A Satirical Paean to the CFPB

Todd Zywicki, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School, has written one for The Wall Street Journal.

Yet despite its rocky start, the original promise of the CFPB is sound: to protect and empower consumers, promote fair and competitive markets, and stabilize the financial system.

At least, I hope it’s satirical; it’s hard to believe that Zywicki could be this naive.  Some examples:

Working with the private sector and Congress to reverse this growing exclusion of Americans from the financial sector is a moral imperative.

To turn Herb Croly’s words around a bit, the average Federal bureaucrat is morally and intellectually inadequate to serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat.  The private sector needs no Congressional or bureaucratic organization to function inclusively; it needs only a free market unhindered by bureaucrats’ intrusions.

The bureau can help unleash the power of FinTech by invigorating dormant tools like the no-action letter program and Project Catalyst….

Sure—the bureaucracy should do better by pushing other bureaucracies. Gotta be satirical, right?  Right?

The CFPB should concentrate its efforts on empowering families….

[Sigh]  Not by differently purposing an intruding a bureaucracy, but by getting rid of it.  Sounds like Zywicki was serious rather than satirical.

The CFPB must go.

Student Loan Debt

This is appalling, and it says a lot (albeit it’s not the only thing able to be said) about the morals of those we’re “graduating” from college and university these days.

A study released Friday by the Brookings Institution finds that most borrowers who left school owing at least $50,000 in student loans in 2010 had failed to pay down any of their debt four years later.

Scofflaws. They need their wages garnished. If they’re unemployed, they need to be put into work programs–there are always highway rights of way that need cleanup, and ditches that need digging. They also can be put into AmeriCorps VISTA.

But no bailouts.

The 529 Plan Expansion

Recall that the tax reform enacted last December expanded the usability of 529 Plans to include expenses for K-12 education.  Now some are worried that this will harm State tax collections.  It’s a bogus beef on a number of fronts.

In December, as part of a broad tax overhaul, Congress expanded the accounts to cover up to $10,000 a year in expenses for kindergarten through 12th grade.

State budget officials are now concerned that a large number of parents will use 529 accounts to pay private-school tuition, giving them a new write-off for their state taxes.

School choice—the horror.  How terrible it is that parents have a way to help their children escape failing public schools or simply to transfer them to schools of their choice rather than be faced with the often poor choice of public school or home school.

There’s this bit of disingenuosity, too:

That could result in potentially millions of dollars in lost tax revenue at a time when most states are struggling to close budget deficits.

“I’m worried that families could use these accounts to avoid paying state taxes,” said Illinois state treasurer Mike Frerichs, a Democrat. “This is only going to put a deeper hole in the budget.”

This is especially rich coming from nearly bankrupt Illinois and that State’s Treasurer.  What’s actually blowing a hole in Illinois’ budget is its profligate spending, in Illinois’ case wastrel spending on public union pensions and teachers union pensions in Chicago.  Beyond that, using 529s to defray the costs of educating a child in Illinois isn’t tax avoidance, it’s parents seeing to the welfare of their children.

Then there’s this bit.

The Cruz provision [the amendment that inserted the 529 expansion into the tax reform bill] is projected to cost the federal government $500 million over nearly a decade, but it could cost the states much more, research suggests.

This is nonsense. Aside from the fact that it doesn’t cost the Federal government anything to not get what doesn’t belong to it, it’s also not costing the States anything for the same reason: the money isn’t the States’; the money belongs to the citizens of the States.

Furthermore, instead of worrying about deficits caused by not getting revenue that isn’t theirs, the States should worry about deficits caused by their profligate spending—and that’s not just Illinois.

This misunderstanding by American Enterprise Institute‘s Deputy Director of Education Policy, Nat Malkus, is surprising.

It’s not federalist at all.  I don’t think that the federal government should be cavalierly making problems for states by messing with state taxes.

Federalism isn’t touched by the 529 expansion.  That expansion doesn’t impact State taxes in the slightest; those remain the sole decision of the State governments.  All that’s “messed with” is tax collections, collections of OPM.

Be Like Europe?

Emulate Germany?  That’s the constant refrain of the Left and of their Progressive-Democratic Party.  After all, Germany is running large budget surpluses, taking the second largest bite out of German wages of all the OECD nations, at nearly 50%, overcoming government spending running 45% of GDP.  Here is an indication of the contempt with which German politicians—both “conservative” and Leftist—view German citizens:

[T]he perception of tax cuts in the country’s political mainstream ranges from slightly shameful to outright evil. Many conservatives see them as overindulgent toward voters, while the center-left views them as morally indefensible gifts to the rich. All parties, with the exception of the pro-business Free Democrats, favor a high degree of redistribution.

“You need high taxes in order to be civilized,” said Sven Giegold, who represents Germany’s Green Party in the European Parliament. “We are very far away from the government having too much money.”

It seems Germans, like Herb Croly’s Americans, are morally and intellectually inadequate to serious and consistent conception of [their] responsibilities as…democrat[s].

And we should be like them.  Sure.

A Proposed Budget Cut

President Donald Trump’s budget proposal contains a funding cut for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, with effect in 2019, of $125 million.  The Partnership supposedly “created or protected more than 100,000 jobs” just in the last fiscal year.

I’m not convinced that’s a bad idea.  The function is good, but should the Federal government be the one paying for it? After all, it’s our tax money, not the Feds’.  Besides, the Partnership, as originally conceived, wasn’t intended to get Federal dollars; the existing subsidies are relatively new.

State universities already have outreach programs for agriculture, albeit heavily subsidized by the Federal government—Agriculture Extension Services.  It would be beneficial for the several States to set up, again in their State universities, Business Extension Services.  Care should be taken to ensure that these extension programs complement, rather than duplicate, the Small Business Administration, which also works closely with the States’ universities.

It’s the local, small businesses that benefit the most from such services; Big Business doesn’t need the support.  It should be the States who pay for this, using the tax money of the States’ own citizens, not the funds transferred from the citizens of other States.

This illustrates, too, the folly of inter-State transfers of moneys, especially while laundering them through the Federal government along the way (with the Feds taking their taste as the money passes through).