how and where to make the cuts; they don’t have a mental block against even thinking about them.

France is Taxing

Posted on by
Reply

The Macron administration utterly failed in its cynical effort to raise its taxes on the French working class and poor with its “climate” tax on transportation fuels, so now it’s going to go after American tech companies with carefully targeted taxes.  And that administration is desperate to get going, and it’s going to do it unilaterally.

In early December, Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire said France would give the EU until March to come up with a deal on taxing US internet giants. But ten days later he announced the tax would be introduced on January 1.

Wait, what?

France said at the start of December it would start taxing Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon, the big US technology companies known as GAFA, if European Union finance ministers failed to agree on a bloc-wide digital tax next year.

And here’s the game, as confessed by Le Maire.

The digital giants are the ones who have the money.

So he intends to rip off uniquely tax our American companies for the heinous crime of outcompeting his precious French companies and then of being better tax managers than his precious French government.

Our companies need to think very carefully about the value they get from doing business in France compared with the French government’s imposition of wholly artificial costs for the privilege of doing business there.

Another Schumer Shutdown?

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) told NBC News‘ Meet the Press that there would be no money for a border wall “in any form.”  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) has been saying much the same thing the last couple of weeks, but she doesn’t have the votes to block the money, and she doesn’t have the votes to become Speaker next month if she doesn’t say no this month.

But Schumer: this is the same Senator who a couple of administrations ago voted enthusiastically to fund a border wall.  This is the same Senator who earlier in this administration enthusiastically supported a DACA fix the took care of 1.8 million illegal aliens vice the 800 thousand Schumer wanted to handle and that also had $25 billion for a border wall—and then welched on the deal.  This is the same Senator who agreed earlier this year to $1.6 billion for a border wall but now says no money.

It’s clear that Senator Chuck Schumer is so desperate to oppose President Donald Trump that he’s willing to have open borders and a free flow of illegal aliens rather than see to the security of our borders—or the safety of aliens who want to and try to enter our nation legally.

Trump said he’d proudly take the blame for any government shutdown over the matter, but the responsibility plainly will be that of the automatic obstructionist.  After all, Democrats…aren’t eager to help the Republican president fulfill his signature campaign pledge in 2016….

Go figure.

Taxing Speech

Posted on by
Reply

California has decided to kill two birds with one stone.  The State thinks it needs more money, so it’s going to raise a new tax.  The State is anxious to…manage…speech of which it disapproves, so it has chosen its target for its new tax.

California state regulators have been working on a plan to charge mobile phone users a text messaging fee intended to fund programs that make phone service accessible to the low-income residents, reports said Tuesday.

Here’s Jim Wunderman, Bay Area Council President, on the plot, though:

It’s a dumb idea. This is how conversations take place in this day and age, and it’s almost like saying there should be a tax on the conversations we have.

Wunderman understated the problem.  It’s not just a dumb idea, it works out to a naked attack by Government on its citizens’—its employers’—speech.

In the event, when the FCC decided to designate texting to be  an “information service,” and not a telecommunications service, the State decided to withdraw its proposal to tax it.  The State rationalized it decision by claiming “text messaging was not a classified service under federal law.”

However.

The FCC’s designation is a quibble that’s meaningless in this context. Taxing speech directly is the beginning of an effort to manage permissible speech by artificially driving up the cost of it.  The medium used for making speech–a “telecommunications service,” for instance–is just as critical to the freedom of speech as are the utterances themselves. Taxing the service is an opening toward managing speech indirectly by artificially driving up the cost of using a medium for speaking.

Beyond that, the State’s excuse that text messaging hadn’t yet been designated is disingenuous. Not every activity in which an American citizen engages needs Government designation in order to be engaged.  Only those activities to be explicitly proscribed or managed need designation.  That’s at the core of our founding principles of limited government that works for us and of individual liberty and individual responsibility.

As a result, questions arise concerning this Progressive-Democrat- run State’s move to use taxes to manage speech.

What other forms of speech will California try to tax?

Whose forms of speech will California try to tax?

What can we expect regarding speech–and any other individual liberty and responsibility–can we expect a Progressive-Democrat national government to attempt?  Especially in their universe of “you didn’t build that,” and “we’re a collectivist society in which it takes a village to most anything?”