The UK-based Daily Telegraphmakes fun of a video produced by the English government, asking whether deserves as award for being the most boring video on youtube.
It is a tedious production, but perhaps it deserves an award for being the most sinister or collectivist video on youtube. The video is designed to bully Brits into telling tax authorities about offshore accounts, and the narrator brags that the tax authorities has “more powers” and actually has the nerve to complain that people with undeclared accounts are ”robbing public services of much needed funding.”
Yes, robbery is taking place. But at the risk of pointing out the obvious, it is government that is using coercion to take money it doesn’t deserve.
Republicans usually are not very creative, so I’m uncharacteristically impressed that they have come up with a devastating chart showing the bureaucratic nightmare that will be created (on top of the current mess) for health care.
Congressman Brady of Texas gets an award for the best one-liner, saying about the Pelosi plan that “If the IRS and Medicare had a baby, it would look like this.”
Last month, this blog noted the bad news from Ireland, where voters were bullied into endorsing the so-called Lisbon Treaty to create a bigger and more powerful European Union bureaucracy in Brussels. Now, the last obstacle has been cleared as Czech President Vaclav Klaus has signed the pact. The Euro-crats in Brussels are overjoyed, but this agreement will mean more bureaucracy, more centralization, and more harmonization. It also makes the EU even more anti-democratic. Reuters reports:
Czech President Vaclav Klaus signed the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty Tuesday, bringing into force the EU’s plan to overhaul its institutions and win a greater role on the world stage. Klaus was the last EU leader to ratify the treaty and his signature, coming after the top Czech court cleared the pact, means the bloc of nearly half a billion people can pick its first-ever long-time president and a more powerful foreign representative.
The Administration’s bogus job numbers are so outlandish that even the Associated Press is pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes. The AP report notes that the White house claim of 600,000-plus jobs is based on absudities such as claiming a job is saved when bureaucrats get pay increases. The White House also counted 935 jobs for an agency that has only 508 employees. For people in the real world, the actual data from the Department of Labor show that total employment has dropped by more than 3 million since Obama took office:
The government’s latest tally of stimulus jobs counted pay increases for existing workers as jobs saved in a popular federal preschool program, raising fresh questions about the process the Obama administration is using to tout the success of its $787 billion economic recovery plan. A review of the latest stimulus reports – which the White House promised would undergo extensive reviews to ensure accuracy – found that more than two-thirds of 14,506 jobs credited to the recovery act by Head Start programs involved pay increases. Health and Human Services spokesman Luis Rosero defended the practice. “If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job,’’ he said. …Most of the inflated figures were like those cited in the 935 saved jobs reported by the Southwest Georgia Community Action in Moultrie, Ga. Director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided and multiplied her 508 employees by 1.84 – the percentage pay raise they received – and came up with 935 jobs saved. …More than 250 other community agencies receiving stimulus cash from the HHS Administration for Children and Families similarly reported saving jobs when using the money to give pay raises, pay for training and continuing education, extend employee work hours, or buy equipment, according to their spending reports.
I tangle once again with my regular nemesis on Street Signs. I almost feel sorry for Christian, since he feels he should fall on his sword to defend the Administration’s make-believe “jobs created or saved” numbers. But then I remember that he has an annoying habit of trying to use up all the air time (his scientific name is Filibusteris Interruptus), and I realize that maybe this is karma.
Yesterday’s elections were almost a complete disaster for the White House. In the races for governor, the GOP won a huge landslide in Virginia and knocked off the Democratic incumbent in New Jersey. The only silver lining to Obama’s dark cloud came in upstate New York, where the collectivist Republican nominee apparently was successful in helping the Democratic candidate beat the Conservative Party candidate in the race to fill a seat in the House of Representatives.
But this was a 99 percent defeat for the Obama Administration. Especially New Jersey.
From a policy perspective, it will make Democrats on Capitol Hill much more nervous about supporting government-run health care. This does not guarantee the defeat of Obamacare, but it is much less likely now than it was 24 hours ago.
In this new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Eline van den Broek of the Netherlands needs only about four minutes to explain why government-run healthcare in Europe is a mistake and why the problems in the U.S. healthcare system are the result of too much government, not too little.
What is now known as the European Union started as a free-trade area, which is something to be admired. But over the decades, the free trade area has mutated into a statist super-bureaucracy pushing for centralization and harmonization. Now, according to leaked documents, the collectivists in Brussels want to impose a direct tax. This would be on top of the already onerous tax systems imposed by member nations. Needless to say, one hopes that one of the 27 nations will use its veto to stop this terrible idea. That would seem to be a simple and obvious task, but the vast majority of politicians in all European nations are terrified of being called anti-European, so even awful ideas become very plausible threats. The UK-based Daily Express reports:
Secret plans to seize more than £4billion a year from Britain and make its citizens pay taxes direct to Europe emerged last night. The leaked proposals, seen by the Daily Express, …would…mean Brussels being given the power to dip straight into taxpayers’ pockets. Shadow Europe Minister Mark Francois vowed they would be resisted by a Tory government. He said: “The idea of an EU tax is a non-starter. …Possible taxes suggested in the report – which could be discussed as soon as the start of the European summit in Brussels tomorrow – include levies on phone calls, flights, financial transactions or carbon emissions. …Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, branded the idea of direct taxation from Brussels an “outrage”. He added: “Control of taxation must rest solely in the hands of democratically elected politicians who answer to British taxpayers. “The EU has shown time and time again it is greedy for power. This is another sign they will never stop trying to grab it.”
This video has been circulating around the Internet for a while, but it’s a classic. If you haven’t seen it, take a look. And if you have seen it, it’s refreshing to watch it again.
Tax competition is an issue that arouses passion on both sides of the debate. Libertarians and other free-market advocates welcome tax competition as a way of restraining the greed of politicians. Governments have lowered tax rates in recent decades, for instance, because politicians are afraid that the geese that lay the golden eggs can fly across the border. But collectivists despise tax competition – for exactly the same reason. They want investors, entrepreneurs, and companies to passively serve as free vending machines, dispensing never-ending piles of money for politicians. So when a left-wing group puts together a ranking of the world’s “top secrecy jurisdictions” in hopes of undermining tax competition, proponents of individual freedom can use that list as a guide to world’s most investor-friendly nations. The good news is that an American state, Delaware, is number one on the list. And since being a tax haven is a magnet for investment, this is good news for U.S. competitiveness. The bad news is that American taxpayers are not allowed to benefit from many of Delaware’s “tax haven” policies. Here’s what a left-wing columnist in the United Kingdom wrote about the issue:
You’re a billionaire but you don’t want anyone, least of all the taxman, to know. What do you do? Head for a palm-fringed island paradise or a snow-covered Alpine micro-state? Wrong. The world’s most opaque jurisdictions – the ones that will best shield you and your cash from the light – are mostly in the heart of the most sophisticated and powerful global financial centres. London, Luxembourg and Zurich are in the top five most secretive jurisdictions, according the first comprehensive index of financial transparency ever compiled. Yet top of the pile, beating the British Virgin Islands, Belize or Liechtenstein as the best place to hide wealth, is Delaware. One of the smallest states in the US, it offers the best protection for anyone who does not want to disclose their identity as a beneficial owner of a company. That is one very good reason why the East Coast state hosts 50% of the US’s quoted firms and 650,000 companies – almost equivalent to one company per Delaware resident. …Delaware – the political power-base of the US vice-president, Joe Biden – offers high levels of banking secrecy and does not make details of trusts, company accounts and beneficial ownership a matter of public record. Delaware also allows companies to re-domicile within its borders with minimal disclosure, and allows the existence of privacy-enhancing “protected cell” or “segregated portfolio” companies, among many other stratagems useful for protecting the identity of those who do business there.
Politicians understand the economic impact of taxation when it serves their interests. They often brag about raising tobacco taxes to discourage smoking. It’s not their business to dictate private behavior, of course, but they are right about higher taxes leading to less smoking (they also lead to more cigarette smuggling, but that’s a separate issue). Those same politicians, however, conveniently forget about the economic effect of taxes when they impose high tax rates on work, saving, investment, and entrepreneurship. Or maybe they simply don’t care. But as is explained in the Wall Street Journal, taxes on productive behavior matter a lot. More than one million people have escaped New York this decade, and punitive taxes clearly have played a role in this brain drain to other states:
Between 2000 and 2008, the Empire State had a net domestic outflow of more than 1.5 million, the biggest exodus of any state, with most hailing from New York City. The departures also have perilous budget consequences, since they tend to include residents who are better off than those arriving. Statewide, departing families have income levels 13% higher than those moving in, while in New York County (home of Manhattan) the differential was even more severe. Those moving elsewhere had an average income of $93,264, some 28% higher than the $72,726 earned by those coming in. In 2006 alone, that swap meant the state lost $4.3 billion in taxpayer income. Add that up from 2001 through 2008, and it translates into annual net income losses somewhere near $30 billion. …no single reason can be fingered for a million migrants seeking their fortunes across state lines, but one place to start is New York’s notorious state and local tax burden. According to the Tax Foundation, between 1977 and 2008, New York has ranked first or second in the country for its state-local tax burden compared to the U.S. average. In the years considered by the Empire Center study, New York’s state and local tax burden ranged between 11% and 12% of income. The peak year for taxes, 2004, was followed by the peak year for departures—as New York lost nearly 250,000 people to other states in 2005. And that’s before another big tax hike this year. That pattern is consistent with the annual migration patterns, showing that highly taxed and economically lackluster states were most likely to end up in residents’ rear view mirrors. According to the annual study by United Van Lines, states like New York, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois have been big losers in recent years. …Liberals continue to insist that they can raise taxes ever higher without any effect on behavior, but the New York study is one more piece of evidence that this is a destructive illusion.
There’s been an interesting debate in Washington (at least among tax nerds) about whether all tax cuts are a good idea. I’m largely sympathetic to cutting taxes anytime and anywhere, though I certainly agree with those who argue that supply-side tax-rate reductions are far better than tax credits and other forms of social engineering through the internal revenue code. But perhaps the debate can now be settled. The home-buyer tax credit, much beloved by politicians from both parties, is absolutely horrible policy. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial is a great summary of this corrupt and wasteful tax preference:
It’s hard not to laugh when viewing the results of the federal first-time home-buyer tax credit. The credit, worth up to $8,000 for the purchase of a home, has only been available since April of last year. Yet news of the latest taxpayer-funded mortgage scam has traveled fast. The Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, J. Russell George, recently told Congress that at least 19,000 filers hadn’t purchased a home when they claimed the credit. For another 74,000 filers, claiming a total of $500 million in credits, evidence suggests that they weren’t first-time buyers. Among those claiming bogus credits, at least some of them were definitely first-timers. The credit has already been claimed by 500 people under the age of 18, including a four-year-old. …As a “refundable” tax credit, it guarantees the claimants will get cash back even if they paid no taxes. A lack of documentation requirements also makes this program a slow pitch in the middle of the strike zone for scammers. The Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department are pursuing more than 100 criminal investigations related to the credit, and the IRS is reportedly trying to audit almost everyone who claims it this year. Speaking of the IRS, apparently its own staff couldn’t help but notice this opportunity to snag an easy $8,000. …Mr. George said his staff has found at least 53 cases of IRS employees filing “illegal or inappropriate” claims for the credit. “In all honesty this is an interim report. I expect that the number would be much larger than that number,” he said. The program is set to expire at the end of November, so naturally given its record of abuse, Congress is preparing to extend it. Republican Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia is so pleased with the results that he wants to expand the program beyond first-time buyers and double the income limits. …Meanwhile, the credit continues to distort the housing market and postpone the day when home prices can find a floor that is a basis for a stable recovery. More than two years into the housing bust, trillions of dollars in taxpayer losses or guarantees via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and amid an ongoing plague of redefaults in federal programs to prevent foreclosures, politicians are still trying to manipulate housing prices. And leave it to Congress to design a program that even a four-year-old can scam.
KPMG has released its annual global survey of corporate tax systems. For the 10th-consecutive year, the average corporate tax rate fell, and it is now down to 25.5 percent (just 23.2 percent in the European Union!).
In the United States, unfortunately, the corporate tax rates remains stuck at about 40 percent. Only one developed nation, Japan, has a more punitive regime.
Something to keep in mind the next time a politician complains that jobs are going to China (corporate tax rate of 25 percent).
Here’s a Cato Institute podcast with H.S.H. Prince Michael v. Liechtenstein. It would be nice if America has business and political leaders with a commitment to individual liberty and personal freedom.
Soviet-Style Tax Collection Tactics in the Windy City. During the Cold War, Americans often would use dark humor to mock the totalitarian nature of the Soviet regime, and it was not uncommon to joke about children turning in their parents for anti-Soviet behavior in exchange for a pair of Western blue jeans. In the real world, of course, these things are not funny, and folks in places such as Cuba still live in fear that neighborhood informants will get them in trouble with the secret police. So it is particularly nauseating to see that the City of Chicago is encouraging some taxpayers to snitch on others:
Chicago and Cook County residents aren’t the only ones about to get shocking tax news; the city is debuting a “tax whistle-blower” plan that could turn neighbor against neighbor in Chicago’s business community. The folks at city hall will pay cash bounties to informants who turn in business tax cheats around the city. The reward would amount to some sort of percentage of the tax money that the city recovers. “It’s just another way of bringing people into compliance,” Revenue Department spokesman Ed Walsh told the Sun-Times .
According to the Legatum Institute, Finland is the world’s most prosperous nation, based on material well-being and certain social indicators. Other Nordic nations, as well as Switzerland and the Netherlands also rank above the United States. The variables that determined the ranking leave something to be desired from a libertarian perspective, but a column in the Wall Street Journal Europe, authored by the heads of the Legatum Institute and America Enterprise Institute, makes a valuable point about the the fact that the Nordic nations have very laissez-faire policies with the exception of large welfare states. This commitment to unfettered markets enables them to retain some dynamism, thus offsetting to some degree the negative impact of too much taxes and spending. As the column notes, this has important lessons – especially for the United States, which is moving toward bigger government and more intervention in private markets:
…free enterprise has come under attack with the global economic crisis, the perceived threat of climate change, and a broader concern—most recently promoted by French President Nicolas Sarkozy—that growth alone does not indicate prosperity. …Many people—especially Americans—think of wealth as the basis of health and happiness, too. In other words, market economies with good economic fundamentals drive us to more fulfilling lives. Europeans often counter that a narrow pecuniary viewpoint gives a distorted picture of the human experience. Worse yet, it can lead to the tyranny of materialism. Who is right? …While free enterprise is not the only important factor explaining national differences in well-being, it probably does explain most of it. This means subverting the mechanisms of free enterprise would not just lead to lower economic growth but also lower social scores. The fact that the Nordic countries do so well in the Prosperity Index has largely to do with the fact that apart from their welfare policies, they also encourage entrepreneurship, free trade, and have stable monetary policies—even as they employ strong rhetoric against capitalism. Finland, Sweden and Denmark all score higher than Switzerland and nearly all of their southern European counterparts on their capacity to commercialize innovation, through factors such as business start-up procedures, business registration rates, and royalties on patents. All of this drives dynamic entrepreneurship, and spurs people to innovate and take risks, as they are more reassured that good ideas will pay off. U.S. policy makers would do well to note this fact as they contemplate more “European” policies. And as the West contemplates ever tighter regulations on how and where money can be spent, lent and invested, their leaders should remember that economic and political liberty—while not the whole story—play a key role in prosperity. They are the engine driving much of what makes life worthwhile.
This is another classic for the picture-tells-a-thousand-words category. It is especially appropriate since the clowns in Washington want to take over our health care system.
A handful of guilt-ridden wealthy Germans are asking to pay more tax according to a BBC report. They could just give their money to the state, of course, but they want to impose their self-loathing policies on all successful Germans. The amusing part of the story is that these dilettantes were puzzled that so few people showed up to their protest. Maybe next time they could do some real redistribution and announce that they will be tossing real banknotes in the air:
A group of rich Germans has launched a petition calling for the government to make wealthy people pay higher taxes. The group say they have more money than they need, and the extra revenue could fund economic and social programmes… Simply donating money to deal with the problems is not enough, they want a change in the whole approach. …The man behind the petition, Dieter Lehmkuhl, told Berlin’s Tagesspiegel that there were 2.2 million people in Germany with a fortune of more than 500,000 euros. If they all paid the tax for two years, Germany could raise 100bn euros to fund ecological programmes, education and social projects, said the retired doctor and heir to a brewery. Signatory Peter Vollmer told AFP news agency he was supporting the proposal because he had inherited “a lot of money I do not need”. He said the tax would be “a viable and socially acceptable way out of the flagrant budget crisis”. The group held a demonstration in Berlin on Wednesday to draw attention to their plans, throwing fake banknotes into the air. Mr Vollmer said it was “really strange that so few people came”.
I’m in Switzerland for a couple of speeches in Geneva and one speech in Zurich. I’d like to say I’m also visiting my money, but that would only be true if I had enough money for a Swiss account. Alas.
Switzerland is an admirable nation for many reasons, especially its strong human rights policy in defense of financial privacy. But I also admire its fealty to federalism. Indeed, unlike the United States, it has largely kept the central government from becoming a dominant force in the nation’s fiscal policy. As this study from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity (authored by a Swiss expert) explains, more than two-thirds of taxing and spending takes place at the canton and municipal level. In America, by contrast, the federal government now dominates, with two-thirds of taxing and spending coming from Washington.
One final observation. I’m staying in what might be called the United Nations district of Geneva, and one can’t help but notice all the urbane foreigners – particularly from the developing world – wandering the town and patronizing the tony restaurants. Maybe I’m just a cranky libertarian, but I can’t stop thinking about the tremendous misallocation of human capital this represents (not to mention the huge waste of money). Many of these people are probably the “best and brightest” from their various homelands, and they presumably could contribute to their nations’ prosperity by being back home doing something productive. But thanks to the proliferation of international bureaucracies, few of which can make even an implausible claim of doing anything worthwhile, these people are net liabilities rather than net assets.
The past nine years have been discouraging, with Bush and Obama both being big-government interventionists. But it’s nice to know that the other side still has a hard time imposing higher taxes. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page celebrates the death of a terrible tax proposal that would have increased double taxation on American companies trying to earn market share while competing abroad:
Raising taxes on the overseas profits of American firms has been a central plank of Barack Obama’s agenda since his campaign for President in 2008. The proposal was featured in the President’s budget in February and was the focus of a May speech in which he said that corporations were “shirking” their responsibility to support his huge increases in federal spending through higher tax payments. But as this newspaper reported Tuesday, the Administration appears to have shelved the plan to limit business use of the current deferral of taxes on profits earned overseas. This climbdown comes after a full-court press by U.S. multinationals, notably including some of Mr. Obama’s Silicon Valley supporters, which argued that raising taxes on U.S. companies abroad would do nothing to create jobs in the U.S. while undermining American competitiveness overseas. The U.S. is one of the few developed countries that even tries to tax corporate overseas profits. Most operate on a territorial system, in which business profits are taxed in the country in which they are earned. The U.S. taxes world-wide income but then allows a deferral of overseas taxes until those profits are repatriated. It also allows companies to take a tax credit for corporate taxes paid in other countries, although this tax credit system is cumbersome and only partially offsets the burden of double taxation. The idea that raising corporate taxes would promote job creation never made sense, and the mere threat of higher taxes is one factor depressing business investment and slowing any recovery. So it’s good news that the Administration seems to have set this job-killer aside, at least for now.
Hopefully, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity’s video played at least a small role in educating policy makers about the foolishness of the President’s proposal.
While doing research for an upcoming video, I found an excellent study from the National Center for Policy Analysis that explains how “third-party payer” is largely preventing markets from operating in health care. Government policies (including tax distortions) are the cause of the problem, yet the polticians want to expand third-party payments. Here’s an excerpt from the paper, and I also reprint below a key chart from the paper that shows how most medical prices rise faster than the overall price level, but the opposite result occurs when consumes are in control (for things such as cosmetic surgery):
Long before a patient enters a doctor’s office, third- party bureaucracies have determined which medical services they will pay for, which ones they will not and how much they will pay. The result is a highly artificial market plagued by problems of high costs, inconsistent quality and poor access. …Can the market for medical care be different? Interestingly, in health care markets where patients pay directly for all or most of their care, providers almost always compete on the basis of price and quality. And because they are not trapped in a system that pays for predetermined tasks at predetermined rates, providers are free to repackage and reprice their services — just like vendors in other markets. It is primarily in these direct-pay markets that entrepreneurs are creating many innovative services to solve the very prob-lems about which critics of the health care system complain. …Cosmetic surgery is rarely covered by insurance. Because providers know their patients must pay out of pocket and are price sensitive, patients can typically (a) find a package price in advance covering all services and facilities, (b) compare prices prior to surgery, and (c) pay a price that has been falling over time in real terms — despite a huge increase in volume and considerable technical innovation (which is blamed for increas- ing costs for every other type of surgery). …In 1960, consumers paid about 47 percent of overall health care costs out of pocket. …In 2006, consumers paid only 12 cents out of their own pockets every time they spent a dollar on health care.
I’ve known and liked Bruce Bartlett for more than 20 years, so you can imagine my dismay that he is now pimping for a value-added tax (VAT). I’m not sure whether his mind has been captured as part of a remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchersor if he’s just been hanging around Washington for too long, but his implication that it is possible to be a pro-market conservative while supporting a huge new tax to finance bigger government is absurd. Conservatives (not counting the big spenders who call themselves “compassionate conservatives”) share the libertarian goal of smaller government. And trying to achieve smaller government by raising taxes is akin to treating alcoholics by giving them keys to a liquor store. The VAT is a particularly bad idea because it would be a huge new source of revenue, as Bruce acknowledges in an article for Forbes.com:
Based on the experience in other countries, I estimate that a U.S. VAT could realistically tax about a third of the gross domestic product (GDP), which would raise close to $50 billion per percentage point. If we adopted Europe’s average VAT rate of 20%, we could raise $1 trillion per year in 2009 dollars.
Bruce makes the point that a VAT does not do as much damage, per dollar raised, as the personal or corporate income tax, but so what? That would only be a compelling argument if the VAT was used to eliminate other taxes. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, that’s not what Bruce is proposing. Interestingly, even though his core argument is that we should adopt a VAT to give the government additional revenue, Bruce tries to be all things to all people by mentioning that a VAT could replace other taxes:
Replacing the corporate tax with a VAT would unquestionably improve the competitiveness of all U.S. exporters.
Even here, though, Bruce’s argument is misleading. A VAT would have no impact on US exporters. All the benefits would occur only because the corporate income tax would disappear. Not that this matters since Bruce is not advocating for that position. He then continues to muddy the waters by citing Senator DeMint’s legislation, presumably to make it seem as if his plan is good by association.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., introduced legislation (S. 1240) to establish a business consumption tax that is, in essence, a VAT.
There is a gigantic difference, of course, between Bartlett and DeMint. The Senator proposes to replace the internal revenue code, whereas Bruce wants to augment it. Bruce then whines that supporters of limited government atack his plan for facilitating bigger government, but he offers no refutation. But that is no surprise since Bruce is throwing in the towel, saying we should have a VAT since it is hopeless to fight against growing government.
…whenever I suggest the idea of a VAT for the U.S., I am attacked by supply-siders and assorted right-wingers. The other day my friend Larry Kudlow criticized me for wanting to “Europeanize the American economy.” Their concern is that the VAT is a money machine that will lead to higher taxes and bigger government precisely because it is such a “good” tax. I myself held this same view for many years. But eventually I decided that it was stupid to oppose something because of its virtues. Opposing a VAT because it’s too good is like breaking up with your girlfriend because she is too beautiful.
A cowboy named Bud was overseeing his herd in a remote mountainous pasture in California when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced toward him out of a cloud of dust.
The driver, a man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses and YSL tie, leaned out the window and asked the cowboy, “If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, Will you give me a calf?”
Bud looks at the man, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, “Sure, Why not?”
The man parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.
The man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility.
Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses an MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.
Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer, turns to the cowboy and says, “You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves.”
“That’s right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves,” says Bud.
He watches the man select one of the animals and looks on with amusement as the man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.
Then the Bud says to the man, “Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?”
The man thinks about it for a second and then says, “Okay, why not?”
“You’re a Congressman for the U.S. Government”, says Bud.
“Wow! That’s correct,” says the yuppie, “but how did you guess that?”
“No guessing required..” answered the cowboy. “You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You used millions of dollars worth of equipment trying to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don’t know a thing about how working people make a living – or about cows, for that matter. This is a herd of sheep. …
Not many people are willing to defend generous pay packages for CEOs, so I got tapped to appear on both the ABC and CBS morning shows. I prefer the CBS clip, in part because they had a nice set, but it is always frustrating to do interviews for the network shows because you talk for 10 minutes and they use 10 seconds. I understand why they have to use that approach, but it means there is not much ability to make a thorough argument – which is important for those of us who want to defend market forces in general but don’t have much sympathy for executives of the companies that are putting their snouts in the public trough.
I recommend this post at the Cato-at-Liberty blog for those who want a more complete analysis of the issue.
I rarely feel conflicted on issues, but I’m not sure what to think about compensation limits for executives at banks that have received bailouts.
On one hand, it is incredibly destructive for the incompetent and venal politicians and bureaucrats in Washington to interfere with private compensation decisions.
On the other hand, companies that are sticking their snouts in the public trough are no longer real private entities. And if we want to discourage more firms from trying to fleece taxpayers, I suspect there are few things more effective than threatening the salary of the CEOs and other top executives.
I’ve been doing a lot of media on this topic. As you can see from this CNBC clip, this is a tough issue to handle, though I always try to make the one clear point that the entire problem could have been averted by not doing bailouts in the first place.
With characteristic bluntness, Walter Williams explains that much of what is happening in Washington is eroding American exceptionalism by underming the Constitution’s restraints on the power of the federal government:
At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today’s Americans. Some of the founders’ distrust is seen in our Constitution’s language such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given rights, they would not have provided those protections. After all, one would not expect to find a Bill of Rights in Heaven; it would be an affront to God. Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution’s separation of powers, checks and balances and the several anti-majoritarian provisions such as the Electoral College and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes in the Constitution. The three branches of our federal government are no longer bound by the Constitution as the framers envisioned and what is worse is American ignorance and acceptance of such rogue behavior. Look at the current debate over government involvement in health, business bailouts and stimulus packages. The debate centers around questions as whether such involvement is a good idea or a bad idea and whether one program is more costly than another. Those questions are entirely irrelevant to what should be debated, namely: Is such government involvement in our lives permissible under the U.S. Constitution?
The Politicians and Bureaucrats Are Lying about the Cost of Government-Run Healthcare. The Wall Street Journal issues a devastating indictment against the absurd claim that the Senate plan for socialized health care will reduce the deficit:
Washington has just run a $1.4 trillion budget deficit for fiscal 2009, even as we are told a new health-care entitlement will reduce red ink by $81 billion over 10 years. To believe that fantastic claim, you have to ignore everything we know about Washington and the history of government health-care programs. …Let’s start with the claim that a more pervasive federal role will restrain costs and thus make health care more affordable. We know that over the past four decades precisely the opposite has occurred. Prior to the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, health-care inflation ran slightly faster than overall inflation. In the years since, medical inflation has climbed 2.3 times faster than cost increases elsewhere in the economy. …Next let’s examine the record of Congressional forecasters in predicting costs. Start with Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for the poor. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that its first-year costs would be $238 million. Instead it hit more than $1 billion, and costs have kept climbing. Thanks in part to expansions promoted by California’s Henry Waxman, a principal author of the current House bill, Medicaid now costs 37 times more than it did when it was launched—after adjusting for inflation. Its current cost is $251 billion, up 24.7% or $50 billion in fiscal 2009 alone, and that’s before the health-care bill covers millions of new beneficiaries. Medicare has a similar record. In 1965, Congressional budgeters said that it would cost $12 billion in 1990. Its actual cost that year was $90 billion. Whoops. The hospitalization program alone was supposed to cost $9 billion but wound up costing $67 billion. These aren’t small forecasting errors. The rate of increase in Medicare spending has outpaced overall inflation in nearly every year (up 9.8% in 2009), so a program that began at $4 billion now costs $428 billion. The Medicare program for renal disease was originally estimated in 1973 to cover 11,000 participants. Today it covers 395,000, at a cost of $22 billion. The 1988 Medicare home-care benefit was supposed to cost $4 billion by 1993, but the actual cost was $10 billion, because many more people participated than expected.
Bush was a big spender. Obama is a big spender. Bush supported bailouts. Obama supports bailouts. Bush created a new healthcare entitlement. Obama is trying to create a new healthcare entitlement. But President Obama may not be a lost cause. According to the Associated Press, the Administration is reversing the old policy of persecuting people who use or provide medical marijuana in states where it is legal. This is a victory for federalism and common sense. People should be free to make dumb decisions with their own lives, and prohibition is both futile and expensive. And there certainly is no reason for the federal government to be involved:
Federal drug agents won’t pursue pot-smoking patients or their sanctioned suppliers in states that allow medical marijuana, under new legal guidelines to be issued Monday by the Obama administration. Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state law. …The new policy is a significant departure from the Bush administration, which insisted it would continue to enforce federal anti-pot laws regardless of state codes. …A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration. The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law.
…then you are invited to tomorrow’s tax competition conference at the Cato Institute. Featured speakers, other than yours truly, include Prince Michael of Liechtenstein and the Chairman of the Cayman Islands Financial Services Association. Click here for more info and free registration.
