Tag Archives: taxes

Magical Thinking

Posted on by
1

Well, that didn’t take long.  President Barack Obama already has failed his test.

The Progressives’ idea of a budget is out of the Senate Budget Committee, now, and on the Senate floor, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) will do his best to thrust it home with as little debate allowed as he can achieve.  Here’s the summary table (and scroll down a bit to this table; sorry you have to crane your neck); the whole thing can be viewed, in piecemeal form, on the Senate’s site:

Notice that.  Aside from continuing to gut Defense, overall spending continues apace, President Barack ObamaSenator Patty Murray (D, WA), the Budget Committee’s Chair, demands even more taxes from working Americans than he got in January, and our national debt explodes.

The Democrats want, with an absolutely straight face, to increase spending every year–$3.6 trillion in FY 2014, $4.05 trillion in FY 2016, and so on to $5.7 trillion in FY 2023, a 62% increase over the current level for FY 2013.

Reading the fine print in one of those piecemeal parts at the Senate site, we see that the Progressives want to create a(nother) $100 billion program aimed at generating new jobs, again by funding infrastructure work.  Of course, we know Obama already tried this, repeatedly, throughout his first term.  As he’s already confessed, “Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected,” and as those earlier programs demonstrated, the jobs aren’t there at any time in his government programs.  This is magical thinking.

And it turns out Murray lied about those taxes, too, cynically understating them at “only” an additional $975 billion.  The Weekly Standard has this table, provided by a staffer for the Senate Budget Committee’s (Murray’s committee) minority membership:

Murray cynically understated Obama’s tax demands by fully one-third.  These $1.5 trillion in new taxes, combined with the $600 billion in new taxes Obama got at the start of the year, adds up to $2.1 trillion in new taxes being demanded in just these two and a half months.

Progressives just can’t stand to not raise taxes.  Their addiction to OPM is palpable.

And that debt.  The Progressives fully intend to explode it to $24 trillion by 2023, with annual interest payments running nearly to $800 billion.  This also assumes the market would be willing to buy such risky debt at those rates.  But then Obama denies, ostrich-like, that there’s any urgency to our debt fiasco.  This is more magical thinking.

All of this is predicated, too, on Obama’s/Murray’s pipedream of a GDP annual growth rate over the next 10 years of 4.2%-6.6% each year—rates we’ve never sustained in any 10 year period in our history.  With all of this taxing and spending taking money out of the private economy—the economy in which Americans actually live, work, and die—positing such rates is…wrong.

Matched with the $975 billion in claimed spending cuts, this isn’t even the balance about which he’s been yammering.  This is more…magical thinking.

This proposal is a disaster waiting to happen.

Obama’s Other Face

Posted on by
1

President Barack Obama is giving the appearance of wanting a bipartisan, compromise deal on our budget, deficit, and debt.  Is this real, this time, or just another version of the idle chit-chat and outright lies he’s passed off for the last five years?

The Wall Street Journal offers some metrics for assessing his behavior this time around.

  • Will he drop his demand for a tax increase outside of tax reform?  This has no chance of passing, and his continued insistence will poison the chance of any budget deal.  On tax reform he has willing GOP partners in Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp and Ohio Senator Rob Portman, but the formula has to be lower rates in exchange for fewer loopholes.  Any additional revenue will have to come from the faster economic growth that will follow.
  • Will he agree to a flexible, generous guest-worker program on immigration?  The AFL-CIO wants a restrictive program with a political body determining when there is a labor shortage and how many visas can be granted in specific industries.  Anything close to the AFL-CIO plan won’t stop the flow of illegal immigrants coming to the US for work, but it ought to kill reform in Congress.
  • Will he put more than token entitlement reforms on the table?  As we wrote last week (“Obama’s Not So Grand Offer,” March 8), the President’s Medicare proposals don’t begin to solve the health-care spending problem.  Short of Paul Ryan’s premium-support plan, the only chance for reform worth the name is “comprehensive cost-sharing” that forces individuals to confront at least some of the costs of their own care.

These sound like a pretty good test to me.  It looks, from the Senate Democrats’ budget proposal, like he’s failed the test.

Sessions on Progressive Obstructionism

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Jeff Sessions (R, AL) in his closing remarks preparatory to casting his vote on the Jack Lew confirmation last Wednesday, had this to say on a related matter.

I would also like to place this [confirmation vote] in a wider context.

Today is the 1,400th day since Senate Democrats passed a budget.  Why has this gone on so long?  Because they decided it would be better to offer no solution, no plan to help struggling Americans, and instead to tear down anyone who dared to offer a plan to solve our nation’s economic problems.

This is the heart of the problem here in Washington right now.  We have one political party that sees the budget debate as exercise in political warfare, not problem-solving.

At the center of this strategy is the White House.

In his campaign for re-election, President Obama repeatedly said that he had a plan to “pay down our debt.”  He even ran a campaign ad saying: “I believe the only way to create an economy built to last, is to strengthen the middle class—asking the wealthy to pay a little more so we can pay down our debt in a balanced way.  So we can afford to invest in education, manufacturing, and home-grown American energy, for good middle class jobs.”

But this is all totally false.

Again, this was the strategy: offer a plan that does nothing to alter our dangerous debt course while pretending the opposite.

Then, once you’ve done that, attack anyone who dares to reduce the size of the bureaucracy.  Attack anyone who suggests Washington is too powerful.  Attack, attack, attack—while never offering anything to help Americans who are struggling every day.

After the White House budget was submitted in 2011, President Obama spoke at George Washington University and, with Congressman Paul Ryan sitting in front of him, and said:

“One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives….  It’s a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years….  But the way this plan achieves [that goal] would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history….  This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit.  And who are those 50 million Americans?  Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid.  Many are poor children.  Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome….  These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.”

Majority Leader Reid said of one Republican reform effort that it was “a mean-spirited bill that would cut the heart out of the recovery that we have in America today….  It goes after little children, poor little boys and girls….  We want them to learn to read.”

This is how the White House and Senate Democrat leaders approach the budget debate.  It’s the same strategy with the sequester.  And Republicans, candidly, have not done enough to stand up to these egregious slanders.  Voting against Jack Lew would be a vote against these dishonest tactics. Misrepresentation of fact.

The painful truth is, the White House strategy has been largely successful up until now.  President Obama and his Senate Majority have blocked fiscal reform and continued our path to fiscal disaster.

It is time that we pointed out that the establishment they are shielding from cuts—the big-government apparatus they are defending—is hurting people every day.  Their policies, their endless support of the bureaucracy, has created poverty and joblessness and dependency.  In cities like Baltimore, Detroit, and Chicago—governed almost exclusively by Democrats at every level—good, hardworking people are hurt every day by the policies of the Left.

  • In the city of Baltimore, one in three children live in poverty.  One in three Baltimore residents are on food stamps.
  • In Chicago, there were roughly 500 homicides in 2012.  Fifty-one percent of the city’s children live in a single-parent family.
  • In Detroit, almost one in three households had not a single person working at any time in the last 12 months.  The city’s violent crime rate is among the worst in the country.  More than half of all Detroit children live in poverty.

This should not happen.  These are the consequences of leftist policies.  We are fighting to create jobs, to create rising wages, to create opportunity, to help more people earn a good living and care for themselves financially.  We are trying to lift people out of poverty, to strengthen family and community.  And we are trying to protect the good and decent people of this country from a debt crisis.

What he said.

This is Nonsense

Posted on by
Reply

The fourth quarter 2012 GDP growth rate was revised last week from -0.5% to +0.1% (of course it was, says the cynic in me), because trade contributed more to our GDP than had been originally estimated.

But in the opening paragraph, the WSJ‘s authors demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of what GDP growth is:

…the meager showing underscored that government spending cuts are slowing the recovery’s momentum.

They pursue this misunderstanding (I’ll ignore their euphemistic “momentum”) by citing carefully unnamed economists.  Noting that the fourth quarter performance includes “federal government outlays that fell at a 14.8% annualized rate,” they say that their anonymous economists

say restrained federal spending will continue to be a drag on GDP growth during the first half of 2013.

No.  GDP is the production of goods and services in an economy, it is not the spending of government in that economy.  Government spending impacts the reported GDP figure tautologically: it’s a line item in the GDP calculation.  Growth in production, though, can come only from the private sector, the private economy, in which our businesses and our citizens operate.  It is here that those goods and services are produced; work for those businesses on that production occurs; and spending or saving the sales revenue and the wages of the labor occurs.

Growth cannot come from government, including government spending.  Government spending, instead, comes at the direct expense of private production and spending.  Government has no money of its own, it can only spend money that it takes from the private sector today in the form of taxes, or tomorrow in the form of taxes to repay today’s borrowing.

Thus, the failure of the present “recovery” is caused by government spending, as the last four plus years have demonstrated empirically (along with FDR’s profligate spending, which contributed to prolonging the Great Depression), not from a reduction in government spending.  For instance,

Real final sales—GDP less changes in private inventories—increased 1.7% in the fourth quarter.

That’s still appallingly weak, but it’s much faster than the overall GDP growth, demonstrating that government spending isn’t necessary for the private sector—the real economy—to grow.

The Deficit Has A Silver Lining?

Posted on by
Reply

Dr Alan Blinder, Princeton University Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, had some thoughts on this.  His piece is fundamentally optimistic, but a few of his remarks jumped out at me.

Congress and the president have managed to agree on several measures that reduce the projected 10-year deficit considerably.

Reduced the 10-year deficit.  He writes of this as if it’s a good thing.  He writes of this as though that continued 10-year deficit, representing as it does an enormous expansion of an already ruinous debt, is a good thing.

Meanwhile, Republicans are talking far less menacingly about either shutting the government down or precipitating a debt crisis.

For which cynical straw man he declines to provide a single quote from a Republican—or Conservative—wherein such a one ever talked about shutting down the government or precipitating a debt crisis in recent history, other than in the context of Progressives manufacturing such things so they can decry them.

That law [the Budget Control Act of 2011] created land mines like the fiscal cliff, but it also cut spending by over $1.9 trillion once you include the associated interest savings, as you should.  (Here and elsewhere, I use the 10-year budget window 2014-2023 and recent estimates from the widely respected Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.)  That was all spending cuts, no tax increases.

Here Blinder is simply being disingenuous.  There were no spending cuts in that Act.  A reduction in the rate of spending increase is still a spending increase.  A Professor of Economics, even one at Princeton, knows that.

Then came the New Year’s Day agreement that averted the cliff. The headline number then was about $600 billion in tax increases.  But if you add in the spending cuts and the associated decrease in debt service, it came to another $850 billion or so.

See above.  And he’s exaggerating the magnitude of the spending increase reduction.

But imagine that our legislators agree instead on a smarter package of spending cuts and revenue raisers that amounts to the same amount of money [as the present sequester cuts].  After all, it’s only about 0.6% of GDP.  Then we’ll have achieved the $4 trillion target.  The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that doing so would be enough to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio at about 73%, which is a sensible goal for now.

There are a couple of things here.  “Cuts and revenue raisers” that achieve the same degree of…something.  Serious cuts in Federal spending would get the government out of the way of the economy, and its recovery—its enthusiastic performance—would raise plenty of revenue for the government, more so than it’s collecting now.  But Blinder and his fellow Progressives, with these demands for more taxes as the only possible revenue raisers are simply demonstrating their contempt for a free market and the wisdom of the individual Americans participating in it, preferring instead an economy centrally directed by Know Better Progressives.

The other thing is that stable debt-to-GDP at 73% nonsense.  This is an amazing thing even for a Princeton Professor to say.  There’s nothing at all stable about such a debt level.

Some of this “cost control” [in his claimed slowing rise in the cost of health care] is due to the weak economy: Hard times lead people to postpone or cancel some medical care.  But health-care inflation began to fall years before the recession began, which suggests that deeper forces are at work.  If we can somehow slow health-care costs to the rate of GDP growth, our long-run budget problem is basically solved.

On the effectiveness of President Barack Obama’s poor economy in holding down cost increases, well NSS.  “If we can somehow slow health-care costs…,” well the answer here is obvious—let a free market work its will in a competitive environment.  But, such an answer truly is not obvious to one who disdains the free market and that wisdom.

…fixation on reducing the budget deficit, to the exclusion of all other national goals, seems strangely anachronistic.  The nation has other priorities, too—such as faster growth and more jobs.

This also is an amazing thing.  The nation does have as critical economic and security imperatives faster growth and more jobs.  But these are not possible to achieve until the budget deficit is eliminated and the debt it drives reduced.