Filed under: Domestic Policy, Economy, Health Care, Law, Politics, Regulation, Taxes | Tags: A Shocking Surge, California High - $2504 a Month, Soaring Health Care Premiums
The recession (the worst since the Great Recession, they always add) officially ended in June of 2009. Really. Poverty has increased every year. The numbers of long-term unemployed keep increasing. At some point, it should become clear that Democrats just aren’t very good at economics. If you keep that in mind, it explains a lot.
Insurance companies set their premiums based on experience. When they lack experience, as with constantly changing ObamaCare, they have to make assumptions. They hire actuaries, who are people who are really, really good at math, to come up with those assumptions based on history, and worst possible situations, and economics.
Those who designed the Affordable Care Act knew from the beginning that they would have to sign up all those healthy young people who would not require much actual care so their premiums would pay for the older, not-so-healthy people who would need more care. They estimated there were something like 40 million uninsured that they needed to sign up — so they designed in a mandate to force them to purchase insurance. Then they designed in what seemed to be a useful idea that allowed those who hadn’t managed to sign up, to sign up when they actually got sick, so they could be covered at the last minute. (I told you they weren’t very good at economics). Then when it turned out that all those healthy young people who hadn’t signed up because they were healthy, decided not to sign up because they were healthy, and they couldn’t afford the insurance. How many aren’t signing up? Around 40 million.
Americans buying health insurance outside the new ObamaCare exchanges are being forced to swallow premiums up to 56 percent higher than before the health law took effect because insurance companies have raised the cost to cover all the added features of the new “Affordable” Care Act.
A report on costs from eHealthInsurance, a nationwide online private insurance exchange, shows families are paying an average of $663 a month and singles $274 a month — way more than before ObamaCare kicked in. Most buyers are choosing the lowest level of coverage, the so-called “bronze” plans. In California, for example, some families are paying a high of $2,504 a month, and in New York, $1,845.
The shocking surge in prices show what Americans not in ObamaCare or covered by their employer are paying as they look for lower premiums. Typically they are not eligible for subsidies that ObamaCare offers to those with low incomes.
Premiums are increasing because of the new required provisions for 2014 Affordable compliant plans — including guaranteed issue, essential health benefits, modified community rating and minimum actuarial values. It is likely insurance companies expect additional risk because people with pre-existing conditions could no longer be denied coverage, and have priced their plans higher to cope with this risk.
Health industry officials say ObamaCare-related premiums will double in some parts of the country, countering claims recently made by the administration. The expected rate hikes will be announced in the coming months amid an intense election year, when control of the Senate is up for grabs. The sticker shock would likely bolster the GOP’s prospects in November and hamper ObamaCare insurance enrollment efforts in 2015.
Kathleen Sebelius has tried to downplay concerns about rising premium costs but her comments baffled insurance officials, who said it runs contrary to industry consensus. The Obama administration has embarrassed itself in trying to recruit young people with a “Between Two Ferns” interview, with “Pajama Boy,” and “Angry Mom.” Obama has been rewriting the law as fast as he can to delay any unpleasantness until after the election, but insurers must present their premium increases to state officials for formal approval this summer.
In Iowa, which hosts the first presidential caucus in the nation and has a competitive Senate race this year, rates are expected to rise 100 percent on the exchange and by double digits on the larger, employer-based market.
I think ObamaCare is on life-support, but brain-dead. They just aren’t ready to admit it’s hopeless.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Freedom, Regulation, Taxes | Tags: No Job Creation, Obama's Class Warfare, Redistribution of Wealth
The Democratic Party has made it clear that they are planning to run on “Income Inequality” in the 2014 midterm election. Liberal Washington Post writer Greg Sargent has suggested that this strategy is part of the reason for Harry Reid’s embarrassing war on the Koch brothers.
When all else fails, you rely on “class warfare.” Otherwise defined as “envy,” one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Liberals’ ideas about income inequality always involve higher taxes on the rich, and more government benefits for the poor. Most of the people who are currently suffering from income inequality would prefer to have a decent job. After six years Obama’s policies still aren’t creating jobs.
The number of long-term unemployed increased by 203,000 — at the same time that Obama brags about total non-farm payroll employment increasing by 175,000 — you see the problem. The labor force participation rate remains at only 63 percent, a level not seen since the stagflation of the 1970s, and well below the rate when President Obama took office.
Where is Income Inequality the greatest? The gap between the wealthy and the poor is most extreme in several of the United States’ most prosperous and largest cities. The economic divides in Atlanta, San Francisco, Washington D.C., New York, Chicago and Los Angeles are significantly greater than the national average.
The one city that has hardly noticed a recession is Washington D.C. There is plenty of income inequality, but more than half the members of Congress are millionaires. Members have long been far wealthier than the typical American, but now a majority of members are, for the first time — millionaires.
So, if almost everybody is a millionaire, and Harry Reid certainly is, why is he at war with the Koch brothers? Liberal politics is seldom about what it claims to be about. The war on the Koch brothers is about discouraging any wealthy American from donating to the Republican party. That is what the IRS scandal is largely about — if you donate to the hated Republicans, we will attack you and make your name a poison among right-thinking people.
Democrats, on the other hand, are bountifully financed — contrary to all claims of thousands of small donations from regular folks — by the Democracy Alliance, a shadowy non-profit, self-described “liberal organization” which serves as a funding clearinghouse for progressive groups. DA members, called “partners,” include individuals and organizations alike. Partnership is by invitation only. There originally was an initial $25,000 fee, and $30,000 yearly dues thereafter. They must give at least $200,000 to groups which the Alliance endorses. There are at least 100 donor-partners. Members and staff have been working to establish subchapters in all 50 states.
There’s George Soros; Taco Bell heir Robert McKay; Tides Foundation founder Drummond Pike; Golden West Financial Corp. founders Herb and Marion Sandler; the AFL-CIO; Television producer Normal Lear; Progressive Insurance Co Chairman, Peter Lewis — for a sampling of partners. So you can see why attacking the philanthropic Koch brothers is so important. And why President Obama’s IRS has gone to such lengths to illegally discourage donors to the Republicans with audits, searches and questionable investigations.
The man who professes solidarity with the poor has seen poverty increase every year of his presidency. His supporters and bundlers grow richer on government contracts, subsidies or grants to “green” start-ups that promptly go bankrupt. He claims to care deeply about the future of poor black children, yet teacher’s union opposition to charter schools trumps the most successful route to success for poor black kids. Charter schools have produced markedly better test scores than traditional public schools.
Inequality is no barrier to growth. There are no negative macroeconomic effects of inequality. We need to grow the ranks of working adults and shrink the rolls of those dependent on government.
The President’s latest big idea is “manufacturing hubs”— the first has been in operation in a once-abandoned furniture warehouse in Youngstown, Ohio. This first in a series of ‘America Makes‘ operations is supposed to ensure “a steady stream of good jobs” into the 21st century. The focus is Three-D printers. The problem is that once they are programmed and loaded with raw materials, they work their magic with not a single human hand. If they are ever widely adopted, the main reason will be that they use less labor than traditional manufacturing.
Typical, typical, typical. The “ruling class” who are supposed to be ever so much smarter than any of us, have not, as usual, done their homework. Oh, they have some statistics, and some studies — but they are missing plain old common sense. So busy congratulating themselves on their brilliance, they have no understanding of how the world works; and the people they disdain as dumb, and needing job training, and food stamps, and welfare, and handouts, need government to get out of the way and give them a chance. Here’s the sleek new workplace of the future with an ever-declining need for workers. Go figure.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Energy, Law, National Security, Politics, Regulation, Taxes | Tags: Obama's 2015 Budget, Obama's Policy Disaster, The Results - Exposed
Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is one of my favorite Senators. As ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, he had a few choice words for Jack Lew when the Treasury Secretary appeared at a Budget Committee hearing on President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2015 budget proposal. Even more than usual, the president’s budget is based on ideological fantasy rather than substance, and dead on arrival. There is zero chance of it becoming the basis for federal spending next year, let alone the next then years. Senator Sessions said:
Thank you, Secretary Lew, for appearing before us today.
In 2009, the Administration wagered America’s financial future on the idea that a record increase in government spending and debt would revive the economy. Since then, government debt has increased 64 percent and is on track to double by the end of the President’s second term. What are the results?
* America is in the midst of slowest recovery since the end of World War II.
* Workforce participation has shrunk to a nearly 40-year low.
* The Labor Department reports that most occupations pay less today than they did when the President took office.
* Government debt has leaped from roughly $10 trillion to $17 trillion, yet median income has dropped $2,268 per household over that same time, and the decline has actually accelerated.
This is a huge disaster.
The justification for this unprecedented accumulation of debt was the claim that it would lead to prosperity. And yet now, we have none of the prosperity and all of the debt. This plan has proven to be one of the most costly failed gambits in American history. The White House’s average 2013 growth projection in their 2009 through 2012 budgets was 3.9 percent. Economic growth is critical for America’s workers—translating into higher wages and better jobs with benefits.
But actual growth last year came in at half what was projected, 1.9 percent—a huge difference with real impact on millions of Americans. For example, CBO has repeatedly said that the Administration’s $870 billion stimulus bill would be a long-term drag on the economy.
So what does the President propose in his new budget?
The plan increases spending growth by almost $1 trillion, bursting through the Ryan-Murray spending caps he signed into law only two months ago. So, while the military gets hammered, other agency budgets soar. The White House proposes the following increases next year:
* A 45% increase for the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
* An 18% increase for the Legal Services Corporation.
* A 15% increase for the Department of Energy.
* A 30% increase for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and
* A 7% increase for the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
The plan also raises taxes more than $1 trillion—in addition to the $1.7 trillion in taxes he’s already enacted. New proposed taxes include:
* Limit the value of itemized deductions to raise taxes by almost $600 billion.
* Raise the death tax and reduce the exclusion to increase taxes by over $100 billion.
* Increase taxes on unemployment insurance by $78 billion.
* Increase taxes on energy production by $49 billion.
So the President raises taxes to increase spending. It is a tax-and-spend budget that will never pass. Altogether, the White House budget plan would add another $8 trillion to our $17 trillion debt. [Ed.: And that assumes that all of the optimistic assumptions in Obama's ten-year plan come true--which has never happened yet.]
The seriousness of the situation is demonstrated by this fact: last year, we paid our creditors $221 billion in interest on our federal debt. Under the President’s plan, according to his own numbers, annual interest payments will nearly quadruple to $812 billion.
Rising interest payments represent arguably the gravest threat to our nation’s financial security. Should interest rates increase even slightly above projections, the costs of financing our debt would quickly surge to emergency levels. As the Director of the Congressional Budget Office warned, we face “the risk of a fiscal crisis.”
Clearly, we must pursue a new course that creates jobs and that does not add to our debt. Here’s how:
* Produce more American energy to create jobs right here in the U.S.
* Streamline the tax code and lower rates to make America more globally competitive.
* Eliminate every unnecessary regulation that destroys jobs.
* Adopt a trade policy that defends the legitimate interests of U.S. workers.
* Enforce an immigration policy that serves American workers.
* Turn the welfare office into a job a training center.
* Make government leaner, doing more with less.
* Balance the budget to restore confidence and growth.
Senator Session has solid judgment, and an excellent instinct for what issues deserve priority. This is an excellent summary of just how ObamaCare has contributed to the dismal economy. A clear majority of Americans know that more government spending and higher taxes hurt the economy.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Election 2014, Health Care, Law, Politics, Progressivism, Regulation, Taxes, The Constitution | Tags: How Much Will It Really Cost?, Questionable Numbers, Unaffordable Care Act
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified before the Hour Committee on Ways and Means about the White House’s 2015 budget proposal. To no one’s surprise, Ms. Sebelius was peppered with questions about the impact of the Affordable Care Act and its effect on insurance rates.
“I think premiums are likely to go up, but at a smaller pace than what we’ve seen since 2010,” Mrs. Sebelius said, adding that she thought the likely increases would be less significant than they had been in the years before the federal health-care law was enacted.
You are not going to see any Democrat admitting any time soon that the cost of health care had been declining for a number of years. New life-saving drugs, new diagnostic techniques, more people taking better care of themselves have made a difference. The mantra about the terrible escalating cost of health care being a reason for ObamaCare was always hype.
You already have people complaining that they simply cannot afford the premiums for ObamaCare. At a town hall for Spanish-language media recently, Obama was challenged by a viewer on the economics of it for low-income Americans who are now forced to buy comprehensive health insurance. On a $36.000 annual income, the requirement to buy the broad policy rather than hospitalization coverage combined with a Health Savings Account — which is now illegal, makes it impossible to comply.
The President replied smugly, “if you looked at their cable bill, their telephone, their cell-phone bill — it may turn out that they just haven’t prioritized health care.” He added that if a family member gets sick, the father “will wish he had paid that $300 a month.”
According to the National Center for Public Policy Research, the health care law is reducing choice and increasing premiums. Consumers are paying an average of 39% more than they did before the law was implemented.
Liberals just don’t get basic economics. Regulations imposed by the government have a cost of compliance. Whether it is retrofitting a process or installing new equipment, or just all the people who must be hired to deal with the government paperwork, bureaucrats seldom have any understanding of the costs involved in complying. When liberals want to make their health care policies more attractive by including benefits that are not customarily part of a health care policy — it makes the policies cost more. Whether it is free contraceptive pills, or including childbirth and well-child visits in all policies for all ages, it raises the cost of the policies dramatically. And of course there is the cost of the vast government bureaucracy to administer the whole thing.
The federal government is so desperate to get healthy young people to sign up that they are waiving the individual mandate — the detail that was supposed to make the whole thing work. Not only that, they are offering all sorts of ways to avoid being fined or penalized — “hardship cases” loosely enforced. Just please, please sign up, and we’ll revise the law to make it work.
The whole thing is based on guesswork. The proportion of young Americans signing up for coverage through state and federal exchanges has remained below levels thought necessary to keep premiums stable. The administration said 4.2 million people enrolled in health-insurance plans but it doesn’t count unless they have paid up. That is far below the 6 to 7 million the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected would sign up.
Next year’s premiums are not set by the government, but by the insurance companies, who don’t really know what costs they have to base their premiums on. Oh well, if it doesn’t work, Obama will just issue some more executive orders. Laws are no longer fixed, but — fluid. Just keep delaying the bad stuff so nobody will know how it will work — until after the election.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Health Care, Law, Politics, Progressivism, Regulation, Taxes, The United States | Tags: How Elastic Is the Law?, ObamaCare Individual Mandate, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli
It was almost two years ago, when President Obama’s solicitor general Donald Verrilli told the Supreme Court that without the individual mandate, ObamaCare would fail. In his oral arguments before the court Mr. Verrilli made it clear that without the individual mandate ObamaCare would “make matters worse, not better”
He told the justices the “guaranteed issue” and “community rating” regulations at the heart of ObamaCare would not work if you allowed the young and healthy to choose not to buy insurance. It turns out that if people can wait until after they get sick to buy insurance, and get it at a subsidized rate, most will do exactly that, resulting in an insurance premium death spiral. When Kentucky tried these reforms, “virtually every insurer left the market.” In New Jersey, insurance rates doubled, causing its market to collapse.
ObamaCare was supposed to avoid this because of the mandate and the tax penalty on those who did not buy insurance. After the cancellation fiasco last year, Obama added a one-year expansion to the mandate’s “hardship exemption” for anyone who’d had policies canceled. Then last week, Obama quietly extended this loophole for two more years as the Wall Street Journal discovered. So people can claim an exemption if they’ve had their previous plan cancelled and “consider the other plans available unaffordable.” They just need a copy of the cancellation notice.
The rules are incredibly loose for exemptions. Someone claiming to have “experienced domestic violence” is automatically exempt without any need for documentation. Or just fail to pay a utility bill until a shut-off notice comes, and send that in. Instant hardship exemption.
Democrats also neutered the IRS’s ability to collect the penalty — avoiding political blowback, but giving the uninsured little incentive to pay. Sounds like it has already collapsed entirely, it’s just that nobody wants to admit that the corpse is truly dead.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Law, Politics, Progressivism, Taxes, The United States | Tags: No President is Above the Law, The Meaning of the Constitution, What is a Law?
Cynthia Burwell, Director of the White House Office of Management And Budget testified before the Senate Budget Committee on the problematic problem of President Obama’s just submitted budget. Currently, federal discretionary spending is capped by the Ryan-Murray comprehensive spending bill that President Obama signed just 10 weeks ago. So ranking Republican Jeff Sessions asked Ms. Burwell whether the president’s budget increases spending above the Ryan-Murray level passed by Congress and signed by the president into law.
Cynthia Burwell, presidential appointee, refused to give a straight answer to a simple yes or no question. She implicitly acknowledged that the president’s budget does indeed pay no attention whatsoever to the agreement that Republican and Democrats agreed to less than three months ago. She kept claiming that it is “paid for.” That simply means that in addition to ignoring the spending caps, the president’s budget raises taxes to pay for it. Sleazy work from a sleazy administration that is choosing to ignore the limitations the Constitution places on his actions. Out of control and unrestrained by reality.
I am a great admirer of the fearless Senator Jeff Sessions.
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economy, National Security, Regulation, Taxes | Tags: Dead on Arrival, Fantasy and Unicorns, The President's Budget Request
The President’s budget — released a month late, in the midst of a faltering, dismal economy, and amid rising global threats — and, he claims, in the midst of “an era of austerity”— he actually proposes a budget that would sharply cut defense spending and impose $1.8 trillion in tax hikes. Bwa-ha-ha-ha. This is a budget request, and it demonstrates that Obama is not much connected to reality, which is worrisome.
His budget rests on the assumption that real GDP growth this year will be 3.1%/ The Congressional Budget Office suggests 2.7% and the consensus in the financial sector is for 2.5%.
He expects us to believe that — all evidence to the contrary — he can add $100 billion in spending on top of the “baseline” this year and next, but then he’ll get serious about spending restraint as he prepares to leave office.
The federal government is more than $17 trillion in debt. Obama’s budget proposal does nothing, nothing at all, to reduce that debt. Instead it adds hundreds of billions of dollars to it every year. The president’s rosiest economic projections say the budget would add $8.3 billion to the national debt, otherwise more. Obama says:
This budget adheres to the spending principles members of both Houses of Congress have already agreed to.
President Obama signed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 into law on December 26,2013, a little more than two months ago. His budget breaks the spending caps by $56 billion in 2015, and by $791 billion over the ten years of the budget proposal. His budget will increase total spending by 63 percent from today’s levels over the next decade.
President Obama’s budget never balances — ever!
He wants to plow more money into repairing crumbling roads and bridges and into rail projects. He really doesn’t change his mind, does he.
He claims that his budget “ensures we maintain read, modern and capable defense forces to address any threats we might face, including threats from terrorism and cyberattacks.”Yet the only part of the government that sees real spending cuts is defense, which he wants to cut back to pre-World War II levels. Defense cuts of $1.14 trillion over the next decade account for more than half of his proposed $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction. I think we’re in “shovel-ready job territory” here. Roughly half of the new taxes go to new spending rather than deficit reduction.
President Obama’s plan nearly quadruples interest costs — the fastest growing item in the budget. Interest this year will be $223 billion but would rise to $812 billion in ten years.
I’m pretty much done with these promises of, although we’re not reducing the debt by much this time, but —in the future it will be different. Uh huh.
Did you know that Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was an Economics major?
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Liberalism, Progressivism, Regulation, Taxes | Tags: Keynesian Fairy Tales, Last of the Big Time Spenders, What Austerity?
President Obama says his new budget will finally end the dreary “era of austerity.”
What? Dreary era of austerity? On what planet? The federal government will spend $561 billion more this year than it did in 2008. That’s a 19% increase at a time when inflation rose just 9%. Obama has set the country on a permanently higher spending path. Federal outlays are on track to reach 22.4% of the gross domestic Product (GDP) by 2024, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Deficits have dropped slightly in the past two years, and expected to fall again this year and next, but that’s due to revenues bouncing back from recessionary lows as much as it is to spending restraint imposed by the GOP. By 2022, the deficit will top $1 trillion again and will go on up from there, as will the national debt.
The areas that Obama singles out for big spending hikes are hardly starved for funds. He wants more money for early childhood education programs, but Head Start’s budget has soared by 25% since Obama took office to $8.6 billion. The stimulus pumped another $2 billion into the program in 2009. Study after study has shown that there is no lasting benefit from the Head Start program. The thinking seems to be that rich people send their kids to fancy early childhood programs, so if you give the same benefit to poor or minority children, they will do as well as the rich kids. It seems to be simply expensive babysitting.
Obama also wants to spend big on college tuition aid. Federal aid has already climbed 32% on his watch according to the College Board. According to Forbes magazine, student loan debt now tops $1.2 Trillion! Kids are emerging from college, many not having completed a degree, with enormous debt — and cannot find a job.
Since the “age of austerity” is over (?) Obama wants more federal job training money, for programs that have more than tripled, and about training that is questionable in producing employment. And he wants more money for transportation — for California’s train to nowhere? He wants to order business to boost the minimum wage, on their own dime. More lost jobs.
Obama seems to think that the people who have lost jobs are unqualified for new jobs, and unless they are retrained for something different, are unemployable. He does not understand the burden that the federal government has imposed on business with ObamaCare.
The burden of excessive regulation, high taxes, and add plain old fear of what the federal government might do. The IRS, the EPA, the FCC, the EEOC, the DOL, and all the other myriad agencies and bureaus have gone after business to emphasize federal control. Business observes what has happened to other businesses, and hunkers down to try to avoid being noticed. More jobs are to come from a newly educated workforce, not from making it easier for business to grow, expand, and hire. We still have the highest corporate tax in the world.
Well, maybe the people who are mourning the death of President Roosevelt today will be relieved that we are ending the” dreary age of austerity.” Some of the folks still believe. If this is austerity, imagine what profligacy might be.
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Freedom, History, Progressivism, Regulation, Taxes | Tags: Jobs & Unemployment Are #!, Most Important US Problems, Obama's Biggest Worry is Inequality
A new Gallup poll this month shows that nearly one in four Americans cites jobs and unemployment as the most important problem facing the country, up from 16% in January. The government and politicians had topped the list since the government shutdown in October.
The Recent Trend in top Five “Most Important” U.S. Problems
Economy in General……………………………………………..20%
Dissatisfaction with government/Congress/politicians’
poor leadership/corruption/ abuse of power…………………19%
Poor healthcare/hospitals; high cost of healthcare…………..15%
Federal Budget deficit/ Federal debt……………………………8%
Ethics/Moral/Religious/Family decline, dishonesty…………….5%
Education/Poor Education/Access to Education………………4%
Lack of Money……………………………………………………3%
What is one to make of this? We have just been informed that Americans are getting dumber and dumber, that they are unaware that the Earth orbits the sun. Jimmy Fallon did a man in the street thing asking people how they felt about President Roosevelt’s death, and did they want to send condolences to Eleanor?
Democrats were significantly less concerned about everything but jobs and unemployment. Republicans were unsurprisingly concerned more than Independents and Democrats about the economy, healthcare, Federal budget deficit and debt, morals and ethics. Democrats were slightly more concerned about education and poverty, hunger and homelessness.
General satisfaction with the way things are going in the United States was a sluggish 22%.
Curiously, President Obama’s priorities are quite different. He’s trying really hard to deflect interest from ObamaCare, which in spite of all sorts of “executive repairs” isn’t working. His biggest priority seems to be Income Inequality. What he doesn’t want to mention is how much money the government is redistributing, nor how much more would be needed to close the income gap. That project would require redistribution on a massive scale. The CBO found that those in the bottom fifth of the income scale received $9.62 in federal spending for every $1 they paid in federal taxes of all kinds. People with low incomes pay little in taxes, but receive a lot of transfers.
Households in the top fifth, received 17¢ in federal spending for every $1 they paid in all federal taxes. High-income households pay a huge amount in taxes compared to what they get back in government spending. The middle class households received $1.19 in government spending for every $1 they received in federal taxes.
Families in the top fifth have an average market income of $311,400 and pay $65,573 more in taxes than they receive in spending. We would need to take another $164,227 in higher taxes to lower their incomes to the national average.
“Capital will go where it is wanted and stay where it is well treated. It will flee from manipulation or onerous regulation of its value or use and no government power can restrain it for long.”
President Obama’s other major priority seems to be global warming, which doesn’t even show up in the public’s interest, with some justification, because most people are probably wondering if this is the start on a new ice age. There has been no warming for over 17 years. The President talks about “carbon pollution, but there is no such thing. We are a carbon-based species. CO2 is a natural fertilizer that helps plants to grow. Carbon is one of the building blocks of life. No carbon, no life.
Obviously Mr. Obama does not read Gallup polls, nor would he pay attention if he did. He apparently swallowed the Keynesian fairy dust tale — hook, line and sinker. If you want to boost the economy, you push money into the economy. It will have a magical mystery multiplication effect, somehow, and every dollar spent will result in two dollars of economic activity. If you tell him that it doesn’t work, he will say it’s wrong to compare this recovery to past recoveries. Greatest recession since the Great Depression, Bush’s fault, etc., etc., etc.
Filed under: Freedom, History, Politics, Taxes, The Constitution, The United States | Tags: "Silent Cal", The 30th President, The Roaring Twenties
“It is a great advantage to a president, and a major source of
safety to the country, for him to know he is not a great man.”
Do you recognize this man? This is Calvin Coolidge. He inherited the position of chief executive when scandal-plagued President Warren Harding died in office in August, 1923. He was elected in his own right in 1924. Amity Schlaes’ new biography, titled simply Coolidge, highlights some of the achievements the nation enjoyed during Coolidge’s time in the White House.
Under Coolidge, the top income tax rate came down by half, to 25 percent. Under Coolidge, the federal budget was always in surplus. Under Coolidge, unemployment was 5 percent or even 3 percent. Under Coolidge, Americans wired their homes for electricity and bought their first cars or household appliances on credit. Under Coolidge, the economy grew strongly, even as the federal government shrank.
Under Coolidge, the rates of patent applications and patents granted increased dramatically. Under Coolidge, there came no federal antilynching law, but lynchings themselves became less frequent and Ku Klux Klan membership dropped by millions. Under Coolidge, a man from a town without a railroad station, America moved from the road into the air.
After he won a full term, Coolidge pressed Congress for tax cuts. The top income tax rate was reduced from the wartime 70 to 25%. The economy burst into robust economic growth. Now we call it “the Roaring Twenties.” That helped Coolidge achieve budget surpluses every year — surpluses that he used to pay down the national debt.
He also said:
“Don’t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.”