President Obama, always on the campaign trail, is now on the road trying to explain why his class warfare strategy is not class warfare. In his State of the Union address, he once again invoked the “Buffett Rule”, which is little more than a fig leaf to allow Obama to raise taxes. But what about some other “Buffett Rules”?

Spending

What is the Buffett Rule on spending? Does Warren Buffett agree with President Obama that we should spend 150% of what we take in? Did Warren Buffett become one of the richest men on the planet by spending 150% of what he takes in and borrowing the shortfall? I think Buffett’s counsel would be to live within our means; don’t spend more than you take in, but I didn’t hear President Obama invoke the “Oracle of Omaha” when he submitted his budget to the Senate that was voted down 97-0. I didn’t hear Obama mention spending at all other than to say some nonsense about cutting spending by $2 trillion over ten years. At the rate we are going that level of spending “cuts” will mean we are $8 trillion deeper in debt ten years from now rather than $10 trillion. We need to cut $1 trillion in spending next year. So let’s hear what Buffett has to tell Obama about spending.

Investing

Warren Buffett is regarded as a masterful investor. What’s the Buffett Rule on investing? President Obama took credit for saving the auto industry. Really? If that is his idea of a good investment why does the price of GM stock have to rise to $52 before the American people’s investment to break even? GM stock is currently trading around $25. How many people are expecting GM’s stock to double in the near future? Or is it more likely that union contracts will once again, drag GM beneath the waves? My research indicates that Warren Buffett does not hold any GM stock. I wonder why? I do know that Warren Buffett made a very tidy profit by investing in Goldman Sachs. Meanwhile American taxpayers, you know, the ones who are under taxed, bailed out that company and many others. How much did Buffett invest in Solyndra? How much money is Warren Buffett investing in high-speed rail in California? Why should the American people believe that someone who has never held a job in private industry (Obama) is suddenly the smartest venture capitalist in America? How big of a portfolio do the real venture capital firms put in the hands of new hire fresh out of college? But this president takes billions of our tax dollars and squanders them on his pet projects and then lectures us how we need to invest in our future when they go belly up. When is Warren Buffett going to tell him to stop?

The Buffett Rule on Taxes

At the State of the Union address we were introduced to the famous secretary of Warren Buffett. She’s the poor woman who pays a higher tax rate than Mr. Buffett on her income. It is estimated that the poor dear makes between $200,000 and $500,000, otherwise she would not be paying double the tax rate of Buffett. That could put her solidly in the top 1% of earners in the country, if she is at the high-end of that range (the top 1% is earnings above $343,000). So Barack Obama actually lamenting that the top 1% is over taxed? Of course not. It is not about who is paying too much, it is about who is not paying enough.

The problem is spending, plain and simple. There are not enough rich people in America, even if taxed at 100% to close the budget gap. What Obama is doing is class warfare. Let’s get people angry enough at the wealthy so that Obama can then link the wealthy to the Republicans and sneak back into a second term.

If Obama thinks he is playing by the rules, Buffett’s rules, then he should at least play by all of them.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Tim Bishop likes manufacturing. The manufacturing of campaign issues, that is. In his effort to manufacture a campaign issue around overseas outsourcing, he got a lifeline from the White House yesterday when President Obama held an “insourcing” forum yesterday to encourage companies to “bring jobs back to America.” An editorial in the Wall Street Journal titled, “Insourcing for Dummies” describes the effort.

Having spent his entire adult working life at either Southampton College, which went out of business and was acquired by the State University of New York, and the House of Representatives, Mr. Bishop should be forgiven if his grasp of economics is lacking. So let’s try to help get him up to speed.

Coming from academia, I am sure Mr. Bishop will give due deference to a study on outsourcing from an Ivy League University. Matthew J. Slaughter, an economist at Dartmouth’s Amos Tuck School of Business, conducted a study where he found that for every job outsourced overseas, two jobs were created in the U.S. How could that possibly be? It works something like this.

Let’s say a company has an opportunity to outsource its call center overseas and takes advantage of doing so. It utilizes a well-educated work force in India, and let’s say it cuts its cost allocated to that call center in half. It now has additional capital to invest in growing the business. To do so, it hires more sales people, who in turn need sales engineers to explain their widgets to their perspective customers, and when the customers buy more widgets, more people are needed to process the orders and build the widgets. This boost of growth results in a boost in jobs.

Slaughter studied Bureau of Economic Analysis data, reported annually between 1991 and 2001 for 2,500 multinational companies. This was a time when India and China were ramping up their operations to take on outsourcing roles. What Slaughter found was that while employment in their foreign affiliates grew by 2.8 million jobs, U.S. based employment in the parent firms grew by 5.5 million jobs. Taking it a step further, when that job growth is compared to total job growth, those multinational created more jobs faster than the economy as a whole.

Tim Bishop’s Plan

So what is Tim Bishop’s big idea? He wants companies to shut foreign outsourcing or have two call centers that callers can choose between. That means there is no savings from the call centers, which translates into fewer profits to use to grow the business and hire fewer people. Also lower profits, means less tax revenues because what are companies taxed on? Correct! Profits!

So in the midst of a dastardly economy with high unemployment, and staggering deficits, Tim Bishop wants to curtail corporate growth, reverse conditions for job growth, and reduce tax revenues. What a trifecta! This is all so that Tim Bishop can have something, anything, to build a reelection campaign around. There no major call centers in his district, so this is a bald-faced effort to cling to office. If he was serious about the economy, he would be advocating for slashing the corporate tax rate or even backing the Fair Tax, so that money held overseas could flow back to the U.S. and perhaps other countries would build factories here and create even more jobs. But that would require a grasp of economics, instead of an iron grasp on his House seat.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

In his recent telephone town hall meeting, Tim Bishop expressed his support for the continued payroll tax holiday but making it clear that it would have no impact on the Social Security Trust Fund. Money for Social Security would continue to go into the trust fund from other sources. What other sources you might ask? I may have an answer for you.

In an article in HousingWire magazine, the author points out that:

The Federal Housing Finance Agency will increase guarantee fees on single-family mortgage-backed securities charged by the government-sponsored enterprises by 10 basis points effective April 1, 2012, in response to the new funding mechanism for the payroll tax cut extension passed by Congress.

So it seems that the Social Security Trust fund will get its money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or more accurately, from new home buyers. So for a two month extension of the payroll tax holiday that will prevent taxpayers from paying an additional $130 into the Social Security Trust Fund, that everyone expects to get back anyway, new home buyers will have to pay thousands in new fees.

The g-fee increase will remain in effect through Oct. 1, 2021. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the g-fees would offset about $35.7 billion in the costs of the tax cut. Mortgage Bankers Association CEO David Stevens said the increase could mean an extra $4,000 in fees on a $200,000 mortgage.

One of the problems facing Long Island is affordable housing. Our young people are leaving Long Island for areas were there is a larger rental stock that they can start out in, rather than living in mom and dad’s basement, and where they can afford to buy a house after saving a down payment for a couple of years. Apparently for the benefit of a political talking point Tim Bishop votes to slam an already weak housing marking with additional fees. After all who can really call a two month anything sound fiscal policy? Notice there is no spending cut mentioned here, it is an increase in taxes and fees. This is what Tim Bishop was telling his constituents not to worry about in his town hall meeting? What will become of his district, if nobody lives here but retirees? Is that his plan to solve the unemployment problem? Drive enough young people away until the number of jobs fits the remaining population?

The problem is spending. It was only last week that Joe Biden was attacking Mitt Romney’s policies by saying:

“His proposal would actually double down on the policies that caused the greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression and accelerated a decades-long assault on the middle class,” Biden added.

Decades long assault on the middle class? I guess he means you too, Bill Clinton. The greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression has been the Obama administration and if he were to get reelected it would finish America off. We have had the worst consistent unemployment since the Great Depression for the entire Obama administration. We have had the worst record of job creation, loss actually, since Herbert Hoover. The National Bureau of Economic Research says the recession ended in June of 2009. Does it feel like it to you? Most recoveries from economic downturns are mirror images of the slump. A gradual recession is followed by a gradual recovery; a sharp downturn is followed by a sharp upswing. Not this time. Just look at the job creation record of Team Obama.

This chart goes all the way back to Harry Truman and Obama’s performance stands alone.  Let’s put to rest the “eight years of failed Bush policy, yada, yada, yada” and face the fact that Obama and his spending, heavy-handed regulations, and insatiable appetite to fix everything by taxing more has put us into an economic winter. Tim Bishop has happily ignored the needs of his constituents to buy favor from the Democratic leadership and their special interest pals. They have done an awful job and we need to turn them out, before they turn us into Greece.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Tim Bishop has submitted legislation to punish firms that use overseas call centers. He is desperate. He needs an issue that he hopes will sneak him past the electorate into office for another two years. Outsourcing worked for him last time, so he is trying to put lipstick on that pig and pass it off as bold, new thinking. What I am thinking is when is Tim Bishop ever going to represent the people who actually live in his district?

How many call centers are in his district that are threatening to move overseas? How may call centers are trying to decide between locating in his district or locating in India? If the answer to either of the above questions is none, why is he spending time on this?

Over twenty years ago, while working at Citibank, they had a customer service center for credit cards in Melville. For cost reasons they were looking at shutting it down and moving it. I was asked to provide an analysis of the telecommunication costs in an effort to keep it in place. Based on the customer distribution, I showed that its current location was the best choice from a telecommunications basis, but it was not enough to offset the people cost. The alternatives considered were Maryland, South Dakota and Nevada. India was not on the list. But if you were a customer service rep on Long Island who didn’t want to move, was the fact that the job was staying in America, give you consolation? Your job went away

So what is Tim Bishop doing starting a trade war with India? How does that help his constituents?

 ”Outsourcing is one of the scourges of our economy and why we are struggling so to knock down the unemployment rate,” said Bishop.

In a previous post on Mr. Bishop’s insightfulness I pointed out that the largest Toyota factory outside of Japan is in Georgetown, Kentucky. Through a new free trade agreement that plant will now begin exporting Toyotas from the U.S. to South Korea. If Toyota didn’t outsource those jobs to the U.S. but kept them in Japan, there would be 7,400 fewer Americans employed in Kentucky than there are today. So how does Bishop square this with his statement that outsourcing is a scourge and contributes to unemployment when this is proof of the opposite? Perhaps if our tax structure wasn’t so abysmal, other companies would locate their factories here? But we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, so why build here? But when was the last time you heard Tim Bishop pounding the podium for lower tax rates?

With the stimulus plan, Congressman Bishop voted to spend a trillion dollars across the country to be paid for by whom? Well, consistent with the Democratic message of “tax the rich”, when compared to other states, New York is relatively rich, so we get a bigger share of the bill and a smaller cut of the benefits. How did Congressman Bishop’s vote help his district? Most of the money that did come here went to people who already had a job, and a union card, the teachers. Who is backing Mr. Bishop on his phone center folly? The Communication Workers of America. Bishop knows he needs union muscle if he has a prayer of getting reelected.

He also likes the idea of the payroll tax holiday and tells people at his town hall meeting, not to worry about the Social Security Trust Fund losing important funding, that money will come from elsewhere. Where exactly? Does Mr. Bishop have some magic beans or a goose laying golden eggs like a gatling gun? We’re broke thanks to Mr. Bishop and his pals spending, spending, and spending.

So Tim Bishop looks out for Tim Bishop first, Nancy Pelosi second, and if he can help his constituents cut through some bureaucratic red tape, cut through it but not eliminate it, he will do so. But he needs something, anything, to take the voters eyes off his dismal record in Congress, so let’s try another new twist on outsourcing, whether it is germane to his constituents or not. After all, where else is Tim Bishop going to land a job that pays $174,000 a year with his resume?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Congressman Tim Bishop held an online town hall meeting to hear questions from constituents and give his answers. Perhaps he thought this a safer forum than a live town hall meeting. Last year’s meeting in Setauket did not go well and was soon viral on You Tube.

I will comment on three of the topics from that meeting: the payroll tax cut, regulations, and manufacturing jobs.

Payroll Tax Cut

Congressman Bishop came out heavily pitching the extension of the payroll tax cut, from the normal level of 6.2% to the current level of 4.2% and even to go lower to 3.1%, for at least another year. He made the startling claim, quoting some experts that if the payroll tax cut wasn’t retained it would cost 400,000 jobs. It must be from the loss of all that spending power generated from a 2% cut in the payroll tax. I am sure pizza parlors will be devastated, as the weekly savings to a typical family will be about the cost of a pizza pie. The other statistic was that if the payroll tax was cut further to 3.1%, 750,000 new jobs would be created. Interesting. Raise the tax by 2% and 400,000 jobs would be lost, cut it by an additional 1.1% and nearly twice as many jobs would be created. Like prior predictions of how government intervention would affect jobs, we are supposed to believe that employers will start hiring if the cost of hiring a new employee  is reduced by 3.1% for just one year, before going back up. Only those people who never worked in private industry, like Bishop, Schumer, Obama, would believe that.

Bishop insisted that these cuts would have no impact to the Social Security Trust Fund. Considering that there is nothing in the Social Security Trust Fund other than a bunch of IOUs from Uncle Sam’s other pocket, he may be correct on that front, but he said that the cut would be paid for cutting spending elsewhere. Not surprisingly, he didn’t say where exactly “elsewhere” was.

Throughout the call, Bishop’s press secretary was conducting a dopey poll. To paraphrase, “If you are in favor of the payroll tax cut that will put $1,500 in your pocket, press 1, if not, press 2.” Who wouldn’t press 1? What would the results be if he asked, “If you are in favor of borrowing $600 from China that your children and grandchildren will have to pay back, so that we can give you $1,500 today, press 1, if you think more borrowing and debt is a bad idea, press 2,” I think the poll would turn out quite differently.

Regulations

A caller who owned a small construction company asked about all the regulations and paperwork that businesses had to deal with. Bishop said that President Obama had things well under control forming a commission to “zero base” all regulations and hundreds and hundreds of regulations have been taken off the books. In the Wall Street Journal today there is an editorial titled, “Regulation for Dummies,” that paints a very different picture.

To answer the most basic question—has regulation increased?—we’ll focus on what the government defines as “economically significant” regulations. Those are rules that impose more than $100 million in annual costs on the economy, though there are hundreds if not thousands of new rules every year that fall well short of that.

According to an analysis of the Federal Register by George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, the Cabinet departments and agencies finalized 84 such regulations annually on average in President Obama’s first two years. The annual average under President Bush was 62 and under President Clinton 56

As the graph clearly shows the number of “economically significant” regulations under Obama has skyrocketed. This is what is causing the uncertainty that is hindering employment. How can this be curtailed? A bill just passed in the House of Representatives called the “Regulation from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act (REINS)”. This would require any of these economically significant regulations to be sent to Congress for approval before becoming being enacted. What the process is today is that Congress can vote against regulations, but that can be vetoed by the President. If the regulations are coming from the president, wouldn’t you expect him to veto it? This turns it around so that the Congress has to approve the regulations, if they don’t, there is nothing for the president to veto. The Democrats say this is a Congressional encroachment of the Executive.

“The REINS Act would undermine our ability to protect children from harmful toys, prevent asthma and lung ailments resulting from pollution, and ensure that our small businesses can compete fairly in the marketplace,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer added. “At the same time, it would force Congress to play a larger role in the regulatory process, leading to even more gridlock in Washington.”

Surely he forgot to mention killing bunnies in there somewhere. But let’s look at the process: Congress passes a law; departments in the Executive branch write regulations to carry out the law Congress passed. So why is it an outrage that Congress reviews economically significant regulations to see if the Executive is actually implementing what they passed? Tim Bishop voted against the REINS Act. This is another case of Democrats focusing on piddling regulations while saying “hands off” the really impactful ones.

Manufacturing Jobs

Another caller asked the Congressman about manufacturing jobs. He patted himself on the back for helping to bail out the auto industry. He said if he and others hadn’t done that that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost. I addressed the implausibility of this in an earlier post. In that post I argued that if GM and Chrysler went bankrupt and even if they didn’t come out of it leaner and meaner, people still needed transportation. They would buy Fords, Toyotas, Nissans, Hondas, etc., that are currently built here in the U.S. Those car companies would need to increase their purchases from suppliers and those who formerly supplied GM and Chrysler would be well situated to supply the remaining car companies. The argument that we don’t manufacture here anymore is a myth. On a dollar volume basis, we still manufacture more than any country on earth. A few miles from where I am writing this, in Georgetown, Kentucky, is the largest Toyota factory outside of Japan. Due to a free trade agreement with South Korea that the Democrats blocked for years, that Toyota plant will begin exporting about 6,000 Camrys a year from Kentucky to South Korea.

One of the reasons we don’t build more here is our lousy tax code. Fix it. A reason there is not more manufacturing in Mr. Bishop’s district on Long Island is high electric rates. Factories run on power and power on Long Island is expensive. One of the reasons for that is that government approved the building of a $5 billion nuclear power plant on Long Island, and then when it was ready to throw the switch, they changed direction and said it couldn’t open. So Long Island rate payers had to find and buy electric from other sources and pay for the mothballed plant that produced nothing. Once again, the government helping us out.

But Tim Bishop has a solution. He wrote a bill to ban offshore call centers from federal contracts or loan guarantees for five-year. Nothing like micromanaging a corner of the economy while the rest of it burns. Why not look to the root cause? Tax structure, too much regulations, ObamaCare, out of control government spending. If Congress would fix those problems maybe companies wouldn’t look offshore to set up call centers.

The Budget

Tim Bishop also touched on the deficit and debt. He said we need to cut spending, but he never said what he would cut; he said we needed to control entitlement spending, but he didn’t say how he would do that; and he said we needed to add revenue, but he knew exactly how to do that, tax the rich. Here’s how I see it. The government got us into this mess by spending too much money, they should get us out of it by spending less money. Asking for any more tax revenue is just shirking their responsibility for which they are paid handsomely, and passing the problem on to us. Who couldn’t solve the problem with enough money?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

With the economy in shambles and his campaign sound bites and early interviews as president coming back to haunt him, President Obama has ramped up the class warfare rhetoric. Let’s put the lie to these strategies.

The Payroll Tax Cut

The issue here is that President Obama wants to help the middle class and he claims the Republicans do not. The famous payroll tax cut puts about $8 a week in the pocket of individuals. But everyone who pays the payroll “tax” expects to get every dollar back, and then some, after they retire. So what is really going on here? The government forces you to participate in the Social Security system. It offers a lousy rate of return compared to alternatives and if you die before you start collecting, everything you paid into it is gone. Your heirs get nothing. If Obama believes in cutting back on payroll taxes, why not convert everything to private accounts and eliminate the tax altogether? Let people save for their own retirement. Let them put more away in the good times, and be able to scale back in the bad times.

The Republicans are not opposed to Obama’s plan, their only requirement is that we cut somewhere else in the budget to make up for the shortfall. This is nothing new. Former Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning raised this very point nearly two years ago, when the Democrats held both houses of Congress. In this enormous government can’t we find anything to cut? Find the cuts and the Republicans will sign on. If not, this is just another case of piling debt on our children and grandchildren, because they will have to make up the difference when we retire.

Taxing the Rich

This week we saw former senator and former New Jersey governor, Jon Corzine testify before Congress to say how sorry he was that he couldn’t find over a billion dollars of his customer’s money. But since he resigned from MF Global he doesn’t have access to any of the records to help in the search. Is the Justice Department beginning a criminal investigation?

Has anyone been charged with a crime for what happened in the fiscal meltdown of 2008? Has anyone collected more campaign cash from Wall Street than Obama? So is it unusual to conclude that President Obama, other than giving speeches, is perfectly fine with Wall Street ripping off the American people, as long as he can rip off the most successful people in America and claim he is looking out for the little guy. Let his pals get boatloads of government money to bail out their companies so they can keep getting richer and then say he wants to tax them more. Is it any surprise that a lot of rich Democrat supporters are coming out and saying they are all for paying more. Who wouldn’t?

President Obama says you can have billions of tax dollars and I just want a kickback in the form of higher taxes so that I can keep spending recklessly. However, ask anyone of these guys to write a check to the Treasury voluntarily, and they all balk. Why? Nobody gets any credit for donating their money to the government. They want the government to take it, not just from them but from every successful business person.

An Economic Winter

If President Obama gets another term, we may face an economic winter from which we may never recover. If the last three years were painful, the next four could be even worse.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Drawing by DonkeyHotey

Rather than do their job, Congress and the President designated a super committee to do it for them. The committee failed miserably.  But what exactly were they shooting for?

Since we are talking about Washington, you have to listen carefully lest you believe they are actually trying to accomplish something significant. Since President Obama took office, annual deficits north of $1 trillion are commonplace. The committing was working on cutting $1.2 trillion, so that would fix the problem, right? Wrong. That $1.2 trillion they they were unable to come up with was over ten years, not next year. But it’s okay, they have a fall back plan. If this committee of $174,000 per year public servants and their staffs couldn’t reach an agreement then automatic cuts will come into play, half against defense spending, half against non-defense spending.

The stalemate was along familiar lines. The Democrats wanted massive increases in taxes, the Republicans were opposed to any tax rate increases. That last point is important because Republicans put on the table more revenues through closing loopholes, but it was not enough for the Democrats.

Citizens to the Rescue

I was in Washington last June with a group of Tea Party leaders who gathered to discuss our future plans. At that gathering the idea of a citizen’s debt commission was hatched. Why not have everyday citizens put together their thoughts on spending cuts and see what they could come up with? Nominate a core number of individuals, and then hold a series of town hall meetings around the country to discuss what Washington should stop doing to help balance the budget. In addition, set up a web site where citizens could vote on some of the proposals and decides between alternatives. For example, the alternative of repealing ObamaCare compared to any other spending cut in a one-on-one comparison (e.g., repeal ObamaCare or cut the Department of Education) ObamaCare lost 93% of the time. Similar comparisons were made and citizens voted on them.

The result was a report from the Tea Party Debt Commission. No increase in taxes and savings of nearly $10 trillion. That is not a target to be reached through future haggling. Those are identified spending cuts. This committee of volunteers (not $174,000 per year politicians) did what the super committee could not. They came up with the goods, the super committee folded like a cheap lawn chair. Here is the Tea Party Debt Commission report (Click here).

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Washington

With the report completed, Senator Mike Lee arranged to host a meeting where the Tea Party Debt Commission could present their findings in the Capital building. I talked about the ideology of taxes versus no taxes, here is where the arrogance comes in. As Senator Lee is about to convene his meeting, he finds that the microphones that were going to be used were confiscated. Why? New York Senator Chuck Schumer, Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee said that holding mock hearings was against Senate rules. Here is Senator Mike Lee, trying to understand why the First Amendment isn’t allowed in our nation’s capital.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKCnz_RgIOE

So, our august legislators couldn’t come up with a measly $1.2 trillion, which by the way doesn’t cut spending, it merely slows it down some, and a bunch of citizen volunteers came up with a plan, in the same timeframe, ten times as large that actually does cut spending, actually does balance the budget, and actually does start reducing our nation’s debt. Yet, our elected representatives, our employees, didn’t even want to hear what that citizen’s committee found and wanted to do whatever they could to prevent others from hearing it.

Turn them out. In 2012, if they don’t want to hear what we have to say, how can they possibly be representing us? Senator Schumer is one of those individuals who thinks he is smarter than everyone else (after all he scored 1600 on his SATs), and who has spent his entire adult life in government. Although Senator Schumer is probably a very wealthy man by now, it’s time for him and those like him to experience the private sector first hand.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo by shannonpatrick17

First we were told we had to pass the stimulus bill because if we didn’t unemployment would rise to 9%. The good news was that there were hundreds of shovel ready project raring to go. Later we learned that “shovel ready was not as shovel ready as we expected.” $800 billion dollars of squandered stimulus dollars later, unemployment is at 9%. But what about a real shovel ready project that doesn’t need taxpayer dollars?

There is a $7 billion project called Keystone XL that will build a pipeline from Canada to bring heavy crude oil to refineries in Texas and Oklahoma. It is estimated it will create 20,000 jobs. It will also help us rely less on oil from the unstable Middle East. The project needs the approval of the State Department because it crosses our northern border. That’s approval, not taxpayer funding. Okay, before all the environmentalists come out of their chairs,

In April 2010 and again this August, State produced multivolume environmental impact statements that concluded the pipeline would have “no significant impacts” on the environment. — Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2011

So in the midst of bus rides and hectoring us that we need to pass this jobs bill now (where have I heard that before?), Obama decides to vote “present”. He has pushed the decision on the Keystone pipeline out 12-18 months until after the 2012 election. He doesn’t want to lose the environmentalists by slipping on a banana. (BANANA – Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). So expect to hear more about those “do nothing Republicans”. You know, those Republicans who have passed fifteen bills to help create jobs that Harry Reid in the Democrat controlled Senate will not even allow to come up for a vote. I can understand them opposing the Republicans. What I can’t understand is not voting on the bill either for or against. So who is really doing nothing? Say what you mean, mean what you say.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

photo by cliff1066

Just because Democrats are statically stuck on stupid, why do they think everyone else is? What I am referring to is static analysis of changes to the tax code. Democrats always want to have any potential changes statically scored. In other words if Democrats raise rates 10%, naturally, the government will get 10% more revenue. If on the other hand you cut tax rates 10%, a very bad thing, tax revenues will fall 10%. The problem is that they have been proved wrong every time. In other words, Democrats believe that if they raise tax rates you will be too stupid to change your behavior in response.

The evidence is in that when capital gains tax rates were cut, revenues poured into the Treasury. When the Bush tax cuts went into effect in 2003, by 2007 the Treasury took in more revenue than at any time in history.

Federal Government Revenue over Time

So why, do we have massive deficits. There are two reasons and neither of them have to do with the Bush tax cuts. The first is the housing bubble bursting. This put us into a recession and when economic activity slows, tax revenues fall as well. As the economy recovers, tax revenues will increase. This bedrock principle is what the Democrats deny exists. The second reason is spending. We are spending an enormous amount of money. If you want to see the deficits shrink, stop spending, and stop attacking businesses.

The Latest Dustup

The much ballyhooed debt committee that is supposed to come up with their recommendations by Thanksgiving has reached another impasse. The Republicans put $500 in additional revenues by locking in lower tax rates, and closing $250 billion worth of loopholes. The resulting growth in the economy would add another $200 billion and another $40 billion would come by adjusting the tax brackets for inflation. I thought the Democrats were agreeing with Herman Cain when they said, “Nein, nein, nein!” until I realized they were speaking German. To the Democrats lowering the tax rates has no effect on the economy, so the $250 billion in loophole closures will only generate $250 billion.

So as the clock ticks down, you can expect the committee to remain stuck on stupid, and our military to take a big hit as mandatory, pre-negotiated cuts kick in. Isn’t it gratifying to pay a bunch of people $174,000 a piece to have them accomplish absolutely nothing? Isn’t that how it is where you work?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Photo futureatlas.com

With several proposals to overhaul the tax code on the table, it will be interesting to hear how the Obama team will respond. In the plans put forth by Cain, Perry, and Gingrich, people grasp the flat tax part pretty easily. With Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, a common sticking point is the last nine, the national sales tax. Whether intentional or not, it seems to me that they don’t understand it.

I have heard a couple of criticisms that reveal a level of misunderstanding, one coming from Rick Perry and another from Bill O’Reilly. In the former’s case, he warns the folks in New Hampshire, which does not have a state sales tax, about increasing their “tax footprint.” In the latter case, Mr. O’Reilly on his nightly program The O’Reilly Factor asked if people in cities like New York which has a high sales tax local level above 8% are going to revolt over a 17% sales tax if you add the national rate into it. Let me illustrate with an example.

Bill O’Reilly has a new book out called Killing Lincoln. It has a list price of $28.00. Let’s say Wal-Mart decides to offer it, nationwide, for $20. If the Cain plan were in place it would look something like this. If I walked into my local Wal-Mart and picked up a copy of the book off the shelf and looked at the price, it would be marked $20. I decide to buy it. I go to the checkout line. Here in Suffolk County, NY, the local sales tax is 8.625%. The cashier would ring up the sale and I would pay $21.73. The added sales tax would represent 8.625% of the purchase price just like it does today. When I look at the receipt, there will be another line of text on it that would read something like, “$1.80 in federal tax is included in the purchase price.”

Now if I go up to New Hampshire, which has no state sales tax, and buy another copy at a Wal-Mart there, when I get to the check out line they will charge me $20. No added sales tax. The receipt that I receive will also have a line of text on it that says “$1.80 in federal tax is included in the purchase price.” Does anyone foresee riots in the street? Does anyone sense a revolt over this new national sales tax? Since the process is basically the same, in that the same local sales tax or none if that is the local situation, is added to the price on the product, just as it is today, would people react differently because the embedded federal taxes are shown rather than hidden?

The difference is that the national sales tax is inclusive, just like your income taxes are today, while state and local sales taxes are exclusive. Does that mean that prices for everything will go up by the amount of the sales tax? No. The plan also eliminates the payroll tax, and lowers the corporate tax rate from a top rate of 35% down to 9%. These taxes are imbedded in the cost of everything we buy today. At every step of production you have companies and workers. If every company is assessed an income tax of 35% and for every employee the employer has to fork over payroll taxes of 7.65% of their payroll, for every step in the process these taxes get built in. Do away with the payroll taxes and cut the income taxes and these costs go away. The prices of goods should drop and the sales tax is added only at the last step (it is not a Value Added Tax), and only on new items. If you buy a used car, no sales tax, because it was already paid when the care was new.

There are other questions, such as will the costs of goods actually fall or will those greedy SOBs pocket the savings, That will be the subject of future posts, as well as the peaceful coexistence or evil of an income tax and a sales tax. But for now…

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.