About Me

Name: Josh Todd
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Change

Last November, the people of the United States voted for change. Today, barely more than two months into the historic Obama Administration, change has come and continues to come. But President Obama’s era may be remembered as historic for reasons not anticipated in 2008. It will not be the racial barrier he shattered so much as the radical changes in the nature of government that Americans will recall.

Among the radical, tectonic shifts already underway is, of course, the unfathomable levels of spending that have been enacted and proposed thus far. Likewise, the federal government is seeking the greatest expansion of its power over business in the history of this country. Finally, Democrats in general are moving to enhance their political apparatus in a perpetual campaign unseen in this era.

Spending: For those of us who were taken aback with the spending under President Bush and the Republican Congress, the exponential spending hikes under Obama and the Democrats are something no English word can describe. The largest spending deficit under the Bush Administration was over $400billion, and that was after a substantial increase in 2008 as they gave way to the nanny statism of the coming Obama Administration. A few trillion-dollar bills here and a half a billion-dollar bill there, and the deficit will likely be four times that of the deepest Bush deficit.

Control over business: The rage directed at AIG executives recently might be understood in context with the insurance giant’s bailout proceeds, but the class warfare they have created are appalling. Executives had had angry mobs gather outside of their homes and they have received numerous death threats, due in part to governmental badgering that aroused the rage. In turn, Congress and the administration now seek to tax the executives’ bonuses. Fair enough, perhaps, but the president upped the ante with a proposal for greater oversight of all executive compensation in banking and finance corporations. So now the government will decide who gets paid what? This week, the administration added to the attempted power grab with a proposal to seize non-banking financial corporations—which would be an unprecedented expansion of oversight.

Politics over governance: When President Obama went on a mini tour to tout the latest stimulus bill, he seemed to be in campaign mode. And so he is. The ongoing campaign will remain a feature of the Obama Administration, and while such thinking is not uncommon in the early days of a new administration, the level of concern here is unusually high. Today, reports indicate that Congress will attempt to save print newspapers—a chief ideological ally—by making them non-profit organizations and granting them tax breaks, so long as they no longer make endorsements. Op-ed pages are only facet of the print media’s overt political bias. The effect they have will remain, but now they can do it tax-free.

This is not by any means a comprehensive list; however, the Obama Administration’s version of change is not something I find desirable. My brief list of grievances will only grow with each passing week. Increasing spending, expanding its control over business, and politicking on the taxpayer’s dime are not insignificant developments. Back when Obama’s wagon of change swept America, one bumper sticker asked, “Got hope?” Well, for those of us who enjoy freedom, we’re going to need it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DITY (Do it Yourself)

Not that this idea will ever be implemented (I hope), but the Obama Administration's plan to make veterans use private insurance to pay for treatment of combat-related injuries is abominable.
 
Combat veterans are often injured and require life-long treatment for injuries that result directly from actions they took at the behest of the US government. They are rightfully obliged to treatment in any of a series of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. The feds owe them that much for their bravery and suffering for executing government policy.
 
Now, the new president is entertaining the idea of making injured vets pay for their own treatments. Thousands of veterans suffer from injuries that prevent them from obtaining employment necessary to obtain proper care.
 
Compare this idea to President Obama's stated objectives, including, mainly, universal health care. The recipients of such health care will be private citizens who have done nothing tangible for the government in return for these services.
 
I, for one, am conservative (obviously) and, therefore, would typically balk at government assistance--particularly government-provided health care. But in this situation, the government would be providing a service to a person in return for nothing while revoking that service for a person who earned it.
 
At a logical level, the rationale, if any is present at all, is hard to follow.
 
That the president would consider such an idea is deplorable. Even though I don't believe the proposal has any shelf life whatsoever, it illustrates where the president's priorities may rest. Is he more interested in making the masses wards of the state than in taking care of those who have sacrificed much for this country? Is he really willing to spend trillions of dollars on waste while neglecting veterans?
 
Is it, in the words of one vet, "a betrayal?" Yes, and it is also unfair, disgraceful, and...abominable.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Taxes and Revenue Loss

Taxation and class warfare have once again become popular topics as the Obama Administration attempts to quell the economic mess. The White House appears poised to raise taxes on those taxpayers making above $250,000 and to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. Likewise, the new president has made much fuss about the wealthy and Wall Street.

But no one stops to ask what happens when we despise the rich to the point that taxing them to death becomes the mode of operation.

Well, two big things, mainly: First, the wealthy stop investing and spending domestically. Second, they leave.

A University of Michigan study found that “the number of federal estate tax return filers reported as residing in each state is negatively influenced by the level of taxes imposed on high-income and high-wealthy people in the state.” Researchers mainly studied estate and inheritance taxes but also found similar effects with income and sales taxes. Succinctly put, the UM study found that “rich individuals flee states that tax them relatively heavily.”

Likewise, a 2004 National Bureau of Economic Research found that high-tax states lose one dollar in three from estate taxation rolls because wealthy individuals flee those states. Consequently, these states—such as Connecticut—lose taxpayers and revenue. In short, “it is generally the liberal, tax-and-spend blue states that are frantically reinstating punitive taxes on death…Over the past 20 years about 1,000 people every day have been fleeing these high tax blue states, for low tax red states.” Consequently, “the Northeast has suffered economically, and declined politically in terms of electoral votes.”

On a national level, we can take example from France. A 2006 Washington Post piece profiled a rich French expatriate who fled his homeland for Belgium due to high taxation. In fact, the Post bit reported that “at least one millionaire leaves France every day to take up residence in more wealth-friendly nations, according to a government study.”

When the wealthy are removed from the pool of taxpayers, governments don’t tend to give up on programs. Instead, they take the revenue from elsewhere. Simple mathematics shows that, absent the rich, the middle class pays a greater share of tax revenues. In other words, we, the average Janes and Joes, pay the tab.

Should the new administration follow through with its campaign of taxation against the rich and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire—and if they pursue further taxation—the United States may find itself in a situation similar to that of France. The wealthiest among us will flee and so will their tax revenues. And the very people the president wishes to help will foot the bill.

This is the very definition of the axiom that the road to hell is paved in good intentions.

Source(s): http://www.bus.umich.edu/otpr/WP2004-6.pdf (joint Williams College and U of Michigan paper); http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/15/AR2006071501010_pf.html (Wash post piece on France); http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007043 (WSJ on paper similar to Mich paper)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Twin Bogeymen

Many commentators have made comparisons between the Great Depression and our current predicament. Certainly there may be similarities—unemployment here in Dayton is approaching 13%, which is roughly the Great Depression low—but we are not quite there.

Still, I, myself, have studied the period between the mid-1920s and the early 1940s—the period that preceded the depression and the end—and there are some similarities and lessons we can draw. Likewise, the Great Depression can also be instructive as we endure our current recession.

Much like 1929, the year 2008 was one due for a slide in the business cycle. A recession hit the US economy in 1921, and 1929 was that magical seven-to-eight years later. Likewise, 2001 saw recession, only to be followed by the 2008-2009 slump. And anyone who knows business cycles knows that there are natural ups and downs (expansion, peak, contraction, trough, expansion, etc.).

Where 1929 and 2008 are alike is in the area of government policy. Not that the policies were the same, but government action worsened and prolonged two natural economic downturns. In both cases there are—and this is simplification of course, but necessary here—what I call Twin Bogeymen.

President Herbert Hoover signed into law two harmful laws (our first bogeyman): the Smooth-Hawley Tariff and the Revenue Act. The latter caused an international trade war that deprived American industry of export markets; the former squeezed the cash flow of Americans at a time when they needed cash. At the same time, the Federal Reserve engaged in monetary tightening, causing deflation. Mainly the tariff and deflation made the recession a depression.

Currently we can draw our situation to Twin Bogeymen that did not occur in the early days of our recession. Instead, these two policies were implemented well before 2008, but their devastating effects are still as crucial.

Bogeyman #1 was, again, the Fed. When the economy was strong in the late 1990s, the Fed tightened too quickly, squeezing potential homebuyers out of the market. After 9/11, the Fed loosened too much, which drew not only the homebuyers squeezed out in 1998-1999 but other buyers (greater credit risks) who had no business being in the market. This, in turn, caused a spike in demand, which led to greatly increased new home construction. Eventually, demand declined and a massive supply of houses caused values to drop.

Bogeyman #2 is the Community Reinvestment Act and the teeth it was given in the 1990s. This, too, drew high credit risks into the housing market. Combined with the low interest rates in 2001-2003, these buyers became an unusually large part of the housing market. As values dropped, homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages were unable to refinance as planned, resulting in (along with home “flippers” who began walking away from loans) a slew of foreclosures. Lenders were stricken and a financial crisis ensued.

Thus, we have our economic crisis, which has now bled into every part of the economy.

Though we do not yet have a depression, we may yet. The Twin Bogeymen of now definitely will prolong the current recession beyond its natural life. And much like 1933, 2009 may be witnessing policies that will only give the recession staying power, possibly leading to depression. But that’s a topic for another time.

Source(s): National Review magazine; “A History of the American People” by Paul Johnson, “A Patriots History of the United States” by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen; “The Forgotten Man” by Amity Shlaes
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »