Tag Archives: economics

Nonsense

Posted on by
Reply

Germany wants to be excused from American sanctions against Russia, sanctions that were imposed over Russia’s misbehaviors.  The misbehaviors include meddling in our elections, and Russia’s continued efforts to meddle in our upcoming elections.

Germany does a lot of business with Russia. Trade between the two countries rose to €54.5 billion ($67.4 billion) last year from €45 billion in 2016, despite increasingly stringent sanctions, and German companies have invested more than €20 billion in Russia in recent years.

This is nonsense.  And Germany plainly has been sidestepping existing sanctions right along.  The desire to be excused stems more from Germany’s choosing to be hostage to Russian oil and natural gas supplies than anything else.  Germany’s voluntary hostage status is accelerating through its support for a natural gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea that would run directly from Russia to Germany.

No, the sanctions are intended to hold Russia to account for its misbehaviors, to punish Russia for them.  No punishment occurs if exceptions are given out over this or that excuse or for any reason at all.  Sanctions may well be inconvenient for some entities other than the target, and that’s unfortunate.  Nevertheless, Germany needs to shape up and stop masquerading itself as victim.

Two Birds

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve often argued against government spending on matters unrelated to the Constitutionally mandated payment of government debt, providing for the national defense, and seeing to the general Welfare (as defined by the clauses of Article I, Section 8).  I’ve also argued for privatizing the major social welfare programs of Social Security and Medicare.

Now Oklahoma illustrates the failure to limit the one and do the other at the State level, with Medicaid standing in for Medicare.

Following the nationwide trend, Medicaid has taken a growing toll on Oklahoma’s budget. In 2017 the health-care program that is supposedly for the poor consumed nearly 25% of the state’s general fund, up from 14% in 2008, as nearly 200,000 more people enrolled. Lawmakers are left with less money for everything else, not least education.

Which also means crowding out spending on voucher and charter schools, which means crowding out school choice and competition-improved schools—including public schools.

All that spending on Medicaid, too, instead of the State privatizing that—to an extent; this program, after all, is intended to help the poor, so their contributions can’t cover all their medical costs—means Oklahoma’s citizens have less money to spend on their own needs and wants, which depresses economic activity, which reduces revenues to the State, which reduces monies available for programs like Medicaid….  And this chain doesn’t even address the addition of those 200,000 folks since 2008.  That was the year the Panic began, and it may be that most of those added to the Medicaid rolls then truly should have been—but do all of them need to be on the rolls today, or is it time to re-tighten the eligibility criteria?

State Taxation of Internet Businesses

Posted on by
1

The Supreme Court is hearing a case, South Dakota v Wayfair Inc, that seeks to overturn an older precedent that prevents States from taxing businesses doing business in the State that don’t have a physical presence there.  South Dakota is claiming that

…the 1992 precedent harms state treasuries and disadvantages taxpaying home-grown businesses.

That argument might hold water if the States were powerless. They’re not. There’s nothing at all preventing them from lowering the tax rates they impose on the brick-and-mortar and home-grown businesses resident in those States so they can compete. There’s nothing at all preventing the States from lowering their spending rates and thereby protecting their treasuries.

There’s nothing at all preventing the States from taking advantage of the increased economic activity that would result.

Tax Cuts, Deficits, and Economic Growth

Posted on by
Reply

The hype is that the tax cuts enacted at the end of last year will lead to trillion dollar Federal government deficits.

On the other hand, there’s this bit about economic growth in the CBO’s report that also carried that deficit forecast [emphasis in the original].

  • Last June, the CBO said GDP growth for 2018 would be just 2%. Now it figures growth will be 3.3%—a significant upward revision. It also boosted its forecast for 2019 from a meager 1.5% to a respectable 2.4%.
  • [T]he CBO now expects GDP to be $6.1 trillion bigger by 2027 than it did before the tax cuts.
  • before accounting for economic growth, the tax cuts Trump signed into law late last year would cut federal revenues by $1.69 trillion from 2018-2027.
    But it goes on to say that higher rate of GDP growth will produce $1.1 trillion in new revenues. In other words, 65% of the tax cuts are paid for by extra economic growth.
  • CBO now expects GDP to be $6.1 trillion bigger by 2027 than it did before the tax cuts.

Blame tax cuts for deficits?  No, Federal government deficits are caused by the Federal government spending more than it takes in from its various revenue sources, of which taxes are a prominent part.  And there’s still no concrete justification for the spending levels, just glittering generalities.  And every special interest has an especially sparkling generality to justify its spending.

Here’s some tax cut-created spending reduction (because of economic growth and the resulting increased prosperity of some of our poorer friends, not because of any Congressional courage in doing outright cutting):

[F]aster growth will also reduce federal entitlement spending keyed to the economy—unemployment insurance, food stamps, welfare and the like—by $150 billion, the CBO says.

But increasing prosperity isn’t a proper topic for hyping.

 

ht/ Powerline

Taxing vs Spending

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal piece about Tennessee’s required closure of failing bridges problem, a Leake County Democrat supervisor, Joe Andy Helton, had this:

…he was frustrated by politicians being afraid to raise taxes—even to pay for basic services like roads and bridges.

“There’s only but one way to fix things on the local, state or federal level and that’s taxes,” he said.

Of course. Reallocating spending is utterly inconceivable to him.

The two bridges in Helton’s county that must be closed until repaired would cost, at most, a bit over a half-million dollars, together.  That’s not pocket money for a rural county like Leake, but it’s not that much, either.  County and State spending could be (re)directed toward the repairs.

This is a local failure of performance, but rising taxes and no spending responsibility nationally are what we can expect if Progressive-Democratic Party politicians like this one gain the majority in the House this fall.