Select Page

Fact Check: Obama, taxes, and legislation


I’ve seen very few fact checks pertaining to Obama’s record and/or speeches. USA Today did a nice little round-up of some recent claims by Obama regarding the jobs bill, taxes, etc. I’ve reproduced it below in it’s entirety because it was simple and straightforward.

AP fact check: Obama claims miss some evidence

By Jim Kuhnhenn, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON – In challenging Republicans to get behind his jobs bill Thursday, President Obama argued Republicans have supported his proposals before, demanded that they explain themselves if they oppose him, and challenged others to come up with a plan of their own. The rhetoric in the president’s quick-moving press conference dodged some facts and left some evidence in the dust.

Obama: “If it turns out that there are Republicans who are opposed to this bill, they need to explain to me, but more importantly to their constituencies and the American people, why they’re opposed, and what would they do.”

The facts: While Republicans might not be campaigning on their opposition to Obama’s plan, they’ve hardly kept their objections a secret.

In a memorandum to House Republicans Sept. 16, House Speaker John Boehner and members of the GOPleadership said they could find common ground with Obama on the extension of certain business tax breaks, waiving a payment withholding provision for federal contractors, incentives for hiring veterans, and job training measures in connection with unemployment insurance.

They objected to new spending on public works programs, suggesting instead that Congress and the president work out those priorities in a highway spending bill. And they raised concerns about Obama’s payroll tax cuts for workers and small businesses, arguing that the benefits of a one-year tax cut would be short-lived. The memo also pointed out that reducing payroll taxes, which pay for Social Security, temporarily forces Social Security to tap the government’s general fund. And it opposed additional spending to prevent layoffs of teachers, police officers and other public workers.

Obama: “Every idea that we’ve put forward are ones that traditionally have been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.”

The facts: Obama proposes to pay for his jobs bill by raising taxes, something traditionally opposed by Republicans and, in the form Obama proposed it, even some Democrats. Senate Democrats were so allergic to Obama’s approach, which relied largely on limiting deductions that can be taken by individuals making over $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000, that they’re eliminating it and replacing it with a new tax on millionaires.

In claiming bipartisan support for the components of his proposal, the president appears to be referring just to what the plan would do, not how it’s paid for, but that’s a crucial distinction he doesn’t make.

Some of tax-cutting proposals offered by Obama have received significant Republican support in the past. But some of the new spending he proposes has received only nominal Republican backing. Evidence of bipartisanship provided by the White Houseincludes legislation last year that provided $10 billion to prevent teacher layoffs. It won the support of only two Republican senators —Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine and among the most moderate Republicans in Congress. Another example cited by the White House was proposal last year to offer tax breaks to businesses that hire new workers — it passed the House 217-201 with six Republican votes.

Obama: “The answer we’re getting right now is: Well, we’re going to roll back all these Obama regulations. … Does anybody really think that that is going to create jobs right now and meet the challenges of a global economy?”

The facts: Well, yes, some think it will. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce last month submitted a jobs proposal to Obama that included a call to ease regulations on businesses. It specifically called for streamlining environmental reviews on major construction projects and to delay the issuance of some potentially burdensome regulations until the economy and employment have improved. In the letter, Chamber President Thomas Donohue also called on Congress to pass legislation that would require congressional approval of major regulations. The chamber did not indicate how many jobs such regulatory changes could create, but it said: “Immediate regulatory relief is required in order to begin moving $1 trillion-$2 trillion in accumulated private capital off of the sidelines and into business expansion.”

Obama: “We can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires and billionaires, with loopholes that lead them to have lower tax rates, in some cases, than plumbers and teachers, or we can put teachers and construction workers and veterans back on the job.”

The facts: True, “in some cases” wealthy people can exploit loopholes to make their tax rate lower than for people of middle or low income. In recent rhetoric, Obama had suggested it was commonplace for rich people to pay lower rates than others, a claim not supported by IRS statistics. But on Thursday, Obama accurately stated that it only happens sometimes.

In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the IRS. Yet that was less than 1 percent of returns with incomes above $1 million. On average, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes; those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid 9.9 percent; those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid 6.3 percent. The White House argues that when payroll taxes — paid only on the first $106,800 of wages — are factored in, more middle class workers wind up with a higher tax rate than millionaires.

Classifying Millionaires and Billionaires


Class warfare has become a key component of Obama’s policies and re-election rhetoric. The components of such a tactic are easily recognized: 1) the political opponent will hurt those among us who are most vulnerable (elderly, poor, etc); 2) the political opponent does not care about the “middle class”; 3) the political opponent wants to benefit those most advantaged (the rich/elite). The third point of this strategy is the one that is most popular with Obama, as he continuously and intentionally rails against “millionaires and billionaires” in order to separate that particular population from mainstream America.

Besides the obvious baseness of such an argument coming from the President of the United States, it is critically important to note that he doesn’t actually ever define a millionaire or billionaire. The amount of true millionaires and billionaires are so few in number, that taxing them more – as Obama plans to do – will not help with any significant deficit reduction. His assertion is pure dishonest political speech because you cannot possibly create enough revenue from the millionaire/billionaire population even if you were to tax them at 100%. Our fiscal situation is so dire in this country that an increased tax on this group in any large or small amount solves nothing.

Unfortunately, none of this matters to Obama. He intentionally throws the labels around so that they conveniently fit whatever emotive language will coerce voters and supporters to rally behind his outrageous fiscal policies. It is classical class-warfare: antagonizing lower socio-economic groups against the “rich”.

Obama has stated his intent to raise the marginal rates on the top income earners, (aka the “rich”, “wealthy”, or “top 2%”). Yet according to the IRS, the threshold for this bracket is actually 200K for individual taxpayers or 250K for married couples. These incomes are certainly no where near millionaire or billionaire amounts.

Since there is a clear federal definition for a group of taxpayers whom Obama is targeting for tax increases, Obama really has no right to say millionaires and billionaires as a collective for the highest income earners. But he uses the generic terms anyway. By making it sound like one kind of people, it pits the average/middle-class against “the other guy”. And if he actually tried to define that other guy instead of resorting to generic terms, it would include a lot of people who would be upset to be included.

History shows us that higher tax rates results in less – not more – tax collections. Democrats like to wax poetic about the high rates of 70% and even 91%. What they fail to comprehend or deliberately don’t explain is that at those times, there were an enormous amount of tax shelters such as real estate, so that people could legally lower that taxable income and would not have to actually pay the outrageous tax rates.

With the IRC reforms of 1986, Reagan reduced the tax rates to 28% in exchange for getting rid of the tax shelters. As a result, the amount of federal income collected was more at 28% and a clean tax code than at 91% and tax shelters, because at 28%, it really wasn’t worth the time, cost, and effort to hide money. If the tax rates are going to rise again – in addition to state and local tax hikes – the tax burden in this country will be staggering. People will do one of two things: 1) start finding ways not to pay it like they did when the rates were outrageous or 2) stop working and investing so much because it’s just going to get taken away from them. When that happens, it’s not good for the economy.

Blindly going after “millionaires and billionaires” (who earn $200,000 or more) is simply a tactic Obama uses to pit classes against one another for political gain. Imposing higher taxes on that segment of the population most able to invest in and aid our recovery is true economic ignorance. Why take additional money from those taxpayers who have been able to create wealth and employment successfully and give it to the government and politicians who have proven their ability to mismanage and squander income?

 

 


Wayne Crews & Obama’s Speech


A very good friend of mine, Wayne Crews, penned this great piece last night for Forbes after Obama’s speech. Crews is the VP of Policy for CEI.  Below is his article in its entirety:

Hauling the United States Senate and a reluctant House together to listen to you on NFL kickoff night–when it’s not even State of the Union season besides–represents a magnificent triumph of community organizing. I listened in, but missed that bit about how jobs will actually be created, which had been the teaser.

 

There’s a famous observation that poverty doesn’t have causes; instead, poverty is the default state of mankind, while only wealth has causes.

 

My lesser noggin contends that the same can be said of joblessness and employment, respectively.

 

Hyper-creation of jobs is possible in the U.S., it’s there for the taking, as Alec Baldwin brilliantly put it in Glengarry Glen Ross in another somewhat twisted context. But it takes a leader willing to uproot the entrenched government that, by late 2011 A.D., has spent decades outlawing the “causes of employment” by means of a gargantuan Regulatory State that Obama barely acknowledged.

 

Obama’s “jobs” talk grudgingly nodded at some payroll tax relief (gee, thanks, after three years) and enthused about trade liberalization (great). But true colors burst forth in threats to require payment of  ”fair share” aimed at the very producers presumably expected to create jobs in the first place.

 

The rest of the speech clung to otherwise discredited infrastructure  bridge-and-school-building stimulus ideas (why don’t the involved states build it themselves, one might wonder) and admonitions to just shut up and spend and lend.  He even mentioned spending on roofs. And invoked paying teachers as a federal matter.

 

Herein is our crisis. The very idea of of a presidential speech treating jobs as a public works phenomenon in any respect properly subject to federal delineation is something of an abomination in a free society. About the best to be said about the “American Jobs Act” grandiosely unveiled on September 8 is that, yes, there’ll always be an America, it’s just not going to be here, under these philosophies.

 

In this age of trillions, taxes and spending get all the press. That’s warranted, when government budgets double in the way that our GDP used to when job creation was legal.

 

But even today’s $3.5 trillion federal budget and $1.5 trillion deficit don’t capture government’s true size and scope anymore. A jobs agenda in 2011 would entail cutting taxes to Herman Cain’s “less than God needs” levels, but, even more urgently, an all out war on red tape that’s not even on Obama’s radar.

 

Obama is a brilliant man, in the know-it-all, Mensa-guy-working-at-Tower-Records sense that puzzled me as a kid looking at grownups who thought only within their own square. Often Republicans exemplify this classic human reality that intelligence comes in different varieties, somehow always wrapped in blinders, given Mitt and Rick’s GOP debate jibing over who had “created jobs” in their respective states.  Note to the GOP:  Governors don’t create jobs either; unshackled constituents do. In fact anyone who holds a job due of the outcome of an election should rewrite the song of politicians as job creators.

 

Anyway, today, the Code of Federal Regulations exceeds 157,000 pages.  The number of rules in the pipeline in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulationshas surged since Obama stepped in, from 3,983 in mid-2009 to 4,257 in the mid-2011 .

 

Of those in play this year, 219 rules are deemed “economically significant,” which means they cost $100 million or more.

 

Rich countries can tolerate a ravenous, parasitic government class for a long, long time, in the same respect that a bigger dog can have more ticks.  Unfortunately, with respect to today’s most energetic wealth- and job-creating sectors–energy, finance, health care, telecommunications, frontier technology–government regulation occupies the power-drunk, brake-happy driver’s ed instructor’s seat like never before.

 

The need to confront the crippling extent of regulation remains unappreciated by both parties. It requires, not a jobs plan, but liberalization so that  all of us who are not politicians can create our own jobs plans.

 

Not that Obama could ever do it with regard to  the signature health care and financial regulations on which he’s staked his legacy, Obama missed the chance to actually present a jobs agenda by:

 

·         Aggressively opening up America to safe but aggressive natural resource access for “unprecedented” (his favorite word) drilling and mining.
·         Stopping antitrust adventurism against America’s technology titans like Google and the intended AT&T and T-Mobile merger.
·         Repudiatng “net neutrality” mandates as the anti-competitive, anti-infrastructure policy that they are.
·         Inventorying all the legislation and regulations that impact a small business as it grows, and systematically rolling them back.

 

A jobs agenda further requires ensuring that future barriers to growth are removed. The president called for a “commonsense test” of no more regulation than health and safety legitimately require. OK then; so to do that, he could urge:

 

·         A bi-partisan “regulatory reduction commission” to vote up or down immediately on a package of rules to eliminate.
·         Congressional fast-track approval before major ($100 million-plus) regulations take effect. The REINS Act, or Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act, awaits the presidential nod.
·         A freeze on new regulatory rulemaking.
·         Adoption of proposals like Sen. Mark Warner’s (D-Va) “one-in, one-out” requirementl for any new regulation.
·         Re-discovery of federalism by backing out of health and safety regulatory matters best left to states.
·         Requiring the Office of Management and Budget to publish the numbers of major and minor rules produced by each agency, indicate where cost-benefit analysis was and was not done, and strengthen oversight.
·         Regulatory flexibility and exemptions for small business.
·         Declaring mere Federal Register publication of yet new mandates as insufficient notice to overburdened small business. Few have teams of lawyers and lobbyists in Washington capable of tracking it all.
·         Boosting the scope of experimental programs like the Small Business Administration’s Regulatory Review and Reform program to allow affected businesspeople to systematically challenge burdensome rules.
·         Lowering the threshold at which a point-of-order (a prodecural “hey wait a minute” in Congress) applies against new unfunded mandates
·         Experimenting with a limited regulatory budgets.
·         Establishing an annual presidential address on the state of over-regulation and its impact on productivity and GDP, and launching a congressional office of regulatory analysis (a “CBO” for regulations).
·         Sunsetting regulations unless explicit reauthorization is made after five years.
·         Implementing a congressional supermajority requirement for extraordinarily costly mandates
·         Creation of a basic Regulatory Report Card to accompany the federal budget

 

If he actually wanted to, the President could comprehensively and systematically wall off further government interference with business job creation and the nascent enterprises that are America’s engines of job and wealth creation. The new “jobs” proposal instead presented a vision of spending, of greater compulsory government involvement in civil society and enterprise.

 

Government isn’t supposed to be making “jobs plans” (Obama’s phrase) for us. Until it stops, the real speech about jobs creation remains to be delivered.

 

ATR: List of Tax Hikes


To coincide with Obama’s jobs re-election speech this evening, Americans for Tax Reform has done a nice job putting together a list of Obama’s tax hikes since he took office.  ATR usually has a good amount of information regarding taxes on their site.  I have reproduced the list in its entirety, because it is chock-full of good information.

 

Comprehensive List of Obama Tax Hikes

Which one of these tax hikes will destroy the most jobs?

(Get your Obama Big Speech Bingo cards here)

Since taking office, President Barack Obama has signed into law twenty-one new or higher taxes:

1. A 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco:  On February 4, 2009, just sixteen days into his Administration, Obama signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco, a hike of 61 cents per pack.  The median income of smokers is just over $36,000 per year.

2. Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (takes effect in Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

1 Adult 2 Adults 3+ Adults
2014 1% AGI/$95 1% AGI/$190 1% AGI/$285
2015 2% AGI/$325 2% AGI/$650 2% AGI/$975
2016 + 2.5% AGI/$695 2.5% AGI/$1390 2.5% AGI/$2085

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337

3. Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax (takes effect Jan. 2014):  If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees.  Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

4. Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income (Tax hike of $123 billion/takes effect Jan. 2013):  Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single).  This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93

Capital Gains Dividends Other*
2011-2012 15% 15% 35%
2013+ (current law) 23.8% 43.4% 43.4%
2013+ (Obama budget) 23.8% 23.8% 43.4%

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations.  It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income.  It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans.  The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.

5. Obamacare Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Tax hike of $32 bil/takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family).  Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions.  CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

6. Obamacare Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Tax hike of $86.8 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Current law and changes:

First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee
All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee
Current Law 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed

Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation            Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93

7. Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax (Tax hike of $5 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

8. Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Tax hike of $1.4 bil/took effect Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

9. Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” (Tax hike of $13 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).  Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs educationBill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

10. Obamacare Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Tax hike of $20 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax.  Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

11. Obamacare “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Tax hike of $15.2 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).  The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

12. Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Tax hike of $2.7 billion/took effect July 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

13. Obamacare elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Tax hike of $4.5 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

14. Obamacare Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Tax hike of $0.4 bil/took effect Jan. 1 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

15. Obamacare Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/took effect immediately): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new “community health assessment needs,” “financial assistance,” and “billing and collection” rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

16. Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Tax hike of $22.2 bil/took effect Jan. 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

17. Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers (Tax hike of $60.1 bil/takes effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.  Phases in gradually until 2018.  Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

18. Obamacare $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Tax hike of $0.6 bil/takes effect Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

19. Obamacare Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 ($min/takes effect Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

20. Obamacare “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion/took effect immediately).  This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

21. Obamacare Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion/took effect immediately).  This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

Read more: http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-obama-tax-hikes-a6433#ixzz1XPYALCG1

Duncan Hunter Misses It On Missing Businesses

In an Op-Ed to the Washington Times last week (Stop Exporting American Jobs 8/23/11) Rep. Duncan Hunter assiduously notes that very little is being said about jobs moving overseas but he fails to point out the obvious reason why: our government policies are the driving force behind the mass exodus of businesses abroad. A staggering increase in regulations coupled with the the highest corporate tax rate among industrial nations form the foundation of a very anti-business climate in our current administration.

Hunter goes on to suggest that companies are being offered incentives to move overseas, but the reality is that as the government continues to meddle in business affairs, it creates more disincentives to stay here. High taxes, legislation such as Dodd-Frank, and entities such as the EPA, SEC and the NLRB contribute to the rising cost of doing business here. For many companies, moving abroad is a matter of corporate survival.

Mr. Hunter calls for putting American workers first instead of sending them away. For those legislators who insist that government is the solution – instead of recognizing that it is the problem – maybe it is time to send them away. If Congress, of which Hunter is an elected member, did its job putting American workers first by sticking to the Constitution and staying out of the free-market, perhaps our businesses would once again have the liberty to grow and thrive in our great nation.

Thomas Sowell: An Unusual Economy?

Thomas Sowell is undeniably one of the most influential economists of our day. Below is his latest article, discussing the reasons why the economy, business, and labor markets remain sluggish –uncertainty due to Obama’s policies. I have written on this topic before, but Sowell’s essay is definitely worth reading.  You can find it on Real Clear Politics, but I have reproduced it below:

Many in the media are saying how unusual it is for our economy to be so sluggish for so long, after we have officially emerged from a recession. In a sense, they are right. But, in another sense, they are profoundly wrong.

The American economy usually rebounds a lot faster than it is doing today. After a recession passes, consumers usually increase their spending. And when businesses see demand picking up, they usually start hiring workers to produce the additional output required to meet that demand.

Some very sharp downturns in the American economy, such as in the early 1920s, were followed quickly by bouncing back to normal levels or beyond. The government did nothing — and it worked.

In that sense, this is an unusual recovery in how long it is taking and in how slowly the economy is growing — while the government is doing virtually everything imaginable.

Government intervention may look good to the media but its actual track record — both today and in the 1930s — is far worse than the track record of letting the economy recover on its own.

Americans today are alarmed that unemployment has stayed around 9 percent for so long. But such unemployment rates have been common for years in Western European welfare states that have followed policies similar to policies being followed currently by the Obama administration.

Those European welfare states have not only used the taxpayers’ money to hand out “free” benefits to particular groups, they have mandated that employers do the same. Faced with higher labor costs, employers have hired less labor.

The vast uncertainties created by ObamaCare create a special problem. If employers knew that ObamaCare would add $1,000 to their costs of hiring an employee, then they could simply reduce the salaries they offer by $1,000 and start hiring.

But, since it will take years to create all the regulations required to carry out ObamaCare, employers today don’t know whether the ObamaCare costs that will hit them down the road will be $500 per employee or $5,000 per employee. Even businesses that have record amounts of cash on hand are reluctant to gamble it by expanding their hiring under these conditions.

Many businesses work their existing employees overtime or hire temporary workers, rather than get stuck with unknown and unknowable costs for expanding their permanent work force.

As unusual as 9 percent unemployment rates may seem to the current generation of Americans, unemployment rates stayed in double digits for months and years on end during the 1930s. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration followed policies very similar to those of the Obama administration today. He also got away with it politically by blaming his predecessor.

 

NY Pension System Problems

The New York pension system is out of control. In addition to the extravagant, irresponsible and  under-reported  negotiated levels of benefits, there is an additional characteristic of the system that is never talked about. There is a huge break that goes to New York retirees; anyone who gets a retirement pension from New York State, or any locality or agency (teacher, firefighter, etc) pays no city or state income tax on that pension money. This hearkens back to the days when New York workers were so underpaid that this benefit was warranted.

It should be noted that nearly a decade ago, that provision of New York state law was declared federally unconstitutional. It was determined that New York state could not exclude federal retirees from the tax exemption  The courts gave New York two options: make New York government pensions taxable, or add federal workers to the list of non-taxable agencies. Of course, New York chose the latter, thereby adding to the state budget deficits.

Even though historically, public sector employees earned less than what those skills would command in the private sector, that is clearly not the case today. Study after study has shown that public sector compensation – which includes retirement pensions – has steadily outpaced its private sector counterparts in recent years. New York is among the worst offenders.

This state of affairs must be reversed.  Allowing the exempted retiree pensions to be taxed the same way other retiree pensions would accomplish two goals: 1)  lessen the compensation disparity with private sector employees, and 2) severely reduce the New York budget deficit by providing additional revenue to the state.

Downgraded


The S&P has downgraded our rating to AA+. Here is their press release, reprinted below in its entirety.

 

TORONTO (Standard & Poor’s) Aug. 5, 2011–Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services said today that it lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to ‘AA+’ from ‘AAA’. Standard & Poor’s also said that the outlook on the long-term rating is negative. At the same time, Standard & Poor’s affirmed its ‘A-1+’ short-term rating on the U.S. In addition, Standard & Poor’s removed both ratings from CreditWatch, where they were placed on July 14, 2011, with negative implications.

The transfer and convertibility (T&C) assessment of the U.S.–our assessment of the likelihood of official interference in the ability of U.S.-based public- and private-sector issuers to secure foreign exchange for debt service–remains ‘AAA’.

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our perception of greater policymaking uncertainty, consistent with our criteria (see “Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,” June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). Nevertheless, we view the U.S. federal government’s other economic, external, and monetary credit attributes, which form the basis for the sovereign rating, as broadly unchanged.

We have taken the ratings off CreditWatch because the Aug. 2 passage of the Budget Control Act Amendment of 2011 has removed any perceived immediate threat of payment default posed by delays to raising the government’s debt ceiling. In addition, we believe that the act provides sufficient clarity to allow us to evaluate the likely course of U.S. fiscal policy for the next few years.

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year’s wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisions only minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements, the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

Our opinion is that elected officials remain wary of tackling the structural issues required to effectively address the rising U.S. public debt burden in a manner consistent with a ‘AAA’ rating and with ‘AAA’ rated sovereign peers (see Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,” June 30, 2011, especially Paragraphs 36-41). In our view, the difficulty in framing a consensus on fiscal policy weakens the government’s ability to manage public finances and diverts attention from the debate over how to achieve more balanced and dynamic economic growth in an era of fiscal stringency and private-sector deleveraging (ibid). A new political consensus might (or might not) emerge after the 2012 elections, but we believe that by then, the government debt burden will likely be higher, the needed medium-term fiscal adjustment potentially greater, and the inflection point on the U.S. population’s demographics and other age-related spending drivers closer at hand (see “Global Aging 2011: In The U.S., Going Gray Will Likely Cost Even More Green, Now,” June 21, 2011).

Standard & Poor’s takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.’s finances on a sustainable footing.

The act calls for as much as $2.4 trillion of reductions in expenditure growth over the 10 years through 2021. These cuts will be implemented in two steps: the $917 billion agreed to initially, followed by an additional $1.5 trillion that the newly formed Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction is supposed to recommend by November 2011. The act contains no measures to raise taxes or otherwise enhance revenues, though the committee could recommend them.

The act further provides that if Congress does not enact the committee’s recommendations, cuts of $1.2 trillion will be implemented over the same time period. The reductions would mainly affect outlays for civilian discretionary spending, defense, and Medicare. We understand that this fall-back mechanism is designed to encourage Congress to embrace a more balanced mix of expenditure savings, as the committee might recommend.

We note that in a letter to Congress on Aug. 1, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated total budgetary savings under the act to be at least $2.1 trillion over the next 10 years relative to its baseline assumptions. In updating our own fiscal projections, with certain modifications outlined below, we have relied on the CBO’s latest “Alternate Fiscal Scenario” of June 2011, updated to include the CBO assumptions contained in its Aug. 1 letter to Congress. In general, the CBO’s “Alternate Fiscal Scenario” assumes a continuation of recent Congressional action overriding existing law.

We view the act’s measures as a step toward fiscal consolidation. However, this is within the framework of a legislative mechanism that leaves open the details of what is finally agreed to until the end of 2011, and Congress and the Administration could modify any agreement in the future. Even assuming that at least $2.1 trillion of the spending reductions the act envisages are implemented, we maintain our view that the U.S. net general government debt burden (all levels of government combined, excluding liquid financial assets) will likely continue to grow. Under our revised base case fiscal scenario–which we consider to be consistent with a ‘AA+’ long-term rating and a negative outlook–we now project that net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 79% in 2015 and 85% by 2021. Even the projected 2015 ratio of sovereign indebtedness is high in relation to those of peer credits and, as noted, would continue to rise under the act’s revised policy settings.

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.

Our revised upside scenario–which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the ‘AA+’ long-term rating being revised to stable–retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.

Our revised downside scenario–which, other things being equal, we view as being consistent with a possible further downgrade to a ‘AA’ long-term rating–features less-favorable macroeconomic assumptions, as outlined below and also assumes that the second round of spending cuts (at least $1.2 trillion) that the act calls for does not occur. This scenario also assumes somewhat higher nominal interest rates for U.S. Treasuries. We still believe that the role of the U.S. dollar as the key reserve currency confers a government funding advantage, one that could change only slowly over time, and that Fed policy might lean toward continued loose monetary policy at a time of fiscal tightening. Nonetheless, it is possible that interest rates could rise if investors re-price relative risks. As a result, our alternate scenario factors in a 50 basis point (bp)-75 bp rise in 10-year bond yields relative to the base and upside cases from 2013 onwards. In this scenario, we project the net public debt burden would rise from 74% of GDP in 2011 to 90% in 2015 and to 101% by 2021.

Our revised scenarios also take into account the significant negative revisions to historical GDP data that the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced on July 29. From our perspective, the effect of these revisions underscores two related points when evaluating the likely debt trajectory of the U.S. government. First, the revisions show that the recent recession was deeper than previously assumed, so the GDP this year is lower than previously thought in both nominal and real terms. Consequently, the debt burden is slightly higher. Second, the revised data highlight the sub-par path of the current economic recovery when compared with rebounds following previous post-war recessions. We believe the sluggish pace of the current economic recovery could be consistent with the experiences of countries that have had financial crises in which the slow process of debt deleveraging in the private sector leads to a persistent drag on demand. As a result, our downside case scenario assumes relatively modest real trend GDP growth of 2.5% and inflation of near 1.5% annually going forward.

When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with ‘AAA’ long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers–Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.–we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.’s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015.

Standard & Poor’s transfer T&C assessment of the U.S. remains ‘AAA’. Our T&C assessment reflects our view of the likelihood of the sovereign restricting other public and private issuers’ access to foreign exchange needed to meet debt service. Although in our view the credit standing of the U.S. government has deteriorated modestly, we see little indication that official interference of this kind is entering onto the policy agenda of either Congress or the Administration. Consequently, we continue to view this risk as being highly remote.

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction–independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners–lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government’s debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at ‘AA+’.

On Monday, we will issue separate releases concerning affected ratings in the funds, government-related entities, financial institutions, insurance, public finance, and structured finance sectors.

Tea Party Terrorists


It is clearly arguable  that it was ONLY the Tea Party that was rational. Our national deficit is $14.3 trillion only if you lie and exclude unfunded entitlement debt of at least $7.7 trillion for social security and $37.9 trillion for Medicare (these are CBO numbers which are considered too low by most economists). That is a total of at least $60 trillion, or $200,000 of real debt for every man woman and child in this country. It’s getting worse every day that something is not done. Are you sure that it is the Tea Party that’s the crazy people?

Is Social Security Taxable? Should It Be?

 

Under federal tax law, Social Security amounts that people receive are either 1) not taxable if income is low enough; 2) partially, from 0% to 85% as your income rises or 3) fully if you pass a certain income threshold. Your income is based on a Modified AGI which is basically gross income, subject to certain things such as municipal bond interest income.

Should Social Security be taxed? A fundamental principle of taxation is that you should not be taxed on money on the monies you have already paid. Because people have already paid taxes to Social Security by having it withdrawn from their pay, people have this (correct) assumption that when they get the money back, it should not be taxable.

Interestingly, the current method of taxation calculation was set up 15 – 20 years ago. At that time, it was determined that that the average person would collect in benefits much more than they put in; their costs (the amount they put in) would be likely 15% of the total amount they collect. If that’s correct, it seems only fair you pay taxes on 85% on what you collect.

For instance, if a person paid $15K into Social Security over their working years, and then withdrew 100K during their retirement, they should rightly pay taxes on that amount above and beyond what they put in. The problem is that it would not be fair if you put in 50K and get back 100K. In this case, you should only pay on 50%, not 85%

In the earlier years of Social Security, people didn’t put in anywhere near the 15%, they put in more like 1% of the total they collected, and got it back 100x. But it wasn’t even taxed. Then they changed the laws as they needed more revenue.  And since then, the percentage that recipients are getting back as opposed to what they do put in, has drastically changed. Now, the average person is putting in more while getting back less, and the situation will only grow more acute as the Social Security Fund runs out of money. The scenario of money-in, money-out has changed.

Congress, in its infinite capacity to forget things, has never changed that rule resulting in more income being fleeced from the taxpayer.

Social Security began as a trust fund to remain separate for American workers. LBJ raided the trust fund and put it in the government’s general fund – to be spent and never repaid. Social Security was also not taxed until the Clinton Administration, and the FICA withholding income tax deduction was also eliminated.

One might think that the double taxation incurred today supports the egregious Social Security system. But actually, the money goes into the general tax revenue account and not in the Fund. The Social Security Administration collects and records the gross Social Security tax receipts, while the net amount, after deductions, is sent to the IRS. Yet the gross amount is spent by the government, resulting in the staggering deficit we face today. According to the Social Security trustees, in a report released last month, unfunded liabilities amount to an $18 trillion deficit.

Social Security is merely an unsustainable ponzi scheme. Considering the fact that citizens will receive far less – of their own money – than they put in, it is morally reprehensible that Social Security is taxed they way it is.