President In 1941 : Mr Obama Takes Charge

If you talk to the unhinged brain dead liberal that live among us, they believe Mr Obama is a man for all seasons.

The truth is he isn't from around here and the liberal know this but even many progressive democrats are beginning to have a nervous twitch that maybe their maximum leader isn't the 'One' after all.

Of course, they will never admit it as the disease of progressivism will not allow them to decent on any issue, the demand is too great to stay true to the cause even if it means their own demise.

What good reason to vote for more catastrophe and infection.

Netanyahu Speech Causes Stress for Progressive Ideology Holders

What is so un-nerving here is the mentally unhinged still see Mr Obama and the progressive socialist liberal democrats as legitimate.

When faced with truth, the democrats run away - the stress of having to deal with conflicting aspects of living the lie of progressivism when confronted with the world as it really is, the progressive socialist becomes even more unhinged.

If more proof is needed, when the cameras highlighted Nancy Pelosi  during the speech she was in a total melt down. The look of complete horror was unmistable. She was thinking how will I spin Netanyahu's truth to fit my make believe life.

The unfortunate truth is to liberals, knowing the truth can not set them free, it too late.

Tax Reform Testing Methods Matter : Dynamic 'Scoring' Best

Cutting through the weeds a little here - what is important is using the best method to test each proposal, scoring, to determining what each scoring method might bring in the way of economic benefits.

After all it's just that, a score or dynamic system to help judge the effectives of each plan.

Dynamic Scoring Is Crucial in Comprehensive Tax Reforms
Source: Scott A. Hodge, "Dynamic Scoring Made Simple," Tax Foundation, February 11, 2015.

March 4, 2015

The Taxes and Growth (TAG) dynamic tax model is designed to isolate and measure the effects of tax changes on the cost of capital and on the cost of labor, which are the two main drivers of economic growth. It is comprised of two main components - a tax simulator and a macroeconomic model. These two components of the model work together to calculate the dynamic effects of tax changes. The model can simulate the effects of the tax changes on key economic factors as well as important factors in the fiscal debate.

Using the TAG model to compare five different illustrative tax cuts had a conventional revenue cost of $72 billion annually. Those illustrative tax cuts are:

• a new $1,000 per-child tax credit with no upper income cap;
• cutting the tax rate in the 10 percent tax bracket to 3.5 percent;
• cutting the rates in the top three individual income tax brackets (33, 35, and 39.6 percent) to 29.2 percent;
• cutting the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 24 percent;
• and moving from the current "accelerated" depreciation system (MACRS) to full expensing for all capital investments including machinery and structures.

The results show that:

• On GDP growth, all of them will boost the level of GDP, except the new $1000 per child tax credit, which produces no growth. Moving to full expensing for all equipment and buildings would achieve the greatest growth among the five, raising the level of GDP by more than 5 percent.
• On Federal revenues, even though the static estimates are the same, the dynamic revenue estimates are very different. Cutting the Federal CIT rate from 35% to 24% and moving to full expensing can generate more new tax revenues than they lose over time, $11 billion and $106 billion separately, while others have a cost from $72 billion to $48 billion.

Different tax increases generate different results by the TAG model. The dynamic models also can provide the second layer of information about the distributional impact of tax changes on families in different income groups.

The primary goal of comprehensive tax reform is economic growth. Conventional scoring treats this process as an exercise in arithmetic, whereas dynamic scoring makes the process an exercise in economics. Only dynamic scoring can help lawmakers make the right choices that lift everyone's standards of living.
 

Right to Work Movement Gains Ground : Wisconsin Votes Today

How novel an idea - if you don't want to join a union, you can not be forced to do so. Wow, is this really America? Apparently. Even in Wisconsin that is voting today on a 'right to work' vote legislation like more then a dozens other states that have done so and have seen an not so surprising up-tick in jobs and increased revenue to those states.

Still, given the amount of push back from the progressive socialist democrats and their union friends that contribute million of pension dollars to democrats, it seems strange that the democrats and union would so bold in exposing themselves to ridicule as being so out of touch and lacking in common sense of the Constitutional law of freedoms that are explicit in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

The freedom to chose is basic in obtaining the American dream.

Texas' Economy Thrives Despite Unionism
Source: Stanley Greer, "State Labor-Management Policy and the Texas Model," Texas Public Policy Foundation, February 2015.

March 4, 2015

Increasingly, studies have shown workers of all classes are benefitting from the low cost environment in Texas. Many social scientists and lawmakers point to this being one of the principle reasons why Texas is experiencing growth that consistently outperforms the national average. As a result, Texas has been the primary destination for domestic migrants since 2006.

Additionally, while Texas boasts lows costs, low taxes and plenty of jobs, what the Lone Star state does not have much of, however, is unions

Keeping unionism voluntary is beneficial but additional safeguards are now needed. Several safety measures include:

• Prohibit the automatic deduction of union dues from public workers' paychecks.
• Empower employees to go to court to seek injunctive relief against union officials and employers who violate Texas' Right to Work law.
• Eliminate all practices and re­peal all provisions in Texas law that are inconsistent with Texas' ban on exclusive union bargain­ing for public employees, such as the "exclusive consultation" loophole used by some school districts and provisions that al­low collective bargaining of cer­tain municipal employees.
• Prohibit employers from hand­ing over employees' names, ad­dresses, and other personal in­formation to union organizers.
• Specify that union officials may not accompany government employees on inspections of private businesses without the consent of the owner unless the union is already established as front-line employees' exclusive bargaining agent.

Considering Texas' current growth and the prosperity, lawmakers could secure economic stability by not electing to adopt policies that enable unionization.
 

EPA Moves to Stop Prosperity in Texas : More Domestic Terrorism?

How many times does this subject have to surface before the general public decides enough is enough. The EPA is acting in self interest and that of Mr Obama's progressive socialist agenda to limit any attempt expand prosperity and individual freedom for the American citizens.

The EPA, given all of it's regulations on all aspects of our life style that stymies innovation and productive in all walks of American life, has to be seen as domestic terrorist organization that is dedicated to the destruction of the American dream.

If you think this to harsh, you haven't been paying attention over last 6 years.

The Environmental Protection Agency Comes Down on Texas Jobs
Source: Merrill Matthews, "The EPA Hopes to Kill the Texas Jobs Machine," The Institute for Policy Innovation, January 28, 2015

March 4, 2015

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to impose rigid regulations in Texas, which could devastate the nation's top jobs producer. Since 2007, the 1.169 million net increase in total U.S. employment has been a direct result of Texas' booming economy. Yet, the EPA's proposed regulations will force additional costs on employers, therefore leading to lower wages and fewer jobs.

The new regulations, which would result in ambiguous environmental benefits, impose rigid restrictions reducing ground level ozone from 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 60 ppb. According to a National Association of Manufacturers-sponsored economic impact, analysis of the 60 ppb standard suggests:

• The change could reduce Texans' incomes by the equivalent of 182,347 in lost jobs per year.  This is the equivalent to $48 billion in lost state GDP between 2017 and 2040, or $970 less in household consumption each year.
• The new regulations would increase residential electricity bills by an estimated 15 percent nationally, which disproportionately affects lower-income households.
• The energy industry is set to receive the biggest blow. Baker Hughes, for example, recently announced it is laying off 7,000 employees.

The EPA should consider the national economic implications of overregulating ground level ozone in Texas. The EPA has already targeted wood-burning stoves and heaters in an effort to reduce emissions. In 2013, the federal agency forced the last remaining lead bullet producer to shut its doors. As a result, thousands of Americans are out of work.

 

Health Care Subsides in Question : Court Decides - Republicans Fold

There was so much hope last fall when the elections were over in November and he Republicans won a landslide victory. Why, Republicans said they would repeal and replace ObamaCare and stop Obama's executive order for amnesty for between 6 - 10 million illegals residence.

But what is the reality? The supreme court is ruling on ObamaCare's mandate subsides being illegal and therefore millions will lose the support in the exchanges as stipulated in the law they would get if they signed up.

The problem here is Republicans are now saying they will make sure everyone will still get the subsides no matter what. I wonder what the voters will think about voting for two faced Republicans in  the future?

Congress Should Leave the Health Care Exchange Business
Source: John R. Graham, "Obamacare Versus The Affordable Care Act," National Center for Policy Analysis, March 4, 2015.

March 4, 2015

On March 4, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King vs. Burwell. At stake is the Administration's payment of subsidies to health insurers operating in states using the federal exchange. A decision to uphold the ACA, as written, will surely cause millions of people to stop paying premiums that will double, triple, or more after the Supreme Court strikes down the illegal subsidies, writes John R. Graham, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

States that accept the loss of illegal subsidies will also lose the employer and individual mandates to buy government-defined health insurance. These are generally the most reviled features of Obamacare and any governor or state legislature that re-imposes them will face the wrath of many businesses and workers.

Nevertheless, the President will surely ask Congress to amend the law to open the subsidy spigot again. This creates an opportunity. Unfortunately, it is not the opportunity to repeal and replace the ACA, which most Americans have waited for five years.

Four proposals that both Congress and the President should find acceptable include:

• Congress could get out of the exchange business. Instead of forcing people to buy health insurance through a government exchange, Americans should be able to buy health insurance however they want: online from private exchanges, or on the phone or in person from an agent or broker.
• Eliminate the individual and employer mandates. These are red lines for individuals and employers, which the President crossed. Repealing the individual mandate would reduce the deficit; and repealing the employer mandate will increase employment among low-income workers.
• Subsidize individuals, not insurance companies. This tax season, millions of Obamacare beneficiaries are going into shock as they learn from the IRS that the Obamacare policy they bought was overly subsidized. Instead of subsidizing health insurers through exchanges, individuals should be to apply for tax credits themselves.
• Rescale the subsidies to make them fair. Obamacare subsidies phase out as household incomes increase, creating a high effective marginal tax rate for households with incomes up to about $80,000.

 

Texas Governor Abbott's Budget Reforms : Fiscal Conservatism Works

Conservatisms works every time it is implemented. If you need proof, check out all of the  states that have Republican or Conservative governors and how their states fair against those controlled by progressive socialist democrats.

What you will find is democrats are losers, corrupt, their states, for the most part are headed for collapse. But who cares as long as those in power are getting rich and more powerful. In a nutshell, here, Gruber is right.

Key Points in Texas Governor Abbott's Budget Reforms
Source: Talmadge Heflin, Vance Ginn, "Texas Governor Abbott Outlines Key Budget Reforms In State Of The State Speech," Texas Public Policy Foundation, February 20, 2015.

March 3, 2015

Greg Abbott's first State of the State speech as Texas' new governor got straight to the point. Abbot, a fiscal conservative, did not waste time making recommendations for spending limit reform and relief that would help restrain the footprint of government.

Abbott's spending limit reform would cover more of the budget based on the rate of population growth plus inflation for the last four fiscal years immediately preceding the regular legislative session instead of current spending limit based on the projected personal income for the upcoming two fiscal years. The addition of two metrics, population growth and inflation, allows for economies of scale whereby the average cost declines over time.

By comparing these spending limits during fiscal years (FY) 2006-07 to 2016-17, Abbott's recommended average growth rates (8.52% since FY 06-07, 7.32% FY 16-17) are lower than the adopted average (10.82% since FY 06-07, 11.68% FY 16-17) with Texas Public Policy Foundation's (7.64% since FY 06-07, 6.47% FY 16-17) being the lowest of the three.

In addition, the percent increase compounded over time grew the most under the current spending limit with 66.25% and least under TPPF's reforms with 43.1%, and the recommended compounded growth since FY 06-07 is 50.7%.

Governor Abbott recommends almost $4.5 billion in tax cuts with $2.2 billion going to lower property taxes, $2 billion in business margin tax relief, and another $268 million towards ending collection of dedicated taxes and fees. These must provide permanent tax relief.

While the Texas Governor's recommended spending limit reforms do not exactly match with the ideal reforms that closely align with Senate Bill 361, his approach is much better than the status quo.

 

Corporate Income Tax Rate : US Compainies Selling to Foreigners

Still more good reason not to vote for progressive socialist liberal democrats. With the ideology of income redistribution it makes a lot of good business sense to do whatever one can to minimize costs and maximize profits, and if that means selling to out of country businesses ,then so be it.

Why should American businesses have to pay for the progressive socialist  democrat ideology?

Mr Obama and his socialist friends in the democrat party have no love for businesses in America, their only need is to extract money from them any way the can to feed their agenda, fill their campaign funds and bank accounts with tax dollars.

American Companies Now Selling to Foreign Investors to Avoid High Corporate Income Tax
Source: Ciaran McEvoy, "Tax System Gives Edge to Foreign Buys of U.S. Firms," Investors.com, February 23, 2015.

March 3, 2015

Compared to 2014, it is far more difficult in 2015 for American business owners to reestablish their companies in a foreign country offering lower corporate tax rates. Yet, new regulations imposed by the Obama administration to prevent tax inversions have primed U.S. corporations for foreign investments.

Canadian investors, for example, recently purchased Salix; a North Carolina based pharmaceutical company. As a result, the new Canadian owners benefited from a lower tax rate (26 percent) and upon public announcement traded up their shares 14.7 percent, whereas shares of the American firm fell 1.3 percent.

Why are American companies selling to foreign investors? The U.S. Treasury taxes foreign-sourced income when it returns to the United States, whereas most nations only tax local operations.

American corporations are also required to pay a 39 percent corporate income tax; the second highest tax rate in the world. Even newly proposed reforms disadvantage American companies. Consider:

• Obama has proposed a 14 percent tax on all prior corporate profits sitting in foreign countries.
• Obama has proposed a 19 percent tax on all future profits of repatriated corporations.
• Obama has proposed to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent, which would still rank among the highest tax rate in the world.

The Republican-led Congress could abolish or dramatically lower the corporate tax rate and lower the capital gains tax as incentive for American businesses not to sell their companies to foreign investors.
 

 

KeyStone XL Pipeline Vetoed : Unions Kicked to Curb? Why?

Given all of the positive aspects of the Keystone Pipeline, why would Mr Obama veto this project, even with bipartisan approval? There really isn't any logical explanation other then the politics of ideology. Still why would he kick the unions to the curb that will benefit greatly,and have contributed $millions of dollars to his campaigns, in favor of the environmentalists, a very small contingent of voters and contributors?

There seems to be no limit the destruction of economic and foreign policy he is willing to bring to the people of this country. 

This doesn't make much sense other then Mr Obama is cut from different cloth then other men who have held this job of leading America to prosperity. Is Rudy Giuliani right about who Mr Obama is and how he see this country?

Keystone XL is Better for Economy and Environment: Obama Vetoes Anyway
Source: Lloyd Bentsen, "The Effect of President Obama's Keystone XL Veto," National Center for Policy Analysis, February 25, 2015.

March 3, 2015

President Obama officially vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline project after bipartisan votes by both the House and Senate landed the bill on his desk.

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a proposed 1,179-mile (1,897 km), 36-inch-diameter crude oil pipeline beginning in Hardisty, Alberta and extending south to Steele City, Nebraska. The Keystone XL pipeline could transport 830,000 barrels of oil per day to Gulf Coast and Midwest refineries.
Approving the estimated $5.3 billion Keystone XL project would create approximately 9,000 construction jobs. When combined with the southern portion of the Keystone pipeline (the Gulf Coast Project), it is estimated the total $7 billion pipeline could:

• Create 13,000 construction and 7,000 manufacturing jobs.
• Add $20 billion to U.S. GDP.
• Add $5 billion in taxes revenue to local counties.
• Generate as much as $5.2 billion in property tax revenue for Montana, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas collectively.
• Over 2.6 million miles of pipeline in the United States that deliver both liquid petroleum products and natural gas, while the Keystone XL portion of the Keystone pipeline is less than 1,200 miles long.
• The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association predicts that pipeline projects are worth $1.298 trillion dollars to the Canadian economy and $15.52 billion dollars in additional salaries to its citizens.
• The U.S. State Department reported an increase of 42,000 jobs during the construction process, and roughly 118,000 jobs to maintain the pipeline and the refineries.
• 70 percent of petroleum and crude oil is shipped by pipeline, which in recent years has proven to be safer.

The Keystone XL is a critical infrastructure project for the energy security of the United States and for strengthening the American economy.

 

Brand Name Drug Costs going Up : ObamaCare Home to Roost

Cost have to rise - the government is involved, everyone has to get their pound of flesh.

Health Care Spending Plateaus as Brand-Name Drug Prices Rise
Source: John R. Graham, "The Crisis in Drug Research and Development," National Center for Policy Analysis, March 3, 2015.

March 3, 2015

The rate of growth of health spending remains moderate, but one area where prices appear to be increasing faster than in recent years is brand-name prescription drugs. Many blockbuster drugs lost their patents by 2012 and many people looked forward to a future when we could all get a month's-long supply of generic drugs for $4. It did not quite work out that way, according to John Graham, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).

Over the past few years, specialized drugs for smaller patient populations have been introduced with high nominal prices. In September, EvaluatePharma confirmed the increasing cost of prescription drugs was concentrated in more specialized drugs. Of the top 100 selling drugs in the United States:

• The median revenue per patient of the Top 100 drugs increased from $1,260 in 2010 to $9,400 in 2014, representing a seven-fold increase;
• The median patient population size served by a Top 100 drug in 2014 was 146,000, down from 690,000 in 2010; and
• There were seven treatments priced in excess of $100,000 per patient per year in 2014, versus four in 2010.

Thus, the health insurance industry is campaigning against the high prices of specialty drugs.For its part, the brand-name pharmaceutical industry emphasizes health insurers (especially in Obamacare exchanges) often put these specialty drugs on the most expensive tier of their formularies, requiring patients to pay high out-of-pocket costs.

While this is an accurate description of the situation, a government policy simply forcing insurers to cover a higher share of the price of a specialty drug does not reduce the price. It just moves it from direct payment by patients to the premiums paid by all of the insured.