Tag Archives: political economy

Maybe It’s Time

Posted on by
Reply

Andrew Ackerman and Jeffrey Sparshott described in The Wall Street Journal last week the status of the government’s recovery of TARP funds doled out during the bailouts.

Two things struck me:

Treasury has turned a profit on the Capital Purchase Program, the main federal effort to help stabilize financial markets. It invested a little less than $205 billion in 707 banks, and as of mid-February had gotten about $211 billion back.

However,

More than three years after the launch of TARP, the federal government still owns stakes in about 350 banks.

They continued on that last:

While the biggest institutions have long since paid back their rescue funding, many smaller banks have been slow to shed government aid.

The divide in part reflects the difficulties faced by many Main Street banks, often saddled with poorly performing commercial real-estate loans and limited ability to raise new funds. Together with weak regional economies and a tough lending environment, the banks haven’t been able to exit TARP.

Maybe it’s time for the Feds to exit them from TARP.  Maybe it’s time to get government out of the way, let these banks fail, and let them recover and move on.

Some “Tea Partiers” and Budgets

Posted on by
Reply

The White House objects to Congressman Paul Ryan’s (R, WI) latest budget proposal as the end of the welfare state.  I certainly hope it is.

As to the rest of The Wall Street Journal‘s op-ed, what they said.

Some—by no means all, but every grouping has its extremists—who aver themselves to be tea partiers need to withdraw their heads from rectal storage and pay attention.  In DC, in politics, in any endeavor, we need to not hold out for everything all at once, or we’ll get nothing at all, and at once.  Take what we can get today, and come back tomorrow to work for more.

This working, bit by bit, toward the goal is how the Progressives have gotten us into our present strait over these last 80 years, and it’s the only way out of our present strait to fiscal sanity and its associated economic growth and prosperity.  It’s the only path away from government dependency and back to personal responsibility and individual freedom.

Take the budget and vote it up.  Make the spending, taxing, and “entitlement” corrections today that are possible today, rather than failing to get any of it by being greedy for more.  Come back tomorrow, and work then for the next increment.  And by the way, tomorrow’s effort will be informed (for those willing to listen) by the empirical data flowing from today’s reforms, and so tomorrow’s continued reforms can be more efficiently structured and thus produce its results more quickly.  Sort of a dynamic political scoring.

Two Tax Plans

Posted on by
Reply

On the one hand, we have the House Republicans’ proposed tax plan, one whose construction was led by the House Budget Committee Chairman, Congressman Paul Ryan (R, WI).  The outline of this plan contains replacement of our present six income tax brackets with just two, 10% and 25%, and reduction or elimination of tax loopholes used by (the nebulously defined) “high-income” Americans.  Ryan suggested

Take away the tax shelter, subject all of their income to taxation, and get more revenue—and we can lower everybody’s tax rate in return.

Beyond that, Ryan conceded that at this early stage, it’s not possible to know whether these “wealthy” would gain or lose from the exchange, and he refused to go into detail on the loopholes to be cut or eliminated.  It’s the House Ways and Means Committee’s task to work out the tax details in any budget proposal; until the details are worked out, the impact of the changes is inherently unknowable; and Ways and Means discussions should be held by that committee in public, not by Ryan on talk television programs, including Fox News Sunday, where these remarks were recorded.

President Obama didn’t waste time objecting to the plan.  Through his senior advisor, David Plouffe, he told Fox News Sunday that Ryan’s plan “fails the test of balance, fairness and shared responsibility.”  This certainly does draw a stark contrast between the Republicans’ ideas and his own: he continues to demand his right to raise taxes, with the inherent unfairness of taking money that doesn’t belong to government in the first place, or of raising taxes to get money the government doesn’t need.  Obama went on, claiming the Ryan plan would give the “average millionaire and billionaire” a tax cut of $150,000:

It showers huge tax cuts on millionaires and billionaires, paid for by seniors and veterans.

Here is demonstrated Obama’s breathtaking omnipotence: it’s not possible to know the effect since the Ways and Means Committee has not written the details, but he “knows,” anyway.

Obama then disparaged the Ryan plan’s vouchers for Medicare while continuing to refuse to offer any evidence of the downside of such vouchers—continuing, instead, his drumbeat of cynically unsubstantiated claims of rising costs to seniors.  With these aspersions, he also ignores the market competition effects on costs from seniors shopping their business around among private health insurers.  Moreover, his complaint comes with his continued refusal to offer a solution of his own.  He insists, instead, on simply defunding Medicare through his Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and his payroll tax cut, despite the pending financial failure of the current Medicare system.

On the other hand, the Table below shows Democratic Party’s tax plan for our consideration and discussion:

Oh, wait: they don’t have one.  They’ve refused these last three years even to offer one beyond the cynical jokes contained in Obama’s “budget” proposals.  They’ve just had the courage of sitting on the sidelines sniping at plans that others have offered—and then refusing even to discuss those other plans in the Senate.

Green Energy and Financing

Posted on by
Reply

The Copper Mountain power plant, a solar (photovoltaic) power plant in Boulder City, NV, produces enough electricity to power 17,000 homes.

This isn’t a typical “green” energy project, though.  This is a true green energy one: aside from $60 million in federal and state tax incentives, the project, including the 450 acres of land obtained to house the collectors, was entirely privately financed.  The tax incentives I consider a wash, because those are typical offerings from any jurisdiction in order to induce companies of any industry to locate their business here, rather than there.

Scott Crider, spokesman for Copper Mountain’s parent Sempra US Gas & Power, points out that the solar plant is a winner for taxpayers, estimating that the plant will generate $2 for the governments involved for every $1 in tax incentives over the next 30 years.

Copper Mountain and Sempra demonstrate that serious projects need no government largess.  Moreover, that payoff ratio gets even better when projects are wholly privately financed.

House 2013 Budget Blueprint

Posted on by
Reply

This is, indeed, a contrast in visions.  We are in the middle of a struggle for the future of our country, and the budget blueprint lays out the parameters of that struggle.

This table, from the House’s Committee on the Budget’s Web site, lays out the contrast pretty clearly.

 

The President’s Budget

House Blueprint

pending

 Net $1.5 trillion increase relative to current policy Cuts spending by $5 trillion relative to President’s budget

Taxes

 Imposes a $1.9 trillion tax increase; Adds new complexity and new hurdles for hardworking taxpayers, making it more difficult to expand opportunity Prevents President’s tax increases; Reforms broken tax code to make it simple, fair, and competitive; clears out special interest loopholes and lowers everybody’s tax rates to promote growth

Deficits

 Four straight trillion-dollar deficits; Breaks promise to cut deficit in half by end of first term; Budget never balances Brings deficits below 3 percent of GDP by 2015; Reduces deficits by over $3 trillion relative to President’s budget; Puts budget on path to balance

Debt

 Adds $11 trillion to the debt – increasing debt as a share of the economy – over the next decade; Imposes $200,000 debt burden per household; Debt skyrockets in the years ahead Reduces debt as a share of the economy over the next decade; Charts a sustainable trajectory by reforming the drivers of the debt; Pays off the debt over time

Size of Government

 Size of government never falls below 23 percent of the economy, making it more difficult to expand opportunity Brings size of government to 20 percent of economy by 2015, allowing the private sector to grow and create jobs

National Security

 Slashes defense spending by nearly $500 billion; Threatens additional cuts by refusing to specify plan of action to address the sequester; Forces troops and military families to pay the price for Washington’s refusal to address drivers of debt Prioritizes national security by preventing deep, indiscriminate cuts to defense; Identifies strategy-driven savings, while funding defense at levels that keep America safe by providing $554 billion for the next fiscal year for national defense spending

Health Security

 Doubles down on health care law, allowing government bureaucrats to interfere with patient care; Empowers an unaccountable board of 15 unelected bureaucrats to cut Medicare in ways that result in restricted access and denied care for current seniors, and a bankrupt future for the next generation Repeals President’s health care law; Advances bipartisan solutions that take power away from government bureaucrats and put patients in control; No disruption for those in or near retirement; Ensures a strengthened Medicare program for future generations, with less support given to the wealthy and more assistance for the poor and the sick

A couple of comments are in order (I’ll ignore the political hype in the characterizations in both sides of this table and address only the actual data provided).

First, notice that President Obama’s budget (about which neither he nor his Senate Democrat minions are serious; this is just a campaign speech) both increases Federal spending an enormous amount and increases taxes even more.  This certainly is one way to balance the budget (IFF the tax revenues resulting from those increases actually occur; however, raising taxes actually lowers tax revenue flowing by reducing the economic activity that produces those revenues), but it does so at the expense of our economy’s ability to function.  It constitutes $3.4 trillion dollars taken away from individual Americans and our businesses, either directly—those taxes—or indirectly by taking our spending decisions away from us and putting them into the hands of the Federal government.  It says that we Americans are utterly incapable of making our own money allocation decisions; we must yield those to our Betters in government.

The House budget blueprint, though (it’s certainly true that it could serve as a campaign speech, but it has the added—and critical—advantage of being an actual, workable budget blueprint), recognizes two fundamental things: the money involved is ours, not government’s; we only allocate some of our money to government to spend on our purposes (and not on government’s purposes).  Secondly, the government does not need the money, it does not need those taxes; government does need to spend less.  Period.  It really is that simple.

My second comment concerns the two plans’ attitude toward the appropriate size of government and from that their attitudes toward us Americans.  Obama wants to expand government, not only in size but in authority over our lives.  Government is the answer to our problems, and so the Progressives seek to increase our dependency on government.  Moreover this increase in dependency is not limited to those of us who already are government dependents.  Progressives want to make us all government wards.  We cannot be trusted to work out our own solutions, to make our own decisions.  We’re just not good enough at it.

The House blueprint, in stark contrast, shrinks the size and power of government.  This blueprint respects and trusts us Americans to make our own decisions, and to do a better job for each of us individually, as well as for any groups of us, than government can ever hope to do.  After all, at best, government is limited either to a one-size-fits-all solution (which perforce actually fits no one) or to a collection of “solutions” tailored to groups of us (groupings defined by government, mind you, not by us) that demands an army of bureaucrats to administer and another army of lawyers to interpret and defend.

The choice, then, is clear: whom should we elect this fall?  A collection of politicians who don’t trust us with our own lives, or a collection of politicians who are looking actually to reduce government’s—and their—power over us?