Showing posts with label Bartlett. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bartlett. Show all posts

Thursday, August 16, 2012

The Roundup: Taxes And Budget Debate Edition



Private equity firms: Job creators or job destroyers? 
The jury is still out. Why? Maybe because these firms aren't interested in creating American jobs. So are they afraid of the results?

Would an income tax hike hurt hiring? 
One thing not mentioned: A lot of these tax increases only happen on the portion of their income above $250,000. For a business making $250,001, only $1 would be affected the the rate increase. So I'm curious where the concentration of those businesses lie, close to the $250,000 mark or high enough for the tax increases to be significant.

David Frum: The Deficit Won't Go Down Till The Private Sector Goes Up 
Many economists have been saying large government deficits have come about as a result of the recession, NOT runaway government growth. The evidence to back this up is quite strong. Deficits for 2009 were originally projected to be ~$200 bi llion... until the recesion hit and deficits were then projeted to be ~$1.2 trillion. The Obama administration raised that to ~$1.4 trillion. This also further undermines the popular conservative belief that we need to jump into immediate austerity to fix out budget problem.

Bruce Bartlett: Will Defense Cuts Kill the Anti-Tax Pledge?
"Republicans are between the rock of defense cuts that they view as unpalatable and the tax pledge hard place. There is no doubt that Democrats would agree to a tax increase to offset the defense sequester, but would oppose any other altern ative except, perhaps, putting off the entire sequester, including domestic spending cuts, for a year. It’s doubtful that the GOP’s Tea Party wing would support that."

The Republican Plan to Tax the Poor
"According to CTJ, virtually all of these tax increases would apply to families making less than $50,000—people for whom a few hundred dollars can make a huge difference. Unfortunately for them, the media is focused instead on how Obama's tax increases on incomes above $250,000 will make life intolerable for rich people."
Paul Krugman: The Hobbled Recovery
"Business investment has actually gone up a lot; maybe you think it should have gone up even more, but it’s not the heart of the problem. On the other hand, we’ve had a lot of cutbacks in government — mainly at the state and local level, but federal aid could have avoided that. (emphasis mine)
This isn’t a picture of an economy hobbled by Big Government; it’s a picture of an economy hobbled by premature austerity."

Brad DeLong: Hopeless Unemployment
"The current balance of probabilities is that two years from now, the North Atlantic’s principal labor-market failures will not be demand-side market failures that could be easily remedied by more aggressive policies to boost economic activity and employment. Rather, they will be structural market failures of participation that are not amenable to any straightforward and easily implemented cure."
Paul Krugman: The Secret of Our Un-success
"The Wall Street Journal — yes, the WSJ — explains: Government Cutbacks Separate This Expansion From Others. Over at Angry Bear, Spencer shows that private GDP — GDP not including government spending — has risen almost exactly as fast under Obama as during the “Bush Boom”; of course, if government spending hadn’t been falling despite a weak economy, there would have been more jobs, and private spending would have risen faster." (emphasis mine)
Paul Krugman: Poles Apart
"So actually Poland’s success suggests that (a) big government isn’t so bad (b) sometimes its good to debase your currency. Doesn’t anyone tell Romney to do his homework?"
Paul Krugman: Dooh Nibor
"The question one might ask is, did TPC – which is actually painstakingly and painfully nonpartisan – make questionable assumptions to get its results, so that some other set of assumptions might portray Romneynomics in a more favorable lig ht? And the answer is no: TPC actually bent over backwards to literally give Romney every possible benefit of the doubt.
...
So they’re actually giving Romney every possible benefit of the doubt – and still his plan is a redistribution from the middle class to the rich. In practice it would surely be much worse." (emphasis mine)
WP Fact Checker: Obama’s new campaign ad on dueling budget plans
"Romney’s continued failure to provide enough specifics about his plans certainly lets the Obama campaign openly speculate about the impact. The president, by contrast, is required to present a real budget with actual figures — but as we ha ve shown, he can still play budget tricks to make the numbers add up. So even more detail from Romney might not make the budget dispute any clearer."

Why Washington Accepts Mass Unemployment 
A MUST-READ ON THE POPULAR VIEW OF THE RECESSION AMONG THE WASHINGTON ELITE!
"There are signs we’ve hit bottom. Nothing to worry about here. Why risk the possibility of a small outlay merely to provide relief to hundreds of thousands of des perate people? This is such a perfect statement of the way the American elite has approached the economic crisis. They concede that it is a problem. But there are other problems, you know."
FactCheck: Does Romney Pay a Lower Rate in Taxes Than You?
"“Bottom line,” said Eric Toder co-director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, “if you look at income taxes only, Obama’s statement is not true for most Americans. If you add in payroll taxes, however, it is probably true for lots of people.” (emphasis mine)
No matter how you slice it, Toder said, Romney’s tax rate is very low for someone with his level of income. The average income tax rate for the top 0.1 percent (which is where Romney falls) is 23.6 percent."

Nine takeaways on Romney’s tax plan 
Romney's tax plan will hopefully become his biggest handicap in this election. This is the bottom line. Surveys show the American population generally thinks Romney is more able to handle the debt and deficit than Obama. Understanding the f laws with Romney's plans for growth and fiscal reforms should help Americans doubt Romney's competency on these core issues. It will help ensure Romney either fixes the problems with his plan (doubtful, since the problems are fundamental), or loses this election for the right reasons.

AEI Economics: Better Late Than Never 
AEI is a bit late to the game, but they are early compared to many Republicans:
"In his podcast Pethokoukis asks the most important question conservatives will have when they hear about this policy for the fist time: Isn't this just promoti ng inflation? In response, Sumner clearly explains why short term inflation is not the same as the Carter-era inflation that many conservatives fear might repeat itself." (emphasis mine)

FACT CHECK: Social Security adds to budget deficit
a MUST READ Fact Check on the question of whether social security is adding to the national debt. It is more complex than most people realize.

Note: Most of our debt does not come from china. Former Sen Judd Gregg has presented a false dichotomy.

Both parties unfazed as ads fail fact-check
The Obama campaign is finally calling out the Romney campaign for its hypocrisy in their insults to Obama's political ads:
""Mitt Romney won the Republican primary only by tearing down each of his opponents with ruthlessly negative campaig ning," said campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith. "His campaign has questioned whether the president understands what it is to be American, attacked his patriotism, and is currently running an ad that a former president [Clinton] and authors of the welfare-to-work legislation have called a flat-out lie. When the Romney campaign finally reaches the high ground, we look forward to greeting them there."" (emphasis mine)
One interesting thing here is that these negative ads seem to be benefiting Obama much more than Romney:
"Political scientist John Geer of Vanderbilt University, who has been testing voter reaction to ads, has found that some of Obama's ads attacking Romney have moved voters. But Romney's attacks, so far, have not.
"People know what they think of Obama. Their judgments can't easily be moved," he said." (emphasis mine)
In addition, some of these political ads may be relying on fact checker debunkings:
"Indeed, with the ad about the cancer death, the Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA Action, appeared to have gone the fact-checkers one better — exploiting attention to the ad's veracity to get free air time for a spot that has not appeared anywhere as a paid commercial. The ad has been replayed extensively on television news segments that have debated it and has been viewed more than half a million times on YouTube. The largest number of views have come from five states — California and four election battlegrounds, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Virginia, according to Priorities.
The Democratic super PAC has raised considerably less money than its Republican counterpart, making the free publicity particularly valuable.
Asked whether the prospect of controversy leading to free publicity was part of the calculation, Paul Begala, senior advisor to Priorities, did not hesitate.
"Absolutely," he said. "We're provocateurs."" (emphasis mine)


 The Case of the $100 Billion Error1
"Multiple members of Congress have warned that slashing defense spending by $600 billion would devastate the military, with Sen. Lindsey Graham this month predicting the cuts would deal "a death blow to our ability to defend ourselves."
There's just one problem: The number they cite is wrong.
The law triggering the cuts does not slash the military budget by $600 billion. That figure — which has also been widely cited in the media — overstates the amount of military cuts by more than $100 billion." (emphasis mine)

Paul Ryan’s imaginary expertise1
Professor Mark Thoma of the University of Oregon explains how Paul Ryan doesn't uderstand basic monetary or fiscal policy. His budget makes unre alistic assumptions which are backed by few details. Is this what we should expect from the "intellectual leader of the Republican Party."

 "Only about one-third of American families will surpass their parents in wealth and income and climb to a new rung on the economic ladder, a new study out today from The Pew Charitable Trusts concludes."

The NFIB is now only representing at most 2% of small businesses.
 
The Tax Foundation is dishonest about income inequality.

Economists who once supported austerity in the UK are changing their minds   

Paul Krugman makes the case that markets are allowing the US to borrow for free, meaning now is the time for short term stimulus and long term austerity.

Paul Krugman explains the euro crises: a central currency with no central government. He then presents potential solutions to the crisis. He Ends by suggesting the euro should be saved but probably won't.

Why does the middle class let politicians get away with unfavorable tax plans? They trust politicians just wouldn't do such a thing. 

Charts: America Has the World's Luckiest Billionaires

Arthur Laffer on income inequality, raising taxes

 Six Policies Economists Love (And Politicians Hate)1

1: Update 8/18/12

Sunday, June 17, 2012

New Posts Coming This Summer

Well I am finally done with classes for a while so I think it is time to start posting again. My plan is to start posting on a weekly basis, although this is not written in stone. I have a few posts started I've been working on and hopefully I should have them out in the next few weeks. Among these are:

  • David Frum suggests that working class individuals shouldn't be so quick to embrace Obama's new Immigration Policy. Does he have a point? 
  • I am going to look at the healthcare systems of the top countries in the conservative Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. How do they compare to ObamaCare? Is socialized medicine really a threat to individual freedom, as well as the free market in general?
  • I am going to write a defense of what has been colorfully called "Slacktivism." Is it generally a good thing? Does it breed laziness? Or is criticism of slacktivism just pretentious?
  • I am going to find out just how consistent Politifact.com is about using net job figures, verses other figures, when deciding ratings.
  • I may also list some things to remember about fact checking sites (or media altogether) when trying to detect bias.

In addition to these posts, I will include a list of a few articles I think may be worth reading from the previous week. These will usually be unrelated to the post itself. It is mostly my attempt to resurrect a simplified version of my old "Weekly Roundup" articles.



Weekly Roundup
 
Politifact: Is the NRA right that Obama is 'coming for our guns'?
"Gun talk has been almost anathema at the White House. Obama signed a bill in 2009 that allows people to carry loaded guns into most national parks; in 2011, he largely avoided a discussion -- to the anger of many activists -- about strengthening gun laws following the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Obama received a failing grade from the nation’s preeminent gun control group, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence."

So why again is the NRA campaigning so fiercely against Obama? It can't be because he is a liberal now could it...? 


FactCheck.org: Why the Truth Still Matters

"If unpleasant truths would get candidates elected, they would state them frankly. But they seldom do that, because so few of us in the public want to hear unpleasant truths. Stating such things is considered a gaffe.
Furthermore, humans naturally filter out evidence that weighs against what they want to believe. It’s called “confirmation bias,” and we all have it. So candidates tell us what we want to hear."
This is exactly why we need non-partisan fact checking operations.
Another thing I noticed that is worth pointing out:
"the federal government accounted for 43.6 percent of all U.S. health care spending in 2009, before the law [ObamaCare] was signed, and government actuaries predict that in 2015, when the law [ObamaCare] is fully effective, that will rise to 47.4 percent. What’s more, much or most of that 3.8 percentage point increase would have happened anyway as the postwar baby boom generation reaches age 65 and goes on Medicare. So the law is no “takeover.” Rather, it’s a modest, incremental change in the existing system."(emphasis mine)

Tom Smerling: Glimmer of hope? A conservative tackles climate change.

Conservative Professor Jonathan Adler makes the case for action to combat climate change in accordance with conservative principles. This is the kind of conversation we should be getting from the right.
“This is of particular concern because these effects will be most severe in those nations that are both least able to adapt and least responsible for contributing to the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 
It is a well established principle in the Anglo-American legal tradition that one does not have the right to use one’s own property in a manner that causes harm to one’s neighbor. . . 
My argument is that the same general principles that lead libertarians and conservatives to call for greater protection of property rights should lead them to call for greater attention to the most likely effects of climate change.
I believe the United States should adopt a revenue-neutral carbon tax, much like that suggested by NASA’s James Hansen. . . [and] that is fully rebated to taxpayers on a per capita basis. This would, in effect, shift the incidence of federal taxes away from income and labor and onto energy consumption and offset some of the potential regressivity of a carbon tax. For conservatives who have long supported shifting from an income tax to a sales or consumption tax, and oppose increasing the federal tax burden, this should be a no brainer."
The carbon tax solution has actually been embraced by more conservatives than you may realize, including Romney adviser Gregory Mankiw.

Paul Krugman: Still A Phantom Menace"
 
Although this recession continues to surprise Economists of all stripes, none have been more off-target than Austrians.

David Frum: Why Americans Hate Politics
"The Democratic message is shaping up as: "The Republicans/the Fed/the Europeans wrecked the recovery, and we weren't smart enough or tough enough to stop them. Vote us."
The Republican message: "Obama could not fix the mess we made. Vote us.""

Paul Krugman: Reagan, Obama, Recovery
"So, more than four years ago I predicted a very slow recovery. Why? Because recessions like those of 1990-91, 2001, and 2007-2009 have very different origins from recessions like 1974-75 or the double-dip recession of 1979-82." (emphasis mine)
David Frum agrees:
"Yet in almost every way, today's economic problems are exactly the opposite of those of 30 years ago. Then we had inflation, today we are struggling against deflation. Then we had weak corporate profits, today corporations are more profitable than ever. Then we had slow productivity growth, today it is high. Then the to-individual income-tax rate was 70%. Today it is 36%. Then energy regulations produced energy shortages. Today the removal of banking regulations has produced an abundance of debt." (emphasis mine)

AP: Obama a socialist? Many scoff, but claim persists
"...to many historians and political scientists - and to actual socialists as well - the persistent claim that Obama is a socialist lacks credence."
And what has been the right's latest silver bullet?
"When President Barack Obama's re-election campaign unveiled its new slogan, some conservative critics were quick to pounce. "Forward," they asserted, is a word long associated with Europe's radical left."
So I'm assuming the same can be said of Republican Governor Scott Walker:
"Scott Walker: Moving Wisconsin Forward"
That crazy Bolshevik!

AP: FACT CHECK: Looming tax hike not the biggest ever
"...the tax increases would pale in comparison to those imposed to help finance World War II. Before the 1940s, the individual income tax applied to only a small percentage of the population. By the end of war, the income tax was levied on most working people, with a top tax rate of 94 percent on income above $200,000." (emphasis mine)
And my favorite part:
"House Republicans have passed a budget for next year - which Romney has embraced - that would raise just $7 billion less in taxes than Obama's budget in 2013. That's the equivalent of a rounding error, when you're talking about revenues of $2.7 trillion." (emphasis mine)
FactCheck.org: Romney’s Solar Flareout
An ad from the Romney campaign strains facts to make its point that federal grants and loans to green-energy companies were improperly steered to Obama’s political backers, and that federal money was wasted on failing companies that are now laying off employees.
  • It claims the “inspector general said contracts were steered to ‘friends and family.’ ” But that’s not exactly what the inspector general said. And in the year since he said he was investigating such alleged “schemes,” no public charges have been made, at least not yet. 
  • The ad highlights the struggles — company losses, nose-diving stock and layoffs — at several companies that received substantial Department of Energy loans and grants. The ad fails to note, however, that most of the layoffs at those companies were overseas, or that the projects backed by DOE are largely moving along as planned. An independent review of the DOE program says its failure rate has been better than anticipated. 
  • The ad uses an inflated figure from a partisan source to quantify loans and grants that went to Obama donors. (emphasis mine)

Paul Krugman: We Don’t Need No Education
Conservatives love to pretend that there are vast armies of government bureaucrats doing who knows what; in reality, a majority of government workers are employed providing either education (teachers) or public protection (police officers and firefighters). (emphasis mine)
WP Fact Checker: A wrong-headed question on ‘Obamacare’
"...cutbacks in federal government spending — precisely what Republicans such as Romney have demanded — led to the closure of the Nemschoff facility in Iowa, not the health care law.
"As for that Chamber of Commerce survey, we suggest that Obama skip reading that. This is yet another one of those online surveys from which you can draw virtually no broader conclusions.
"As the American Association for Public Opinion Research warns: “Surveys based on self-selected volunteers do not have that sort of known relationship to the target population and are subject to unknown, non-measurable biases. Even if opt-in surveys are based on probability samples drawn from very large pools of volunteers, their results still suffer from unknown biases stemming from the fact that the pool has no knowable relationships with the full target population.”" (emphasis mine)
John Avlon: Jeb vs. Grover: Battle for GOP's soul
"In pursuit of a reality check, take a look at this quote: "We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10% of his salary, and that's crazy. It's time we stopped it."
That might sound straight out of President Barack Obama "Buffett Tax" playbook -- which conservatives routinely attack as "class warfare" -- but in fact it is the sainted Reagan speaking in 1985."
Bruce Bartlett: Why Ronald Reagan Would Not Lead Today’s GOP

Gavin Baker: Obama Plans to Further Harness Technology for Government Transparency
 
Politifact.com: In Context: 'The private sector is doing fine'
 
Yahoo News: Top conservative says read my lips: Don’t sign ‘no new tax’ pledge
 
Michael Tomasky on Obama’s Gaffe and How His Campaign Lost Its Groove
 
Michael Stafford: Why I Gave Up On Being a Republican David Frum: The "Wealth Creators" Are Winning