Keynesian Policies gave us the Subprime Mortgage Crisis, Solyndra and Inflation while the Free Market gives us Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 30th, 2011

The Problem with Washington is that there are too many Elitists who Think they are Smarter than Us

Now we know why we have slow economic growth.  Apparently it’s par for the course after a financial crisis (see Phony Fear Factor by Paul Krugman, Keynesian Economist, posted 9/29/2011 on The New York Times).

We might add that major financial crises are almost always followed by a period of slow growth, and U.S. experience is more or less what you should have expected given the severity of the 2008 shock.

So why do any spending?  Why have any stimulus to stimulate growth that won’t come.  Because “major financial crises are almost always followed by a period of slow growth…”  If true then we could have gotten here without that $800 billion stimulus bill.  And we could have avoided that debt ceiling debate.  And the subsequent downgrading of U.S. sovereign debt.  All because we were spending money trying to alter slow growth that was going to happen anyway.

But the Keynesian will say, “Just think how bad things would have been if we didn’t spend that $800 billion.  And how better things would be if we had just spent more.”  How do you argue with that?  When spending fails it’s because we didn’t spend enough.    By this logic, then, spending as a policy can never fail.  Even when it fails.

If slow growth is more or less what you get were they then lying?  When they said they would keep the unemployment rate below 8%?  If Congress passed the stimulus bill?  Or did they just not understand how bad things were?  Because their understanding of economics is that bad?  Or was George W. Bush so much smarter than them that he was able to hide how bad things were?

And it also, of course, reflects the political need of the right to make everything bad in America President Obama’s fault. Never mind the fact that the housing bubble, the debt explosion and the financial crisis took place on the watch of a conservative, free-market-praising president; it’s that Democrat in the White House now who gets the blame.

But good politics can be very bad policy. The truth is that we’re in this mess because we had too little regulation, not too much. And now one of our two major parties is determined to double down on the mistakes that caused the disaster.

Who was it that pushed subprime lending to get people who couldn’t afford a house into a house?  Whose policies were those that made home ownership available to everyone, not just those with good-paying jobs that could pay their mortgage payments?  Who was it that brought suits and protests against lenders for ‘redlining’ poor and minority communities by not approving mortgages for those who could not qualify for a mortgage?  The Republicans?  The so-called servants of the wealthy?  Or the Democrats?  The so-called champion of the poor and disenfranchised?

Buying risky mortgages from banks allowed banks to make risky loans.  And who was buying those risky mortgages?  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  That was government policy.  Keynesian policy.  Keeping interest rates low and removing risks from the normal risk takers in the mortgage industry.  There could not have been a Subprime Mortgage Crisis without these Keynesian government policies in place.  And we know that conservative Republicans aren’t Keynesians.  That’s why Keynesians hate conservative Republicans.  Especially when they hold up further stimulus spending in Congress.

The problem with Washington is that there are too many elitists who think they are smarter than us.  And these elitists want to double down on the mistakes that caused this crisis.  Already the Obama administration has been talking about boosting subprime lending.  Incredible.  This after that very same policy caused the worst recession since the Great Depression.

After the Benefit of a Cheap Euro runs its Course the Depreciated Euro turns into a Liability

The Keynesian’s answer to everything is more spending.  And when someone warns about igniting inflation with all of their easy monetary policy they call those people misinformed.  Monetary policy doesn’t cause inflation.  Greedy business people do.  By raising prices.  And supply shocks.  Like the OPEC oil embargo of the Seventies.  They point to the Eurozone and say, “See?  Their central banks have been keeping rates low to stimulate spending.  And where is the inflation?”  Here, apparently (see Euro-Zone Inflation Surges by Paul Hannon, Dow Jones Newswires, posted 9/30/2011 on NASDAQ).

The annual rate of inflation in the 17 countries that share the euro surged to its highest level in almost three years in September, while the number of people without work fell slightly.

The European Union’s official statistics agency Eurostat Friday said consumer prices rose 3% in the 12 months to September, up from 2.5% in August and was well above the European Central Bank’s target of just below 2%.

Prices rose faster than at any time since October 2008, and more rapidly than economists had expected. Those surveyed last week by Dow Jones Newswires had estimated that prices rose 2.5%. The last rise in the annual rate from one month to the next that was of a similar scale was in March 2010, when it picked up to 1.6% from 0.8%.

With a depressed economy businesses haven’t been able to raise their prices.  But what they couldn’t do their central bank has.  Put so much cheap money into the economy that they depreciated the Euro.  Which is another way to cause inflation.  Eventually.  After the benefits of a cheap Euro (making cheap exports) run its course.  And the depreciated Euro turns into a liability (higher input prices in the manufacturing process).

This always happens in Keynesian economics.  Yet the Keynesian ignores this reality and doubles down on the failed policies of the past.

Government Policies Favor Green Energy over Oil and Gas because Government Elitists are in Control

Keynesian economic thought is the prevailing though in most governments.  For a reason.  They’re expansionary policies.  And put government in control of that expansion.  Government officials don’t care if they work.  They just like the power it gives them.  The control over the economy.  And an open checkbook to buy votes.  So governments everywhere put Keynesians into their administrations.  Which give the Keynesians legitimacy.  People accept what they say.  Because if government adopts what they say they must know what they’re saying.

But Keynesian thought is wrong.  History has shown this.  The Austrian School of economics has a far better track record of success.  But that is not a popular school among expansionists.  Because it leaves the economy to the free market.  Not to elitists in government.  Who think they know better than the free market.

An example of this elitist intervention into the free market is government’s choice of green energy as the smart investment of the future.  Which has been failing even with heavy subsidies.  While the hated oil and gas industry, on the other hand, is creating jobs (see Gassing Up: Why America’s Future Job Growth Lies In Traditional Energy Industries by Joel Kotkin posted 9/27/2011 on Forbes).

But the biggest growth by far has taken place in the mining, oil and natural gas industries, where jobs expanded by 60%, creating a total of 500,000 new jobs…

Nor is this expansion showing signs of slowing down. Contrary to expectations pushed by “peak oil” enthusiasts, overall U.S. oil production has grown by 10% since 2008; the import share of U.S. oil consumption has dropped to 47% from 60% in 2005.  Over the next year, according to one recent industry-funded study, oil and gas could create an additional 1.5 million new jobs.

What makes this growth even more remarkable is that the month of August posted zero new jobs.  So if there were no new jobs while oil and gas was creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, hundreds of thousands of jobs in other industries must have been disappearing.  Such as in that government-backed green energy sector.

How about those “green jobs” so widely touted as the way to recover the lost blue-collar positions from the recession? Since 2006, the critical waste management and remediation sector — a critical portion of the “green” economy — actually lost over 480,000 jobs, 4% of its total employment…

The future of the rest of the “green” sector seems dimmer than widely anticipated. One big problem lies in cost per kilowatt, where wind is roughly twice as expensive and solar at least three times as expensive as electricity produced with natural gas. Given the Solyndra  bankruptcy  and their inevitable impact on the renewables industry, it’s also pretty certain that the U.S., at least in the near term, will not be powered by windmills and solar panels.

Natural gas is a clean burning fuel.  It’s so clean we use it in our homes.  In our stoves.  And our furnaces.  It’s cheap.  And it’s plentiful.  We’re getting it out of American ground that can put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work.  Without loan guarantees.  And they can bring it to market at market prices.  Without any subsidies.  It’s the hanging softball of energy policy.  But what are we pursuing?  Green energy.  A sector that is bleeding jobs.

The relative strength of the energy sector can be seen in changes in income by region over the past decade. For the most part, the largest gains have been heavily concentrated in the energy belt between the Dakotas and the Gulf of Mexico. Energy-oriented metropolitan economies such as Houston, Dallas, Bismarck and Oklahoma City have also fared relatively well. In energy-rich North Dakota there’s actually a huge labor shortage, reaching over 17,000 — one likely to get worse if production expands, as now proposed, from 6000 to over 30,000 wells over the next decade.

Why are we subsidizing green startups when we have an energy belt almost the size of the Louisiana Territory?  A labor shortage of 17,000?  And a plan to increase wells from 6,000 to 30,000 (an increase of 400%) in one state?  This is real economic growth.  Created with no government help.  I mean, if there is one thing the Obama administration isn’t known for it’s being a friend to the oil and gas industry.

So this is an industry government doesn’t help.  If anything government hinders it with heavy regulation.  And yet the gas and oil industry is blowing government-subsidized green energy away.  There’s a lesson here.  Free market works.  And when government intervenes into the market you can bet on them picking a loser.

Industry experts say that the shift in energy exploration is moving from the Middle East to the Americas, with rich deposits of oil and gas uncovered from Brazil to the Canadian oil sands.

Much of the new action is on the U.S. mainland, including the Dakotas, Montana and Wyoming. Increasingly, there’s excitement about finds in long-challenged sections of the Midwest such as Ohio. The Utica shale formation, according to an estimate by Chesapeake Energy, could be worth roughly a half trillion dollars and be, in the words of CEO Aubrey McClendon, “the biggest to hit Ohio, since maybe the plow.”

Ohio now has over 64,000 wells, with five hundred drilled just year. Recent and potential finds, particularly in the Appalachian basin, could transform the Buckeye State into something of a Midwest Abu Dhabi, creating more than 200,000 jobs over the next decade.

A Midwest Abu Dhabi?  Creating 200,000 new jobs?  And that’s just in the oil and gas business.

The energy boom also has sparked a spate of new factory expansions, including a $650 million new steel mill to make pipes for gas pipelines. Other local firms are gearing up to make up specialized equipment like compressors.

This is real economic growth.  Created and sustained by the private sector.  Without any stimulus funding or subsidies.  The way of the Austrian School of economics.  But is anathema to expansionist Keynesians.  That’s why government policies favor green energy.  Like they favored subprime lending.  Because government elitists are in control.  Not the free market.

The Genius Elite have given us the Subprime Mortgage Crisis, Solyndra and Inflation in the Eurozone

The government bet wrong on green energy.  As smart as they are.  And as smart as their Keynesian advisers are.  Is there a lesson here?  Yes.  They are not that smart.

The oil and gas industry is booming.  Why?  Because there is enormous demand for oil and gas.  For all the Keynesians’ lament over the lack of demand you’d think they’d jump on this.  But no.  They ignore it.  Instead they impose oppressive regulations.  Impose moratoriums on Gulf drilling.  And do more to impede this industry than to help it.  To please the environmentalists.  And their friends in green energy.

The genius elite have given us the Subprime Mortgage Crisis, Solyndra and inflation in the Eurozone.  The Keynesian way.  Whereas the free market is finding domestic sources of real energy and creating jobs.  The Austrian School way.  Which was also the American way.  Once upon a time.  And it can be again.  If we listen more to the market.  And less to the Keynesian elites.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #85: “The rich pay more than their fair share of income taxes to provide tax relief for the poor and middle class.” –Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 29th, 2011

Investors Pay a Lower Tax Rate on Investment Income because Investing is Riskier than Earning Income

There’s a lot of class warfare going on right now.  It’s open season on anyone deemed to be rich.  You have President Obama saying the rich don’t pay their fair share of taxes.  That it isn’t right for Warren Buffett’s secretary to pay her taxes at a lower tax rate than her boss.  Statements like this can be very misleading.  Because Warren Buffett’s secretary pays nothing in tax dollars compared to what Warren Buffett pays.  But it sure fans the flames of class warfare.  Which helps when you want to raise taxes on someone.  (Or get reelected).  Because no one wants their own tax rates to go up.  Just those on others who make more than they do.

Except, of course, Warren Buffett.  And some other millionaire investors.  Who are asking President Obama to raise their taxes.  And he has obliged.  At least, he’s trying.  He wants to implement a millionaire’s income tax.  A little extra from those who can most afford it.  Of course, Warren Buffett won’t pay this millionaire’s income tax.  Because he doesn’t pay income taxes.  He’s an investor.  He pays capital gains taxes.

Investors pay a lower tax rate on capital gains than on income.  Because investing has risk.  Working doesn’t.  You never risk losing your income by working.  But you risk your capital by investing.  Hence the lower rate to encourage this risky behavior.  Investing in others.  Like entrepreneurs.  Some of who strike it rich.  Many more, sad to say, fail.  And investors lose everything they invested.  It’s a risky business for investors.  That’s why when their investments pay off they pay off big.  To cover all of those investments where they lost everything.  Raising tax rates on investors, then, would dissuade investment.  Stop the job and wealth creation these successful  entrepreneurs provide.  And deprive the treasury of all the tax revenue they would have created.

The Rich are Paying a Premium in Taxes for being Successful

Let’s look at some data.  Let’s mine some IRS tax returns.  See who is paying income taxes.  And who isn’t paying their fair share.  Let’s break the numbers down into 4 groups.

The poor and middle class (those earning up to $50,000 per year).  The middle class/upper middle class (those earning from $50,000 to $100,000).  The elite white collar and small business owners (from $100,000 to $500,000).  And the rich (over $500,000).  These breakdowns and labeling is not an exact science.  But it’s close enough for analysis.  Below we’ve graphed both percent of total income.  And percent of total taxes paid.  For each of these groups.  All data is mined from SOI Tax Stats – Individual Income Tax Rates and Tax Shares.  And crunched in an Excel spreadsheet.

These are the rich people.  Note that they pay a larger percentage of total taxes than their percentage of total income.  The red line is always well above the blue line.  On average their share of taxes is 8.54% greater than their share of income for the years graphed.  So the rich are paying a premium in taxes for being successful.

Of particular interest is what happens to the rich during a recession.  At both the early and late 2000s recessions their share of income tanked.  As did their share of taxes.  Their share of total taxes fell some 5% in the early 2000 recession.  With a third or so of all taxes coming from these rich, when they lose money so does the U.S. treasury.  This quickly revised those Clinton projected surpluses into deficits.  And it wasn’t anything George W. Bush did.  This was the fallout from the bursting of the dot-com bubble (it was the irrational exuberance that made all of this wealth and tax revenue in the first place.  That and the Lost Decade in Japan.  Not the Clinton tax rate hikes).  Rich people lost money; rich people paid less taxes.

And speaking of Democrat Bill Clinton, note how the rich got richer when he was president.  Not what you would expect from a Democrat.  The champions of class warfare.  But it is true.  While Bill Clinton was president the rich’s slice of the income pie grew approximately 10.51%.  Gee, I wonder what happened to the poor and middle class during this same time.

White Collar Workers and Small Business Owners have a Tax Share Greater than their Income Share

Now let’s take a look at the elite white collar workers and small business owners.  Management, professionals, doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, etc.  Here we see that they, too, pay a larger percentage of total taxes than their percentage of total income.  But not as much.  Their tax premium for success is not as great as it is for the rich.  It averaged approximately 3.42% for the years graphed.

Note that the recession didn’t have as great as an effect on them as it did for the rich.  They don’t have as much to gamble with.  The less risk the less reward.  And the fewer losses.  Besides, with small business owners slow and steady wins the race.  They pour all of their investment capital (i.e., their earnings) into their businesses.  And then work 80+ hours a week to wring out every last dime from that investment.

Some industries weather recessions better than others.  Some just get by.  Conservative by nature, they expand during good times.  But not too much that they can’t sustain the larger size during bad times.  For they aren’t rich enough to absorb large losses during really bad times.  Unlike rich investors.  So their income growth is flatter.  But more steady.

The Middle Class/Upper Middle Class have a Tax Share Less than their Income Share

Now the middle class/upper middle class.  Those earning from $50,000 to $100,000.  Typically those living well while still working for someone else.  Note that their share of the tax burden has been in a decline.  Much like their income.  However bad that is, they do pay a smaller percentage of the total tax than their percentage of total income.  The blue line is above the red line.  In other words, they have a tax discount.  A discount that has averaged 5.33% over the years graphed.

Interestingly, these graphs are almost the mirror image of those earning $500,000 or more.  Particularly strange is that their share of the income increases during times of recession.  Which probably reflects their incomes being a larger percentage of the remaining pie after the rich lose so much during bad economic times.

Did the Poor and Middle Class get Poorer under Bill Clinton?

And now the poor and middle class.  Whose share of the tax burden has also been in decline.  As has been their income.  But they, too, pay a smaller percentage of the total tax than their percentage of total income.  Their tax discount has averaged 6.62% for the years graphed.  Which is even more generous than that given to those earning $50,000 to $100,000.

Remember how the rich got richer under Democrat Bill Clinton?  Well as they got richer the poor and middle class got poorer.  Again, not what you would expect from a Democrat in office.  While Bill Clinton was president the poor and middle class’ slice of the income pie decreased approximately 11.85%.  Can this be true?

When the Rich get Richer the Poor get Fewer in Numbers

Well, yes and no.  If you look at the number of returns filed you find out something interesting.  Not only did income decrease for those earning $50,000 or less, their numbers shrank, too.  To illustrate this we’ve compared the number of income tax returns for our income group breakdowns for the years 1996 and 2000 (the beginning and end of the Clinton years for the data graphed).

There was a net decline of 8.85% of people earning $50,000 or less.  Where did they go?  To a higher income group.  The poorest earners in our breakout decreased in numbers.  While the higher income groups all increased in numbers.  Meaning when the rich get richer the poor get fewer in numbers.  In other words, a rising tide raises all boats.

The Best Way to Raise Tax Revenue is to let Rich People get Rich

So what have we learned?  First of all, the rich pay more than their fair share in taxes.  In fact, they pay a portion of the taxes of those earning less than them.  That is, the rich provide tax relief for the poor and middle class.

So the rich getting richer is good.  The richer they get the larger percentage of the total tax burden they pay.  And the more people they move from lower income groups to higher income groups.  By providing investment capital to entrepreneurs.  Who create jobs.  That give the poor and middle class better opportunity.

And the more jobs the more taxpayers there are.  So you have the rich getting richer and paying more taxes.  And these new employees in higher paying jobs paying more in taxes.

Now that’s good tax policy.  If your goal of tax policy is to raise tax revenue.  And if it is then the best way to do that is to let people get rich.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Iran and al Qaeda hate America and Anyone who Associates with America or Sells them Oil

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 28th, 2011

In 2001 al Qaeda was by far More Evil than Iran but the Evil Race is Still On

Iranian president Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust.  And that al Qaeda brought down the Twin Towers.  Which is really pissing off al Qaeda (see Al Qaeda to Iran: Stop Spreading 9/11 Conspiracy Theory by Lee Ferran posted 9/27/2011 on ABC News).

“The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al Qaeda was behind 9/11 but rather, the U.S. government,” an article reads. “So we may ask the question: why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?”

Though Iran was the first of the two to use the “Great Satan” as a synonym for the U.S., the author claims that Iran sees itself as a rival for al Qaeda when it comes to anti-Americanism and was jealous of the 9/11 attacks.

“For them, al Qaeda was a competitor for the hearts and minds of the disenfranchised Muslims around the world,” the article says. “Al Qaeda… succeeded in what Iran couldn’t. Therefore it was necessary for the Iranians to discredit 9/11 and what better way to do so? Conspiracy theories.”

Reminds me a little of that Austin Powers movie where Dr. Evil laments that his son is not evil enough.

In your face, Iran, says al Qaeda.  Yes, in 2001, al Qaeda was by far more evil than Iran.  Sadly, the evil competition hasn’t ended.  And we should worry about escalation in the evil race.  Especially when one of these evil competitors may already have a nuclear bomb.

I wonder how the 9/11 deniers will take this?  All those George W. Bush haters who said Bush imploded the Twin Towers.  So he could invade the Middle East.  Most everyone else blamed al Qaeda.  Something al Qaeda, incidentally, never denied.  And claims responsibility for to this day.  Even after punishing retribution.  And the death of their glorious leader.  Osama bin Laden.

And what about those saying that our only enemy is al Qaeda?  That Iran’s nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes.  And their meddling in the Middle East is nothing to worry about.  Sure they support Hezbollah.  And they support Hamas.  And support these groups in their goal of removing American ally Israel from the world map.  But there’s nothing to worry about.  For I’m sure their territorial ambitions will end with Israel.  Much like Hitler‘s did with the Sudetenland.  Besides, who else says they have an anti-American agenda?  Other than the big bad of anti-Americanism?  Al Qaeda.

The Wahhabis don’t like the House of Saud or their Coziness with the U.S

So, yes, Virginia, radical Islamists want to hurt Americans.  Despite the last 2+ years of de-Bushifying the nation.  Despite the Cairo speech.  Nothing has changed.  The bad guys are still gunning for Americans.  Wherever they can find Americans (see US warns of possible kidnap plot in Saudi Arabia posted 9/28/2011 on CBS News).

The U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia warned Americans on Wednesday that a terrorist group may be planning to abduct Westerners in the capital of Riyadh…

Saudi Arabia has waged a heavy crackdown on Islamist militants since al Qaeda’s Saudi branch launched a wave of attacks in the country in 2003, including suicide bombings and shootings that killed dozens of Saudis and foreigners. At least 11 Americans were among the dead.

Saudi Arabia is an important U.S. ally in the Middle East.  And friend.   Which is why they get a lot of this kind of stuff in their kingdom.  And their actions in 2003 prove this.  For everyone talks about the Saudi money that financed bin Laden.  But it wasn’t the House of Saud.  It was the Wahhabi Muslim sect residing within their kingdom.  From whence bin Laden came.

The Wahhabis don’t like the House of Saud.  Or their coziness with the U.S.  So the Saudis walk a fine line.  Staying friendly with the U.S.  Without being too friendly with the U.S.  To keep the peace in their kingdom.  And to maintain stability in the Middle East.

And all the while they’re dealing with this threat from within they have to deal with the threat from without.  Iran.  Who may have a hand in these Arab uprisings.  Especially where there are Shiite majorities.  To expand Iranian hegemony into the Middle East.  Especially in the Sunni areas of the Middle East.

On Monday, the former chief of Saudi intelligence services said the kingdom’s sizable oil installations were safe despite the growing threat of terrorist attacks in the region.

Prince Turki al-Faisal said the unrest in the Arab world would not spill over into Saudi Arabia.

“While the general picture of Saudi Arabia’s surroundings is predominated by this great turmoil, at the center of these many storms sits our Kingdom, which, I am glad to report, remains stable and secure,” he said.

Which is good.  Because next to Canada, Saudi Arabia is the second largest source of U.S. oil imports.  Even expanded their production to compensate for the loss of Libyan crude.  Again, Saudi Arabia is an important ally.  And friend.

The Loss of Refinery Capacity Now will make Gas Prices Soar During any Economic Recovery

Oil is the lifeblood of a modern economy.  Advanced nations consume oil with a voracious appetite.  That’s why Saudi crude is so important.  Both to the West.  And the enemies of the West.  Because if they can disrupt it they can disrupt the Western economies.  So any threat to Saudi Arabia is a national security interest.  Especially when it’s against Americans in the kingdom.

So oil is important.  As is the price of oil.  When it falls it’s for one of two reasons.  Either we’ve increased supply.  Or people just aren’t buying it (see Crude Oil Set for Second Straight Quarterly Decline on Europe Debt Crisis by Mark Shenk posted 9/28/2011 on Bloomberg).

Crude oil fell in New York, heading for the biggest quarterly drop since 2008, on concern that Europe’s debt crisis will linger and on rising U.S. stockpiles…

Crude stockpiles advanced as imports rose and refineries reduced operating rates…

Gasoline stockpiles rose 791,000 barrels to 214.9 million in the week ended Sept. 23, the report showed. Supplies of distillate fuel, a category that includes heating oil and diesel, increased 72,000 barrels to 157.7 million.

Sadly, this fall in price is due to people not buying it.

What?  Oil prices are falling?  That’s good news, yes?  Sadly, no.  Not in this case.  Because they are falling for a bad reason.  Weak demand.  From an economy on the precipice of another recession.  (The economy is so bad that people just aren’t buying gasoline).  Though some will argue we’ve never emerged from the Great Recession.  And it gets worse.

“The crude market is also under pressure because of the announcement of yet another possible shutdown of an East Coast refinery,” said Carl Larry, director of energy derivatives and research at Blue Ocean Brokerage LLC in New York. “At some point we’ll be able to count on both hands the number of operable refineries on the East Coast.”

Refineries are shutting down because of this extraordinary weak demand.  Which will not be good on the far side of this recession.  When the economy picks up.  For with the loss of this refinery capacity, when demand picks up gas prices will soar.  And it gets worse.

As economies heat up so will demand for oil.  Making oil prices soar.  Making high gasoline prices even higher.  Dampening any economic recovery.  Perhaps even throwing us back into recession.

A Big Oil Shock could Take any Bustling Economy and Thrown it into Recession

So the post-recession oil supply is not looking good.  Is there anything else to worry about?  Of course there is (see Double-dip ahead? Posted 9/28/2011 on The Economist).

Unfortunately, the economy has been battered for most of the year: by lousy weather, a seismic disaster in Japan, soaring oil prices, a major intensification of the European crisis, the end of QE2, and a down-to-the-wire blow-up over the debt ceiling among other things. There was good reason to think that the economy might have grown at 4% this year, but actual performance is largely governed by two big factors: what shocks occur and how policymakers respond to them.

Shocks, eh?  There could be a big oil shock in the pipeline.  Thanks to a bad economy that is closing down refinery capacity.  And an Arab Spring that is going to no one knows where yet.  And there are those who have eyes on Saudi Arabia.  People who don’t like America.  So, yeah, there could be a big oil shock coming our way.  Which could take any bustling economy and throw it into recession.

What Happens in the Middle East Matters to the Price of Gasoline and to American Security

There is a race between Iran and al Qaeda to see who can do America more harm.  We have made some progress against al Qaeda.  But we haven’t done much on the Iranian front.  And they’re about to acquire nuclear weapons.  Or already has them.

If our archenemy says that Iran is their rival in anti-Americanism, then Iran is probably anti-American.  And we should probably act accordingly.  Like the Saudis have against al Qaeda.  Despite the great risks that brought to their kingdom.  From the al Qaeda-sympathetic Wahhabi population.

When George W. Bush invaded Iraq many called it blood for oil.  They were adamantly against that.  Almost as much as they were against $4/gallon gasoline.  For they want their cheap gasoline.  And believe they should be able to get it no matter what happens in the Middle East.

But what happens in the Middle East matters.  To the price of gasoline.  And to American security.  They are linked.  And if given the chance, our enemies will use one.  To get to the other.  Us.  Because oil is the lifeblood of a modern economy.  And if they can’t defeat us in military arms.  They can shut us down by controlling the oil in the Middle East.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #85: “The rich pay more than their fair share of income taxes to provide tax relief for the poor and middle class.” –Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 27th, 2011

The ‘Rich’ Obama wants to Tax more already Pays the Majority of all Federal Income Taxes

Some people complain that too much wealth is concentrated in too few hands.  And they say that isn’t fair.  But you know what else is concentrated into too few hands?  Federal income taxes.  That is, who pays these taxes.  The top 10 percent of income earners pay about 70% of the taxes.  That doesn’t sound fair.  This 10% paying 70% of the tax bill.  While 90% only pays 30% of the tax bill.  No, this isn’t fair.  But that’s okay.  At least that’s what the 90% think.  I mean, we don’t hear them demanding to pay their fair share of federal income taxes, do we?

Let’s look at some of the numbers.  From 2008 tax returns (see Table 2.  Returns with Modified Taxable Income [1]: Tax Generated, by Rate).

The first thing that jumps out at you is that the poor pay no income taxes.  Only the middle class and rich do.  The biggest income groups of taxpayers are those earning from $100,000 to $200,000.  And from $200,000 to $500,000.

Are these factory workers?  No.  Are these construction workers?  No.  These aren’t blue collar jobs.  These are white collar jobs.  And small business owners.  Currently in the crosshairs of the Obama administration.  Those ‘rich’ people who aren’t paying their fair share of taxes.  People who in fact pay the majority of all federal income taxes.

Those who don’t Pay Income Taxes are Dictating Tax Policy on those who Do

So why is president Obama so vilifying these most generous ‘rich’ people?  Because it’s the largest group of ‘rich’ people whose taxes he can raise.  From the same data let’s take a look at the distribution of income earners.  By looking at the number of actual tax returns filed by each group.

Interesting.  The distribution has shifted down to the lower income groups.  There are very few people earning $1 million or more and yet they pay a substantial amount of the total federal income tax.  While there are a great number of people earning less than $50 thousand who pay little to no federal income tax.

There’s another way to look at these numbers.  One person one vote.  Despite the amount of money you earn.  And the amount of taxes you pay.  Or the lack of taxes you pay.  So in essence what we have is those who don’t pay income taxes dictating tax policy on those who do.  Hence the appeal of class warfare.  Tax the rich?  Raise tax rates on high earners?  A millionaire’s tax?  Absolutely.  As long as I remain in the near 50% of those people who pay no income taxes.

Small Business Owners Earn a lot because they’re both CEO and Investor

There’s yet another way to look at these numbers.  With 70% of all taxes paid by those earning $100,000 or more let’s focus on these people.  We’ve summarized this data here (Taxable Income and Income Tax Generated are in thousands of dollars):

The sweet spot of tax revenue are the people earning from $100,000 to $200,000.  Who pay an effective tax rate of 17.91%.  And a good chunk of these are small business owners.  Who have S corporations.  Where their earnings pass directly to their private income tax return.  That’s why they earn so much.  Because they’re both CEO.  And equity investor.  But they don’t use those retained earnings to live an extravagant lifestyle.  No.  Instead, they use them to grow their business.  And create jobs.

Raising the tax rate on those retained earnings will not help grow these businesses.  In fact, it will prevent these businesses from growing.  And you don’t want to do that.  Because not only do these small business owners pay as much in federal income taxes as all the millionaires do.  They also create the majority of jobs in the American economy.

If you want Tax Policy that will Raise Tax Revenue don’t Raise Tax Rates on Job Creators

Is the purpose of tax policy to raise tax revenue?  Or politics?  When about half of the people pay no income taxes there is definitely a political aspect in taxing the rich.  But exploiting the political capital in the tax code defeats the purpose of the tax code.  Raising taxes.  Let’s look at a simple example.

Everyone agrees that lowering taxes helps businesses more than raising taxes.  That’s why even President Obama extended the Bush tax cuts to prevent a double-dip recession.  So let’s look at some numbers.  Let’s say we make it more business friendly out there.  Cut back on some onerous regulations that cost businesses.  Such as repealing Obamacare. Or some other costly legislation(s).  Not cutting taxes mind you.  Just cutting the costs on the job creators.

If we do this business-friendly deregulation let’s assume businesses respond.  They do well and grow.  And these small business owners earn more income.  So much that about 20% of them move up from the $100,000 to $200,000 income group to the $200,000 to $500,000 income group.  This group pays an effective tax rate of 23.3%.  Federal income taxes would increase approximately $100 billion with this growth in income.  Or an increase of 23.3%.  And that’s without cutting taxes.  Imagine what they could do if did cut taxes.

If you want good tax policy.  If you want tax policy that will raise tax revenue.  Don’t raise tax rates on job creators.  Instead, cut their costs.  Cut the cost of job creation.  Then watch the jobs they’ll create.  And the tax revenue they’ll pay.  Both the small business owners.  And their new employees.

 www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Economic Recovery Requires less Keynesian Spending and more Cutting the Cost of Employment

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 26th, 2011

The Structural Defect in Keynesian Economics is that Sustained Inflation Creates Asset Bubbles that Must Burst

More bad news for the housing market.  And the American economy (see New-home sales fell in August for 4th month by Derek Kravitz posted 9/26/2011 on the Associated Press).

Sales of new homes fell to a six-month low in August. The fourth straight monthly decline during the peak buying season suggests the housing market is years away from a recovery…

New-homes sales are on pace for the worst year since the government began keeping records a half century ago…

Last year was also the fifth straight year that sales have fallen. It followed five straight years of record highs, when housing was booming.

The housing market is bad.  There’s no denying that.  And this affects everyone.  Not just homeowners.  Because where the housing market goes the economy follows.

While new homes represent less than one-fifth of the housing market, they have an outsize impact on the economy. Each home built creates an average of three jobs for a year and generates about $90,000 in taxes, according to the National Association of Home Builders.

Jobs and taxes.  Both of which the government is having trouble generating these days.  That’s why they are desperately trying to stimulate the housing market with all that easy monetary policy.  Getting interest rates to their lowest in years.  If not of all time.  Because new houses equals jobs.  And tax revenue.  Especially when housing values increase over time.

Home prices have dropped more since the recession started, on a percentage basis, than during the Great Depression of the 1930s. It took 19 years for prices to fully recover after the Depression.

But not so much when they don’t.

Worse than the Great Depression.  Now there’s something you don’t hear every day.

One of the missions of the Federal Reserve was to prevent another Great Depression.  In particular, preventing a devastating deflationary spiral.  Such as we’re seeing in home prices now.  Looks like they’ve failed.  Or rather, Keynesian Economics has failed.

The problem is the dependence on Keynesian Economics.  Which uses monetary policy to maintain economic growth.  By having permanent but ‘sustainable’ inflation.  But the structural defect in this model is that sustained inflation creates asset bubbles.  As people bid up the prices of these assets.  Like houses prior to the subprime mortgage crisis.  And when these bubbles burst these asset prices have to fall back to market levels.  Like house prices are doing right now.  And apparently will do for another 19 years.  Give or take.

It is the High Cost of Labor that is Hurting the Advanced Economies

Manufacturing has been better than the housing market.  But it’s not looking too promising right now (see U.S. manufacturing slowdown: 4 cities at most risk posted 9/26/2011 on CNN Money).

U.S. manufacturing has been one of the rare bright spots in an otherwise annoyingly slow economic recovery…

But expectations of slower growth could threaten the rebound and cities that have gained from it. The ongoing European debt crisis and efforts to curb worries over inflation in China have analysts predicting lower demand for everything from American-made electronics to machinery.

U.S. manufacturing grew 6% during the economic recovery after declining 13% following the financial crisis in 2007. IHS Global Insight economist Tom Runiewicz says the industry has grown 4.5% so far this year. While that’s still robust growth, he expects manufacturing growth to slow to 2.9% next year.

The American consumer may not have been buying but consumers in other countries were.  A good example of American exports is the delivery of the first Boeing 787 to ANA.  And Boeing’s 747-8, too.   Though the largest U.S. exporter, Boeing won’t be able to fix the economy alone.  Especially when they’re competing against Airbus.

It is the high cost of labor that is hurting the advanced economies.  The Europeans subsidize some of their industries to make up for this economic disadvantage.  Boeing charges Airbus with getting subsidies that lets them compete unfairly.  And Airbus, of course, accuses Boeing of the same.   To help gain a competitive edge over Airbus, Boeing wanted to expand production in South Carolina.  A right to work state.  Which the Obama administration has opposed.  In support of their union donors.

The lesson of the Boeing-Airbus rivalry is this.  They’d be able to sell more planes if they could cut their labor costs.

Listening to the Private Sector turned around the German Economy and is why they can Bail Out the Euro

Germany’s high cost of labor was crippling her economy.  BMW and Mercedes-Benz built plants in America to escape their high cost of labor.  But things are different in Germany these days.  In fact, the country is so rich that the hopes of saving the Euro common currency falls on the German economy.  The only European economy rich enough to save the Euro.  So how did they make this turnaround?  Through reforms (see Getting People Back to Work by Matt Mitchell posted 9/26/2011 on Mercatus Center at George Mason University).

Germany’s unemployment rate is only 6.2 percent today. This is pretty remarkable given the severity of the recent recession, the slow growth of Germany’s trade partners (including the U.S.) and the unfolding fiscal crisis in the Eurozone.

NPR’s Caitlin Kenney attributes Germany’s relative success to a number of reforms adopted a decade ago. Kenney reports:

To figure out how Germany got where it is today, you need to go back 10 years. In 2002, Germany looked a lot like the United States does now, they had no economic growth and their unemployment rate was 8.7 percent and climbing. The country needed help, so the top man in Germany at the time, Gerhard Schroder, the German chancellor, made in an emergency call to a trusted friend.

So who did he turn to?  A government bureaucrat?  Or someone from the private sector?

The friend was Peter Hartz, a former HR director whom Schroder knew from his VW days. Schroder put Hartz in charge of a commission, the mission of which was to find a way to make Germany’s labor market more flexible. The Hartz commission made it easier to hire someone for a low-paying, temporary job, a so-called “mini job”:

A mini-job isn’t that great of a deal for workers. In these jobs, they can work as many hours as the employer wants them to, but the maximum they can earn is 400 Euros per month. On the plus side, they get to keep it all. They don’t pay any taxes on the money. And they do still get some government assistance.

He went to the private sector.  To get advice of how to create jobs in the private sector.  And he listened to what they said.  The cost of labor and regulatory costs were crippling job creation.

Generous unemployment insurance and regulations that add to the cost of employment tend to make for a static, unhealthy labor market. Though designed to make life better for workers, these policies may do them more harm than good.

Listening to the private sector turned around the German economy.  Made it the dynamo it is today.  And it is why that the German economy is the only economy that can bail out the Euro.

Economic Recovery Requires New Jobs

The economy still looks like it’s going to get worse before it gets better.  Whereas the Germans are doing so well that they may single-handedly bailout the Eurozone from their sovereign debt crisis.  And a lot of Americans are saying that should be us.  Not the bailing out the Eurozone part.  But having the ability to do that.

And that could have been us.  And should have been.  Like it used to be.  When America led the world in creating jobs.  So what happened?  The same thing that had happened in Germany.  The cost of employment grew.  And as it grew new job creation declined.

Economic recovery requires new jobs.  The Germans understood that.  And they did something about it.  So should we.  And the sooner we do the sooner we will see that economic recovery.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If Taxing the Rich won’t Reduce the Deficit then it’s not Tax Reform, it’s Class Warfare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 25th, 2011

The Rich are Paying Far More in Taxes than People like Warren Buffet’s Secretary

It’s tax reform.  It’s not tax reform.  They may not have their story straight.  But this much we know.  Obama’s Warren Buffett tax will do nothing for deficit reduction.  But it sure will fan the flames of class warfare (see WH self-contradicts, admits tax hikes arent reform by Joel Gehrke posted 9/25/2011 on The Washington Examiner).

President Obama and White House Senior Adviser David Plouffe have adopted contradictory rhetoric regarding  President Obama’s proposed tax increases, which the president has touted as “tax reform…”

Plouffe responded that “the president would like to do tax reform . . . But absent tax reform,  the president believes the right way to get our fiscal house in order is to ask the wealthy to pay their fair share.”

So according to Plouffe, raising taxes isn’t tax reform.  It’s to punish the rich.  That’s what making them ‘pay their fair share’ means.  Even though, right now, they’re paying more than their fair share.  Far more.  (More on that later.)  Obama, though, sees it differently.  And the way he sees it punishing the rich is reforming the tax code.

When two people can’t get their story street it typically means one thing.  They’re lying.  And can’t keep their stories straight.

Now, the Republicans say they’re in favor of tax reform.  Let’s go.  Let’s reform this tax code.  And let’s reform it based on a very simple principle:  Warren Buffett’s secretary should not be paying a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. It’s a simple principle.

Why not?  Warren Buffett is still paying more tax dollars.  The rich are paying far more in taxes than people like Warren Buffet’s secretary.  So why keep saying this?  Can be for only one reason.  To punish the rich.  And to show the people that you want to vote for you that you’re punishing the rich.

Wallace pointed out to Plouffe that “the top 10 percent pay 70 percent of federal income taxes. Meanwhile, 46 percent of households pay no federal income tax at all.” Plouffe countered that “you can manipulate the statistics in any way you want,” and also said that “they are making a ton of money” while “we have inequities,” presumably in the tax code. And then Plouffe offered what would qualify as an argument for tax reform, except that Plouffe is admittedly not pushing for tax reform:

The American people are screaming out saying it’s unfair that the wealthiest, the largest corporations who can afford the best attorneys, the best accountants, take advantage of these special tax treatments that the lobbyist have, along with lawmakers, have cooked in the books here. So, the question is: how are we going to move forward as a country?

Wallace interjected, “Because 70% isn’t enough?”

For tax revenue?  Yes.  That 70% should be enough.  Perhaps too much.  But for class warfare?  No.  Because there’s a lot more money they can take from the rich.  And the more they take the more votes they gain from that 46% that doesn’t pay any federal income taxes.

It’s not that the President is Losing White Independents.  It’s just that Blacks Refuse to Give Up on Obama.

So why the class warfare?  Because it’s election time.  And when you don’t have a good record you don’t win reelections running on that record.  So you don’t.  Instead, you go class warfare.  Pit one group against the other.  Find narrow slices of the population that you can turn against your political opposition.  And, if you get enough of these slivers, you may just have a chance at reelection.  Despite your horrible record while in office (see Obama 2012 campaign’s Operation Vote focuses on ethnic minorities, core liberals by Peter Wallsten posted 9/25/2011 on The Washington Post).

President Obama’s campaign is developing an aggressive new program to expand support from ethnic minority groups and other traditional Democratic voters as his team studies an increasingly narrow path to victory in next year’s reelection effort.

The program, called “Operation Vote,” underscores how the tide has turned for Obama, whose 2008 brand was built on calls to unite “red and blue America.” Then, he presented himself as a politician who could transcend traditional partisan divisions, and many white centrists were drawn to the coalition that helped elect the country’s first black president.

The problem is that Obama is about as partisan as they come.  That’s why the tide has turned against him.  A lot of people hated George W. Bush.  And thought Obama was going to bring in the love.  Make the country as a whole link arms and sing Kumbaya.  But that hasn’t happened.

He spent more than George W. Bush.  Giving us record deficits.  And he keeps blaming his spending on the rich not paying their fair share of taxes.  The people see what’s going on, though.  They’re not blind.  It’s his spending.  Not a lack of taxes.  And all that spending hasn’t done a thing to help the economy.  The economy was, after all, far better under George W. Bush.  So they’re seeing the same old tax and spend liberal.  Not the candidate that was going to get us all to link arms and sing Kumbaya.

But not everyone is turning against this president.  The blacks haven’t turn on him.  They would have but for one reason.  He’s black.  The black community is furious with him.  But they still can’t abandon him.  As the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Maxine Waters, said in Detroit.  “If we go after the president too hard, you’re going after us. When you tell us it’s all right and you unleash us and you’re ready to have this conversation, we’re ready to have the conversation,” Waters said.

Today, the political realities of a sputtering economy, a more polarized Washington and fast-sinking presidential job approval ratings, particularly among white independents, are forcing the Obama campaign to adjust its tactics.

Operation Vote will function as a large, centralized department in the Chicago campaign office for reaching ethnic, religious and other voter groups. It will coordinate recruitment of an ethnic volunteer base and push out targeted messages online and through the media to groups such as blacks, Hispanics, Jews, women, seniors, young people, gays and Asian Americans.

It’s not that the president is losing white independents.  It’s just that blacks refuse to give up on Obama and join the exodus from him.

When you’ve been a poor president.  When your policies have made things worse.  There’s only one thing you can do.  You do everything to divide the American people.  Drive wedges.  Find reasons.  Why blacks should hate Republicans.  Why Hispanics should hate Republicans.  Why women should hate Republicans.  Why seniors should hate Republicans.  Why young people should hate Republicans.  Why gays should hate Republicans.  Why Asians should hate Republicans.

When you have failed you become what you said you weren’t.  Or stop pretending to be something you never were.  And you incite hatred.  Fan the fires of class warfare.  You pursue policies that further divide the American people.  Even if those policies hinder the economic recovery.

The campaign officials say they have not given up on wooing independents, and the 2012 presidential election will certainly involve a fierce fight for the college-educated whites and suburbanites who were more likely to back Obama in 2008 than the working-class whites who have always been more skeptical.

By ‘college-educated’ they mean ‘favorably-educated’.  Universities lean left.  Continuing the work of the public school teachers.  Both of who depend on government funding.  And growing tax rates.  So they need government to grow.  And will always vote for the party that will grow government.  And will ‘teach’ their young students to do the same.

Working-class people, on the other hand, have spent more time in the real world.  They’ve had a chance to get deprogrammed from their public school indoctrination.  That’s why it’s harder to fool the working-class.

When you’ve ‘Jimmy Cartered’ the Economy you can’t Run on your Record

It’s election season.  Little more than a year to go before the 2012 election.  So candidate Obama is back.  Running like he wasn’t the president for the last 3 years or so.  Somehow trying to explain to his most loyal base that he’s made things better than his predecessor.  George W. Bush.

But he hasn’t.  However you measure it.  GDP.  Unemployment rate.  Consumer confidence.  Whatever.  And the kicker is that the cause for the Subprime Mortgage Crisis that started under Bush wasn’t caused by Bush.  Putting people into houses they couldn’t afford was a liberal Democrat policy.  So housing wasn’t exclusive to only those who could afford a house.  Policies the Obama administration favors.  And policies that they want to implement again.  Despite having just suffered the Subprime Mortgage Crisis because of those policies.  Why?  Because it gets you more votes at election time.

So when you’ve ‘Jimmy Cartered‘ the economy you can’t run on your record.  The best you can hope for is to paint your political opponent as being everything the slivers of your most loyal base hate.  Attack the rich.  And promise more free stuff to that 46% that doesn’t pay any federal income taxes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Taxing the Rich in America, Taxing Everyone as Rich in Europe

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 24th, 2011

Spending is so Great the Only Way to get Serious Deficit Reduction is with Spending Cuts

Dan Greenhaus with BTIG looked at Obama‘s proposed Buffet Tax.  Crunched the numbers from the 2009 U.S. tax returns.  And found that the Buffet Tax is more politics than deficit reduction (see A Little Bit Of Math On The ‘Buffett Tax’ by Joe Weisenthal posted 9/19/2011 on Business Insider Politix).

Nonetheless, if we add up the $1,000,000 and above categories, we get taxable income of $623.6 billion that resulted in $177.5 billion in income tax paid, a rate of less than 28.5%. If we were able to somehow change that tax rate to say 35%, an increase of more than 7 percentage points, the income tax paid in 2009 would have been over $218 billion or an increase of a bit less than $41 billion. If we were able to do this over ten years, the U.S. would have extra income of $410 billion. All from raising taxes by seven full percentage points on those making income over $1,000,000.

Unfortunately, $410 billion is “only” about 7% of the deficit we expect to incur over the next ten years. That is not an inconsequential portion but considering the debate surrounding hiking tax rates by any amount, let alone generating an increase sufficient see a seven percentage point increase in taxes paid, as well as the negative consequences such a sharp adjustment would engender, this hardly seems to be the “only” place to go to achieve debt reduction.

The magnitude of the deficit is too great to pay with new taxes.  As it is now, the 2011 deficit will come in at $1.65 trillion.  A 7% tax rate hike would net an additional $41 billion.  Or $410 billion over ten years.  This would reduce the 2011 deficit from $1.65 trillion to $1.61 trillion.  Not impressive.  Remember, Standard and Poor’s wanted to see $4 trillion in debt reduction over the next decade.  And $410 billion is a long way from $4 trillion.

Take a close look at these numbers.  A $1.65 trillion dollar deficit.  And taxable income as reported to the IRS of $623.6 billion.  The deficit is 2.6 times the total taxable income from those making $1 million or more.  In other words, you could tax away all of their money and the government would still run a deficit.

The spending is so great that the only way you’re going to get serious deficit reduction is with spending cuts.  Because spending is big enough to cut to make a difference.  Unlike taxing the Warren Buffets.  Whose incomes aren’t big enough to make a difference.

So when Keynesian tax and spend liberal Democrats talk about serious deficit reduction it’s just misdirection.  They know they can’t reduce the deficit.  But that’s okay with them.  For that isn’t their goal.  They want to raise taxes for a different reason.  They like to spend.  It’s how they get power.  And votes.  But when you run such massive deficits it’s hard to spend more.  Unless you raise taxes.  And that’s why they want to raise taxes.  Not to reduce the deficit.  Which is impossible to do with tax hikes.  They’ve just run out of money.  And they want more to spend.

Left of Center Welfare States are Always Good for Vote-Getting

And if you think it’s bad on this side of the Atlantic, you should see what they’re doing on the other side.  The Europeans have a lot of social democracies.  Left-of-center governments.  With huge welfare states.  Which is always good for vote-getting.  But it comes at a price.  High taxes.  And lots of debt.

To keep spending at their levels of spending they have raised tax rates on the ‘rich’.  And lowered the threshold for being ‘rich’.  The Business Insider crunched the numbers and put together a little slideshow showing the tax rates.  And what it means to be rich in these countries.  We pulled the data from the slide show and put them into tabular form below (see These Are The Toughest Taxes For Europe’s High Earners by Nick Jardine posted 9/24/2011 on Business Insider Europe).

We calculated the numbers above based on the threshold salary that puts these taxpayers into the top tax rate.  And the tax rate.  All numbers are in U.S. dollars.  The numbers very a little from the Business Insider slideshow possibly due to rounding error.  Or other tax considerations.  But the numbers were close enough to fill in the blanks where needed.  Though it may not be completely accurate, the numbers should be close enough in magnitude for the purpose of discussion.

When they couldn’t Tax the Rich Anymore, they Taxed the Middle Class.  By Redefining them as Rich.

Depending on your political persuasion, you no doubt will draw different conclusions from these numbers.  A Keynesian liberal Democrat will say Germany isn’t taxing their rich enough.  That they are the richest of the rich.  And that they should probably tax everyone earning over, say, $100,000 at the highest rate.  Like in Greece.  A non-Keynesian will see it differently.  They will note that only the German economy is rich enough to bailout the poorer nations of the Eurozone.  Particularly Greece.  Meaning that the more rich people you let be rich the more tax revenue you will have.

A non-Keynesian will think it’s not fair that a rich German only gets to keep $3,581 from the $6,511 he or she earns every week.  The Keynesian will have no problem with that.  Of course, they may not think it’s fair that a Belgian only gets to keep $446 of the $892 he or she earns every week.  They’ll think it’s fair to take about half of what the rich make.  But they don’t think it’s fair calling someone rich who makes only $46,349.  Or calling someone rich who only makes $20,613.  Especially if they earn more than they do.  And currently pay no income taxes.

None of these countries started out at these income thresholds or tax rates.  They’ve lowered income thresholds through the years.  And they’ve raised tax rates.  Whenever their governments spent more money than they had.  Employing class warfare they vilified the rich.  Raised their tax rates.  And when they couldn’t raise tax rates on the rich anymore, they raised taxes on the middle class.  By redefining them as rich.  And they then paid the higher tax rates.  It’s gotten so bad in some countries that people who pay no income tax in America would be paying the highest tax rate in some European countries.  But it all starts with taxing the rich.

With Keynesians in Power you’ll never see Spending Cuts because that’s how Democrats Buy Votes

We have to be careful of what we ask for.  Such as taxing the rich.  Because we may be rich ourselves one day.  As the threshold for being rich shrinks over time.  First it was the billionaires.  Then the millionaires.  Then those earning $200,000 or more.  Then those earning $100,000 or more.  Down to as low as $20,000.

Fair is fair they’ll say.  So you’ll agree to make the rich pay their fair share.  And then those earning less than you will also agree to make the rich pay their fair share.  And by rich they’ll mean you.  Until all earners will be taxed at the highest rate.  To support those non-earners who vote Democrat.

But no matter how much they’ll take it will never be enough.  Because you can’t reduce the deficit/debt by raising taxes.  They’re just too big.  The only way you can reduce these is by reducing the thing that made them so big.  Spending.  But that’s not likely to happen.  As long as Keynesians are in power.  Because that’s how Keynesian tax and spend liberal Democrats buy votes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Keynesian Tax and Spend Monetary Policy will Never Overcome Ruinous Fiscal and Regulatory Policy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 23rd, 2011

No Theory is Sacrosanct in the Scientific Method, Even if it’s Albert Einstein’s Theory

Albert Einstein‘s Theory of Relativity has held in the scientific community for some 106 years.  It hasn’t been accepted as a matter of faith, though.  It has been tested thousands of times in attempts to debunk it.  Right up to today.  Where it now appears we may be close to debunking it (see “Faster than light” particles may be physics revolution by Robert Evans posted 9/23/2011 on Reuters).

“It is premature to comment on this,” Professor Stephen Hawking, the world’s most well-known physicist, told Reuters. “Further experiments and clarifications are needed…”

“When an experiment finds an apparently unbelievable result and can find no artifact of the measurement to account for it, it is normal to invite broader scrutiny….it is good scientific practice,” he said…

Einstein’s theory has been tested thousands of times over the past 106 years and only recently have there been just slight hints that the behavior of some elementary particles of matter might not fit into it…

Ereditato, a physicist who also works at the Einstein Institute in the University of Berne, said the potential impact on science “is too large to draw any immediate conclusions or attempt physics interpretations…”

“Only when the dust finally settles should we dare draw any firm conclusions,” said Professor Forshaw. “It is in the nature of science that for every new and important discovery there will be hundreds of false alarms.”

This is the scientific method.  No theory is sacrosanct.  Even one by the great Albert Einstein.  Even if it’s been around for 106 years.

Quite the contrast to the theory of global warming.  Accepted by government scientists as indisputable fact.  Even though it has never been given serious scientific scrutiny like that given to one of the world’s greatest scientist.  Albert Einstein.

Considering the Economics, Only a Fool would Bet Against the Chinese in the area of Solar Panels

But Al Gore is smarter than Albert Einstein.  For he says that global warming is a scientific fact.  Even though we still call Einstein’s Theory of Relativity a theory after 106 years.  But not the theory of global warming.  No.  That theory is not a theory.  It’s fact.  So certain a fact that world governments have been killing economic activity everywhere to stop the ravishes of global warming.  Even investing in companies that promise to give us renewable green energy of the future.  Like that one that just ripped off the American taxpayer to the tune of half a billion dollars (see Solyndra haunts other government-backed solar firms by Steve Hargreaves posted 9/23/2011 on CNN Money).

At least three other government-backed solar firms face the same challenging market conditions that brought down Solyndra, the now bankrupt solar panel maker that could cost taxpayers over $500 million…

The company’s downfall is generally thought to have been caused by the declining price of silicon.

Solyndra didn’t use silicon. But many of its competitors did — traditional solar firms like Sunpower (SPWRA), Trina Solar (TSL), Yingli (YGE) and Jinkosolar (JKS). Solyndra was banking that high silicon prices would give it a competitive advantage…

Are they also doomed? Experts say that if they can further develop their technology they may have a fighting chance but market conditions in the near-term are working against them…

An Energy Department spokesman said the agency was not worried about these companies failing, saying it conducts rigorous reviews of all the ventures it funds.

Of course.  There’s nothing to worry about these other companies failing.  Because the Energy Department conducts a rigorous review of all the ventures they fund.  Except Solyndra apparently.  Or they did review them rigorously.  And the Energy Department just sucks at its job.

China’s investment in silicon as well as its huge investments in solar panel makers, combined with weaker demand worldwide as subsidies expire in Europe, caused the price of traditional solar panels to plummet.

In the last year alone they fell some 40%.

All across the globe, solar panel makers, especially ones that were developing more advanced technology, are finding it hard to compete with the Chinese as the price of solar panels drops.

I guess the Energy Department just sucks at its job.  I mean, imagine you’re an investor for a moment.  And you want to invest in a store that sells home improvement stuff.  Do you invest in the Home Depot?  Or the mom and pop hardware store?  The Home Depot is much bigger.  Has a greater variety of stuff.  And sells that stuff for 40% less than Mom and Pop.  Which store would you invest in?  Of course, you would invest in the Home Depot.  But the Energy Department, the geniuses that they are, would invest in Mom and Pop.  And then act shocked when they go belly up in the face of that fierce competition.

Considering the economics, only a fool would bet against the Chinese in the area of solar panels.  Then again, no one in Washington seems to understand economics in the least.

Cheaper panels mean more people will switch to the clean technology. Work has been booming for solar installers, project developers, and financiers. Just this week the industry said solar power capacity in the United States jumped 69% in the second quarter compared to the same time last year.

The Energy Department, as part of its plan to fund R&D and commercialization of renewable and clean energy technology, has backed or is considering backing loans to 42 firms across the sector totaling $39 billion in funding.

The manufacturers are taking it on the chin.  But the installers are installing these cheap Chinese solar panels like there’s no tomorrow.  You’d think the Energy Department would be happy that these silly things are being installed and get out of the investment business.  But no.  They’re going to piss away another $39 billion to fund firms that won’t be able to compete against the Chinese either.

By a show of hands who wants the Republican president to abolish the Energy Department in 2013?

One Gets the Feeling that Government Likes Wasteful Spending as it Adds to the Deficit

We really need to cut the government off.  They just aren’t responsible with our money.  If it ain’t throwing money away on solar panels, they’re throwing it away on dead people (see Gov’t paid $600 million in benefits to dead people by Sam Hananel posted 9/23/2011 on the Associated Press).

The federal government has doled out more than $600 million in benefit payments to dead people over the past five years, a watchdog report says.

Such payments are meant for retired or disabled federal workers…

In one case, the son of a beneficiary continued receiving payments for 37 years after his father’s death in 1971. The payments – totaling more than $515,000 – were only discovered when the son died in 2008.

If you owe a dollar in taxes you can bet the IRS will find you wherever you are.  But when it comes to spending our money it’s a different story.  As they are probably afraid of any close scrutiny that might show other mishandled funds.

Last year, government investigators found that more than 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each from the massive economic recovery package went to people who were either dead or in prison.

There’s another $22 million pissed away by Uncle Sam.  $22 million here.  $600 million there.  And $16 muffins.  Where does it stop?  They are so ruthless when it comes to taxing us.  But once they get our money they apparently don’t give a damn about what happens to it then.

One gets the feeling that they like this waste.  As it adds to the deficit.  And the greater the deficit is the greater the need for new revenue.  Higher tax rates.  And getting the rich to pay their fair share.  I say let’s raise the tax rates on those doing such a poor job handling our money.  If they have such a cavalier attitude about taxpayers’ money, let them belly up to the bar and pay for their waste with their own damn money.

If You Want Real Stimulus Repeal Dodd-Frank.  That Alone will Create 30,000 Jobs at One Bank.

So the government is horrible at picking investment winners.  And is about as responsible as a teenager with money.  But Obama is looking to spend another $450 billion in stimulus.  To create jobs.  Unlike that $800 billion stimulus that failed to create jobs.  So they don’t know how to create jobs either.  Worse, they only thing they seem to be good at is destroying jobs (see The Dodd-Frank Layoffs posted 9/13/2011 on The Wall Street Journal).

Bank of America appears to have provided part of the answer by announcing yesterday that the nation’s largest bank will cut 30,000 jobs between now and 2014…

The Fed dutifully ordered banks to cut their fees almost in half. Bank of America disclosed in its most recent quarterly report that this change will reduce the bank’s debit-card revenues by $475 million in just the fourth quarter of this year. The new rules take effect on October 1, so BofA seems to have sensible timing as it begins to shed workers from a consumer business that has become suddenly less profitable by federal edict…

But given the real-world results for bank employees, politicians should not be allowed to pretend that there are no consequences when they deliberately reduce the profitability of employers. Mr. Obama proposed last week to spend some $450 billion more in outlays or tax credits to create more jobs, but it would have cost a lot less to save these 30,000.

If they want real stimulus they should repeal Dodd-Frank.  That alone will create 30,000 jobs.  At one bank.  If this happens at other banks you’re looking at hundreds of thousands of jobs.  Now that’s stimulus.

If they really want to create jobs they ought to go big.  Abolish the EPA.  And the Energy Department.  For a start.  With that kind of uncertainty removed just think of the explosion in economic activity.  Creating jobs galore.  Hundreds of thousands.  Perhaps millions.  The oil and coal industries alone would probable wrest this country from recession.

The Economy is not Just Monetary Policy.  It’s Fiscal and Regulatory Policy, too.

So it’s clear the government doesn’t know the first thing about stimulating economic activity.  They just can’t figure that out.  But what they can do is destroy jobs.  They’re real good at that.  And the reason for all of this is that they’re Keynesians.  They worship at the altar of Keynesian Economics.  Despite its horrendous track record.  Almost three years and counting for the current administration.  But they refuse to lose faith.  Instead, when they fail, they just choose to fail again.  By pursuing more of the same failed policies (see Markets tumble after Fed says it will buy longer-term bonds to try to boost economy by Neil Irwin posted 9/23/2011 on The Washington Post).

The announcement that the Fed would buy $400 billion in long-term Treasury bonds immediately achieved its intended effect, pushing rates on these securities and other investments to their lowest level in decades.

But the stock market rendered a sharply negative verdict. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index tumbled almost 3 percent on the Fed’s discouraging statement that its leaders see “significant downside risks” for the economy. Asian markets closed down between 2 and 4.85 percent, and key European indexes were trading more than 4 percent lower at midday.

No one wants to borrow money.  Businesses.  Or consumers.  Because there is just too much economic uncertainty with the Obama administration.  Everybody is hunkering down.  Deleveraging.  And hoarding cash.  Until better economic times.  Times with less uncertainty.  Probably starting sometime after 2012.  When there’ll be a new Republican president.  And hopefully a Republican House and Senate.  To undo those things causing all of this uncertainty.  Dodd-Frank.  Obamacare.  Etc.

The Fed action, which capped a two-day meeting, is focused squarely on lowering mortgage rates in an effort to strengthen the ailing housing market and lighten the load of the tremendous debt weighing on consumers. The move could also make it cheaper for businesses to borrow money for investments and push more dollars into the stock market.

The housing bubble create a surplus of houses that’ll be around for a long, long time.  The country is dotted with empty homes that banks have foreclosed on.  And the banks own a whole bunch more that will be hitting the market soon.  It’s a buyer’s market out there.  But it sure sucks to be a seller.  Especially if your mortgage is under water.  Homes have lost so much value after that bubble burst that anyone selling now will lose tens of thousands of dollars.  So they’re not selling.  Or buying.  No matter how cheap mortgage rates are.

The bond-buying program that ended in the summer, though massive in scale, failed to keep economic growth from sputtering. The disappointing result showed the limits of what the Fed can accomplish at a time when consumers are struggling with enormous debts and the U.S. banking system remains traumatized. The new initiative could face the same constraints.

Quantitative easing 2 failed.  And there’s no reason to think that quantitative easing 3 won’t fail as well.  So why do it?  Because they’re Keynesians.  And their scripture says that’s what you do.  Weak demand?  Why you fix that with cheap money.  But they don’t understand that the economy is not just monetary policy.  It’s fiscal policy, too.  And their fiscal policy is killing the economy.  And what their fiscal policy doesn’t kill their regulatory policy will.

The Only Way to Fix this Economy is to Get Rid of Keynesian Policies

Tax and spend Keynesian policies are strangling the economy.  Stimulus spending doesn’t work.  If it did the economy would be reaching record heights due to that record spending.  But it’s not.  The tax and spend Keynesians explanation for this record of dismal failure?  They didn’t spend enough.

The economic malaise has a lot more to do with uncertainty than weak demand.  It’s that out of control spending.  You eventually have to pay for it.  And every business owner knows that ultimately you pay for spending with taxes.  And they see the Obama administration is hell-bent on raising taxes on anyone earning more than $200,000 a year.  Which will be a tax hike on most small business as their earnings pass through to their personal tax return.

And while they’re waiting for punitive taxes to come down the pike they’re being hammered by regulatory compliance costs.  The big one scaring the bejesus out of them is Obamacare.  And Dodd-Frank is not just for Wall Street bankers.  Not to mention the EPA’s enormous impact on business operations.  They’re being bitch-slapped left and right by these regulations.  And they are terrified by what’s next from this administration.

You see, Big Government Keynesian politicians don’t understand economics.  Or business.  They see business as cash piñatas.  That they can whack at their pleasure.  They have no idea how they make money.  But they assume that they will go on making money no matter what they do in Washington.  And being the Keynesians they are, they believe that businesses make money for government first.  And then, after government takes what they want, what they deem fair, then and only then can they use whatever they earn for their own selfish wants and pleasures.  The selfish rich bastards they are.  Those contemptible business owners.

This is how Big Government Keynesians think.  And this is why they fail miserably at creating jobs.  And economic activity.  The only way to fix this economy, then, is to get rid of Keynesian policies.  And the only way to do that is to get rid of the Keynesians.  At the voting booth.  By voting conservative.  And in our two-party system, that means voting Republican.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #84: “The bigger and more complex government gets the more unintended the consequences.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 22nd, 2011

Prohibition had Popular Support from Wives, Progressives and Organized Crime

The Progressive movement began changing our lives in the beginning of the 20th century.  Thanks in large part to the American Civil War.  After a generation of American fathers were killed by the ravishes of war a lot of sons grew up without a manly role model in their lives.  They had no father to learn manly chores from.  To go hunting with.  To beat the crap out of them when they misbehaved.  To toughen them up for the real world.  Instead all they got was the loving and nurturing stuff from their mothers.  And when they grew up they wanted to be mothers, too.  And nurture the American people.  For mother knows best.

When these children grew up they changed government.  Instead of it being the limited government of their fathers they wanted an activist one.  To make our lives better.  More fair.  And safer.  Which is why they supported the temperance movement.  And took it to Prohibition.  To save the American family.  To stop drunken husbands from beating their wives.  To prevent poverty by keeping the money in the family.  And out of the saloons.   To stop the epidemic of venereal disease.  Spread by prostitutes who frequented saloons.  Trying to get some of that family paycheck.  Before the saloon owner got it all.  So Prohibition had popular support.  From wives.  Progressives.  And organized crime.

This was an unintended consequence of Prohibition.  For the law prohibited “the manufacture, sale, or transportation” of booze.  But not the drinking of it.  And when there’s a will there’s a way.  There were people who still wanted to drink.  And could without facing any consequences for it if caught by the law.  So they kept drinking.  And there was a booming demand.  And a willing albeit illegal supply network to meet that demand.  So life was good.  For those who liked to indulge in inebriating beverages.  And for those who provided those inebriating beverages.  Especially the providers.  Because when you make anything illegal that is in high demand means only one thing.  High profits.

There’s a Profit Incentive for Criminals because Illegal Stuff Costs More than Legal Stuff

At first everyone laughed as they flaunted the law.  It was, after all, a victimless crime.  People wanted to buy.  And the underworld wanted to sell.  No harm.  No foul.  For awhile.  Until the gang violence spilled over into the public streets.  When innocents saw this violence up close and personal.  Some even dying in the crossfire.  Like in Chicago.  Owned for a time by Al Capone.  King of the bootleggers.  Who killed off the competition.  The Valentine’s Day Massacre being the tipping point.  When the cops started fighting back.

The FBI eventually got Capone.  On tax evasion.  But it didn’t end the violence.  You know what did?  The repeal of the 18th Amendment.  And letting the people drink again.  Which they really needed during the depressing New Deal programs of FDR.

By decriminalizing alcohol they removed the profit incentive for criminals.  Because illegal stuff costs more than legal stuff.  So there’s no market for bootlegged liquor anymore.  So the gangs turned to another illegal substance.  Drugs.  Whose criminalization has far worse unintended consequences than Prohibition ever had.  We can trace most violent crime in the U.S. to drugs.  From theft to support a drug habit.  To Capone style gang warfare to protect turf.  To the unspeakable horrors on and south of the US-Mexican border.

The Decriminalization of Drugs:  Damned if We Do.  And Damned if We Don’t.

So what is one to do?  Decriminalize drugs?  Not quite the same thing as ending prohibition.  Drugs are a little more potent than alcohol.  Especially methamphetamine.  Crystal meth addiction destroys lives.  Which is why it’s such a lucrative drug.  You can manufacture it anywhere from chemicals.  And it’s addictive.  Addiction provides a steady demand.  And its chemistry provides a readily available supply.  That you can hide.  Unlike Coca fieldsPoppy fields.  Or marijuana fields.

Meth has a strong foothold in the drug-taking community.  Despite it being illegal.  One shudders what would happen if we decriminalized drugs.  Like meth.  It’s potent.  Addictive.  And popular with the kids.  It takes a fake ID to buy alcohol when underage.  Because there are few pushers selling cases of beer and wine coolers on the street.  But if an adult can buy it legally it could be hard for a drug dealer to pass up the underage market.  I mean, there are no empty bottles or cans to trace back to a store.  And if you’re caught carrying, hey, it isn’t illegal.

So we’re damned if we do.  And damned if we don’t.  The war on drugs has a devastating cost on society.  But the drugs are so harmful.  And helping users break their addiction also costs society.  Broken families.  Lost jobs and careers.  Children addicts can no longer provide for.  Infectious disease.  Overdose.  Violence.  Criminal activity.  And decriminalizing drugs won’t make any of that better.

The Poorer You are and the More Children You Have the More Money You Get on Your EBT

America has been fighting another war.  A war on poverty.  Which probably has been more destructive than the war on drugs.  Economist Thomas Sowell blames the welfare state for the destruction of the black family.  By subsidizing failure.  Providing incentives not to succeed.  A disincentive to be responsible.  The very programs to help the poor have destroyed the poor.  With unintended consequences that have destroyed generations.

This video was from 1980.  Fast forward to today and you can see this put in another way.  Perhaps a little less elegantly.  But it reinforces Dr. Sowell’s argument.  There’s a video on YouTube that praises the EBT card in California.  A program to help poor single people with children.  Depending on the number of children and your circumstances, the government loads a dollar amount on the EBT card.  You then use it like a debit card.  At any store that accepts EBT.  The government then reimburses the store owners.

So the poorer you are and the more children you have the more money you get on your EBT card.  As Dr. Sowell pointed out, this may be a disincentive to be responsible.  And the YouTube video shows this.  We should note, though, that the rapper who made this video said that “it was meant to be satirical and poke fun at a real issue.”  Some have called it inappropriate.  You can judge for yourself after you watch the video.  (NOTE:  If you’re at work or are in a public place you probably should wait until you get home to watch this video.  It contains very graphic language (as in the ‘f’ word).  And may be racially insensitive.  Please exercise due discretion when viewing It’s Free, Swipe Yo EBT.)

Government may have Meant Well but the Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

Prohibition made it harder to manufacture and distribute alcohol.  But people still drank.  Because it wasn’t illegal to drink.  At first it was just a game.  Imbibing at the speakeasy.  Then buildings exploded.  And bodies littered the street.  Much like they are in Mexico today.  And along the US-Mexican border.  Because well organized enterprises are trying to meet a lucrative demand north of the border.  That our drug policies made lucrative.  Just like Prohibition made bootlegging a lucrative business.

Unintended consequences are a bitch.  And whenever government tries to fix something we often get something worse.  Prohibition and our war on drugs have given us organized crime to deal with.  And our war on poverty has destroyed poor families.  By incentivizing irresponsible behavior.   And making generations dependent on government.

At every time, though, government meant well.  They always say that they had nothing but good intentions.  But we should remember what they say about good intentions.  That the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

‘More Taxes, Regulations, Uncertainty and Spending’ is the Mantra of the Obama Administration

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 21st, 2011

Obama’s Proposed Aviation Fees will Fall Predominantly on the People who can Least Afford It

In Obama‘s deficit reduction plan he plans to tax the rich.  Those who can most afford it.  Rich people.  And by rich people he means anyone who has any money to spend (see Airline groups attack Obama proposals to boost fees for aviation security, air traffic control by Associated Press posted 9/21/2011 on The Washington Post).

The aviation fees are part of Obama’s deficit-cutting plan that was released Tuesday. The plan would:

— raise the passenger security fee — now $5 to $10 per round trip — to $15 by 2017 and give the Homeland Security Department the power to push it higher.

— impose a surcharge of $100 per flight to help pay for air traffic control.

But college students fly.  Middle class families fly on vacation.  Non-rich people everywhere fly to visit family members that have moved away.  A lot of people fly.  And an interesting tidbit about the flying public?  They’re not all rich.

The rich people that Obama wants to tax?  Because they can most afford it?  Those well-to-do folk who fly those private jets?  Well, a lot of them do just that.  Fly private jets.  And, therefore, do NOT fly on commercial planes.  So they won’t be paying these new taxes/fees.  So these taxes/fees will fall predominantly on the people who can least afford it.  Imagine that.

The Air Transport Association, which represents large airlines, said it’s unfair for airlines and passengers to pay for security against terror attacks that target the U.S. and not the airlines themselves. The trade group says a typical $300 round-trip ticket already includes $60 in taxes and fees.

The Regional Airline Association, a group of smaller carriers, said the fees could lead to a loss of flights to smaller cities. The group’s president, Roger Cohen, said the $100 surcharge would cost more than regional airlines earned last year, threatening service to smaller cities.

The groups also complained that some of the money raised from airlines and passengers would be used to pay down the federal budget deficit and not to improve the air-travel system.

The airlines have a vested interest in protecting their planes.  Because they bought them.  And planes that blow up or crash in terrorist attacks don’t help the bottom line.  There’s the loss of an expensive airplane.  And the future revenue from that airplane.  The cost of replacing that airplane.  And the lost business from passengers who tend to shy away from an airline whose planes are easy pickings for terrorists.

So let them hire a security contractor to secure their planes.  Using the Israeli model.  Ask very pointed questions and observe people’s responses.  It works well for the Israelis.  Couldn’t be any worse than what the TSA is doing.  I mean, what passengers are going to complain about being groped less?

The administration estimated that boosting passenger security fees will raise $24.9 billion over 10 years. It proposed to spend $15 billion of that to reduce federal debt.

This is telling.  The airlines did not run up that federal debt. So there’s something really troubling about this.  Taking $15 billion from the airlines under the auspices of national security.  Just so they can continue their irresponsible spending ways in Washington.  This is no different than an addict stealing from his mother’s purse to support his habit.

This is Washington’s problem.  Not the airlines.  Washington has a spending problem.  And they can’t stop spending.  Or simply choose not to.  Instead they look for other people to steal from.  Like an addict.  While denying that they have a problem.  And always blaming others.  Like the rich who don’t pay their fair share.  And by rich they mean anyone that has any money to spend.

Tax Cuts Stimulate, not Keynesian Stimulus Spending Funded by Taxes

So how bad is this spending?  How much of a debt problem has it given us?  That the president is shaking down the airlines for $15 billion (see Committee Searches for Economic ‘Tipping Point’; Prefer Not to Find It by Jim Angle posted 9/20/2011 on Fox News)?

“We know that the debt is now 100 percent — approximately 100 percent of (gross domestic product),” said Allan Meltzer, a professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. “That doesn’t include the unfunded liabilities. It doesn’t include (mortgage lenders)Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It doesn’t include a number of other things.”

By unfunded liabilities, Meltzer means entitlement programs. Social Security and Medicare alone have $46 trillion in unfunded liabilities, meaning that much more is promised in benefits than the government — and taxpayers — have as a plan to pay for them.

Oh.  It’s that bad.  We owe a dollar for every dollar our economy produces.  But it’s even worse than this.  All of those unfunded liabilities that don’t appear in the official budget.  Fannie and Freddie.  And let’s not forget the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.  Which are filled only with IOUs from Uncle Sam.  Because Uncle Sam spent our money.  That money we put aside with each paycheck.  Those FICA and Medicare withholdings.  That money they forced us to save.  Because we were untrustworthy with our own money.  As they apparently are, too.

Chris Edwards, Director of Tax Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington, argues that U.S. debt is so far out of control that it must be contained soon.

“We’ve had five trillion (in) deficit spending since 2008, the most enormous sort of Keynesian stimulus you can imagine, and yet we’ve had slower growth than any time since World War II. So I don’t think spending helps.”

So the government owes more money than taxpayers can fund.  And yet that didn’t stop them from spending $5 trillion more.  For stimulus.  Which is just code for throwing money at political cronies.  I mean, it’s obvious that it didn’t stimulate anything.  Because the economy is still in the toilet.

And there’s a very good reason for that.  Because tax cuts stimulate.  Not Keynesian stimulus spending funded by taxes.

Meltzer pointed to three “fiscal changes that really did enormous good.” One was the tax cuts from the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, the most effective part of which were business tax cuts.

“They got the biggest bang for the buck,” he said.

The second were the Reagan-era tax cuts which came in two rounds and boosted a flagging economy. Meltzer said a completely different option worked well too.

“(The) third policy that gave people confidence were the Clinton tax increases, which assured people that their future tax rates were not going to go up, that they had seen what they were going to have to take, and there wouldn’t be anymore.”

Meltzer said the increases gave people certainty about what tax rates would be, which reassured businesses they wouldn’t go higher, allowing employers to plan and create jobs with confidence.

The Clinton tax increases?  That’s not why the Nineties were booming.  It was because of greedy capitalists.  Looking to strike it rich in the dot-com boom.  The economy was smoking hot because of irrational exuberance.  Not higher taxes.  And the budget went into surplus when all those dot-com people cashed in their stock options.  And they paid a boatload of capital gains taxes.  Before the dot-com bubble burst.  And threw the economy into recession.

But he’s right on the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts.  Both used good Austrian supply-side economics.  Which exploded economic activity.  And similar policies could do that again.  If we would just stop with the Keynesian nonsense.  And the belief that crippling regulations will spur economic growth.

Business Owners Hate Uncertainty because, Unlike Uncle Sam, they can’t Print Money

And speaking of regulation, remember the Dodd-Frank act?  Have you read it?  Probably not.  For I doubt anyone in Congress has read it in its entirety (see Dodd-Frank and Uncertainty by Veronique de Rugy posted 9/20/2011 on National Review).

Remember how President Obama promised that the Dodd-Frank bill would provide certainty, stability and growth…?

It’s 1,623 pages long. It is very heavy. If it could fit it in my purse, I could use it as a protective weapon. Whatever else this will do, however, it will not make lending cheaper or credit more readily available, and it will not protect us from another financial crisis. And it will not protect consumers or taxpayers.

What it will do, and already does, is continue injecting gigantic uncertainty into the economy, paralyzing entrepreneurship and job creation. Imagine how long it will take for all the rules to be written and for U.S. businesses to figure out how they are supposed to operate from now on. The vagueness of the law as written means that even business owners and consumers who have the courage to pick up this book and try to figure out what’s in their future won’t get the answers they are looking for.

Really, is there any doubt that some of the $2 trillion in cash that companies are sitting on is a direct result of this uncertainty?

That’s right.  If you don’t know what tomorrow may bring you save your money.  You deleverage.  Pay down debt.  And hoard cash.  Because cash is king.  It’s the only thing you can pay your employees with.  The only thing you can pay your suppliers with.  The only thing you can pay for your insurance with.  And it’s the only thing you can pay Uncle Sam with.  So if you don’t have enough of it around during bad times you may not be around for the good times.  When they return.  If they return.

Business owners hate uncertainty.  Because, unlike Uncle Sam, they can’t print money.  So they have to be very careful with what they have.  To survive things like recessions.  Depressions.  And Dodd-Frank.

In these Tough Economic Times, it is the People that are Suffering, not Rich Liberals

‘More taxes, more regulations and more uncertainty’ is the mantra of the Obama administration.  And, of course, more spending.  Always more spending.  Is it any surprise the economy is not responding well to Obama’s policies?

There is no way businesses will grow in this environment.  Or create jobs.  And without new jobs the economy will never recover.  People understand this.  That’s why Democrats are losing elections.  Even in New York.  It’s a repudiation of Obama.  And the liberal Democrat agenda.

For though the mainstream media has been a loyal propaganda outlet for the liberal elite, the people aren’t buying it anymore.  For in these tough economic times, it is the people that are suffering.  Because of Obama’s policies.  While rich liberal elitists are living well everywhere.  And continue to fly on their private jets.  While the common people will be paying Obama’s new aviation fees.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries