The States Are a Fiscal Policy Laboratory, but Obama Isn’t Learning the Right Lesson

The fiscal nightmare in Europe should be all the proof that’s needed about the dangers of wasteful spending and punitive tax rates. Unfortunately, if his proposals for bigger government and class-warfare tax policy are any indication, President Obama still seems to think those policies would be good for America.

“Let’s mimic California and France!”

American states also are a laboratory, showing that states with better tax policy create more jobs and grow much faster. And many state policy makers have learned the right lesson.

Here’s some of what the Wall Street Journal said in an editorial this morning.

Last week Governor Sam Brownback continued the post-2010 reform trend among GOP Governors by signing the biggest tax cut in Kansas history. The plan chops the state income tax rate to 4.9% from 6.45% and eliminates income taxes on about 190,000 Kansas small businesses. …Mr. Brownback says the income tax cut will put Kansas “on a road to faster growth.” Although no one in Europe or the White House agrees with the philosophy, tax-cut initiatives have been spreading in the states. Already this year Tennessee has eliminated its gift and estate tax, Arizona has cut its capital gains tax (to 3.4% from 4.54%), and Idaho and Nebraska have cut income tax rates. Oklahoma is expected to cut tax rates. The tax cutting Governors all say they hope to be more like no-income-tax Texas, which has far outpaced other states in job creation.

Sadly, the folks in the White House aren’t hopping on the tax cut bandwagon.

Instead, they want America to be more like the President’s home state of Illinois, a fiscal basket case. But it’s not just Illinois that’s in trouble because of a bloated and expensive public sector.

It turns out that millions of Americans are voting with their feet to escape states with excessive taxes.

Here are some passages from a CNS report on some fascinating data from the Tax Foundation.

New York State accounted for the biggest migration exodus of any state in the nation between 2000 and 2010, with 3.4 million residents leaving over that period, according to the Tax Foundation. Over that decade the state gained 2.1 million, so net migration amounted to 1.3 million, representing a loss of $45.6 billion in income. Where are they escaping to?  The Tax Foundation found that more than 600,000 New York residents moved to Florida over the decade – opting perhaps for the Sunshine State’s more lenient tax system – taking nearly $20 billion in adjusted gross income with them. Over that same time period, 208,794 Pennsylvanians moved to Florida, taking $8 billion in income. …California is also known for more onerous taxes and regulations, and the foundation shows similar trends of migration from there to other states like Texas and Arizona. The Tax Foundation ranked the Golden State sixth highest in the nation for state and local tax burden in 2009. Between 2000 and 2010, the most recent data available, 551,914 people left California for Texas, taking $14.3 billion in income.  Texas has no state income tax or estate tax. …Another 28,088 from California relocated to Nevada and 30,663 to Arizona, a loss of  $699.1 million and $707.8 million in income respectively.

While these are remarkable numbers, they shouldn’t be a surprise. I’ve written about the failures of New York and California, and I’ve also commented on the success of Texas.

And for those who prefer international evidence, I’ve cited the differences between successful low-tax jurisdictions such as Hong Kong and Singapore and decrepit high-tax nations such as France.

This doesn’t mean that fiscal policy is a silver bullet. There are reasonably successful nations with big governments, but they compensate with ultra-free markets in other areas. And there are also low-tax nations that languish because of mistakes such as excessive regulation and failure to protect property rights.

But all other things being equal, big government and high tax rates are a recipe for decline. Yet that’s the only item on the White House menu.

P.S. If you think people should have the right to lower their tax burdens by moving from California to Nevada, shouldn’t they also have the right to do the same thing by moving from the United States to Singapore?

Which President Is the Biggest Spender, Part II

Last week, I jumped into the surreal debate about whether Obama has been the most fiscally conservative president in recent history.

I sliced the historical data from the Office of Management and Budget a couple of ways, showing that overall spending has grown at a relatively slow rate during the Obama years. Adjusted for inflation, both total spending and primary spending (total spending minus interest payments) have been restrained.

So does this make Obama a fiscal conservative?

And how can these numbers make sense when the President saddled the nation with the faux stimulus and Obamacare?

Good questions. It turns out that Obama supposed frugality is largely the result of how TARP is measured in the federal budget. To put it simply, TARP pushed spending up in Bush’s final fiscal year (FY2009, which began October 1, 2008) and then repayments from the banks (which count as “negative spending”) artificially reduced spending in subsequent years.

The combination of those two factors made a big difference in the numbers. Here’s another table from my prior post, looking at how the presidents rank when you subtract both defense and the fiscal impact of deposit insurance and TARP.

All of a sudden, Obama drops down to the second-to-last position, sandwiched between two of the worst presidents in American history. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

But this ranking is incomplete. At that point, I was trying to gauge Obama’s record on domestic spending, and the numbers certainly provide some evidence that he is a stereotypical big-spending liberal.

But the main debate is about which president was the biggest overall spender. So I’ve run through the numbers again, and here’s a new table looking at the rankings based on average annual changes in inflation-adjusted primary spending, minus the distorting impact of deposit insurance and TARP.

Obama is still in the second-to-last position, but spending is increasing by “only” 5.5 percent per year rather than 7.0 percent annually. This is obviously because defense spending is not growing as fast as domestic spending.

Reagan remains in first place, though his score drops now that his defense buildup is part of the calculations. Clinton, conversely, stays in second place but his score jumps because he benefited from the peace dividend after Reagan’s policies led to the collapse of the Soviet Empire.

Let’s now look at these numbers from a policy perspective. Rahn Curve research shows that government is far too big today, so the goal of fiscal policy should be to restrain the burden of government spending relative to economic output.

This means that policy moves in the right direction when government grows more slowly than the private sector, as it did under Reagan and Clinton.

But if government spending is growing faster than the productive sector of the economy, as has been the case during the Bush-Obama years, then a nation eventually will become Greece.

“Honor Flight” Shows the Greatness of America

I suppose I could draw some sort of policy message from this video, perhaps by comparing the effectiveness of private sector charity with the blundering incompetence of government.

But this video wasn’t done to make that kind of point. So just enjoy the quiet patriotism of “Ryan’s Story.”

And here’s another video on the same general topic.

I remember being at Reagan Airport when one of the honor flights landed. It was very moving to see everyone in the terminal cheer as the veterans came off the plane. That’s true patriotism.

Unlike clowns such as Joe Biden who think higher taxes are patriotic.

P.S. Watch this Penn and Teller video if you want a good message about patriotism.

In a Battle Between the IMF and Greece, I Want Both Sides to Lose

I don’t like the international bureaucrats at the IMF, and I don’t like the corrupt politicians of Greece, so for whom do I cheer if there’s a fight between those two groups?

Ideally, both sides will lose (which is also my view of the European fight between Keynesians and tax increasers).

You’ll understand when you read about the recent remarks by Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund. Here’s what the UK-based Guardian reported.

IMF chief Christine Lagarde’s uncompromising description of Greeks as rampant tax-dodgers has provoked a furious reaction in Athens less than a month before the crisis-hit country heads to the polls. With Greece mired in ever-worsening recession, with cutbacks and tax rises, the IMF managing director was rounded on by almost the entire political establishment. In an interview with the Guardian, Lagarde said she had more sympathy for victims of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa than Greeks hit by the economic crisis. “As far as Athens is concerned, I also think about all those people who are trying to escape tax all the time. All these people in Greece who are trying to escape tax.” Evangelos Venizelos, the Greek socialist leader, who met Lagarde several times as finance minister, accused her of “insulting” Greeks. “Nobody has the right to humiliate the Greek people during the crisis, and I say this today specifically addressing Ms Lagarde … who with her stance insulted the Greek people.”

So what should we think of this fight?

Well, I agree with Lagarde that the people of sub-Saharan Africa are more deserving of sympathy. After all, the Greek people repeatedly voted to steal money from their fellow citizens by using the coercive power of government, so it’s hard to feel much sympathy for people who thought that scam could continue indefinitely.

Though, to be fair, the people in sub-Saharan Africa would probably make the same venal choices if they had democracy.

Top IMF Moocher

On the other hand, I am nauseated by Lagarde’s comments about tax evasion. She is one of the world’s biggest leeches, with annual compensation of more than $550,000 that is diverted from the productive sector of the economy. And, adding insult to injury, her bloated salary is tax free. So we have the grotesque spectacle of a pampered international bureaucrat whining and moaning that ordinary people aren’t paying enough tax.

Keep in mind, by the way, that the tax burden in Greece is more than 40 percent of economic output (see annex table 26), which (at least to normal people) shows that the problems is that the Greek government is spending far too much.

Leading Greek Kleptocrat

Then we have the sniveling comments of Greece’s former socialist finance minister, who says the Greek people have been “insulted.” Well, they should be insulted. And mocked. And berated. After all, these are the people who voted for one kleptocrat government after another.

These are the people who thought it was a good idea to elect governments that made insane decisions such as choosing to subsidize pedophiles and imposing a regulatory requirement to collect stool samples from entrepreneurs setting up online companies.

I think “a pox on both your houses” was a line in one of Shakespeare’s plays. But wherever it comes from, it sums up my view of this spat between the IMF and Greece. The only good decision for the United States would be to back away and not be involved. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration wants American taxpayers on the hook for the reckless overspending of foreign politicians.

Mocking America’s Feckless Politicians

Who are the worst people in America? For sheer evil, I’m sure murderers, rapists, and child molesters belong at the top of the list. But if we’re talking about overall damage to society, it’s hard to imagine that any group is as counterproductive as politicians.

Whether they’re causing financial crises, undermining American competitiveness, crippling upward mobility for the poor, or giving away our money in corrupt vote-buying schemes, it seems that politicians have a reverse Midas touch.

That’s why I enjoy sharing the jokes from the late-night comics. It’s important to mock these pretentious windbags. So enjoy the latest batch.

Jay Leno

• It’s been a rough week for Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg has lost so much money in the market that President Obama is going to have him replace Ben Bernanke.
• The Center for Responsive Politics reports that President Obama has become the first politician in history to raise $1 billion in his political career. Imagine how much more he could have raised if people hadn’t lost it all in his economic plan.
• Police in South Dakota arrested a 53-year-old man formerly from Chicago who’s trying to climb Mount Rushmore. The guy is in his 50s, from Chicago, and he’s desperate to get on Mount Rushmore. Oh my God, it’s Obama!
• Just two weeks after a felon in jail got 41 percent of the Democratic vote in West Virginia, President Obama got embarrassed again in Arkansas yesterday when an unknown lawyer got 42 percent. See, that proves once and for all that there’s only a 1 percent difference between a lawyer and a convicted felon.
• Congratulations to former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The city of San Francisco has named a street after her today. It’s called Botox Avenue.
• President Obama gave the commencement speech at Barnard College the other day. He told graduates their future is bright unless they want jobs.
• Have you heard about Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin? He’s renounced his U.S. citizenship because it’ll save him millions of dollars of taxes — to which Mitt Romney said, “That’s what the Cayman Islands are for.”
• President Obama is calling for more government reform after JPMorgan’s $2 billion loss. Really, is that what we need — the government stepping in? You know what’s going to happen? The government’s going to teach them how to lose $2 billion a DAY!
• Mitt Romney has jumped to a seven-point lead over President Obama in a national poll. I think Romney’s starting to get cocky. Today he threatened to pin down Joe Biden and pull out all of his hair plugs.
• President Obama was in Nevada this weekend. Finally some good news for the Secret Service — a place in America where prostitution is legal.

David Letterman

• Facebook is worth $100 billion. Today it was friended by Greece.
• Over the weekend Betty White endorsed Barack Obama. I think I’m going to wait and hear what Angela Lansbury has to say.

Conan

• A new study shows current members of Congress speak at a 10th grade level. When reached for comment, Congressman Eric Cantor said, “Nuh-uh!”
• A Republican official says that Mitt Romney should pick “an incredibly boring white guy as running mate.” When he heard that, Joe Biden said, “Thanks, I’ve already got a gig.”

Jimmy Fallon

• Here’s an election update. Today Mitt Romney met with a group of wealthy Latino business owners. Or as Romney calls them, “the Juan percent.”
• While attending meetings in Chicago this week, President Obama stayed at a hotel instead of his own house. It was annoying. When he asked for a wake-up call, they just showed him the latest poll numbers.
• This week Mitt Romney started giving speeches while standing in front of a giant U.S. debt clock. When asked what it was like campaigning with a large electronic object, the debt clock was like, “Not bad.”

You can see previous collections of late-night jokes by clicking here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

From Hooters to Marylou’s, Great Moments in EEOC Bureaucracy

I’ve written about the high cost of red tape, and have cited crazy examples of regulation run amok.

• Special bathroom rules for “pee-shy” employees.
• Making banks put foreign law above U.S. law.
• The federal milk police.
• Banning light bulbs.

The list could go on forever, so let’s look at a new example of regulatory stupidity.

Back during the Clinton years, the pinheads at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission tried to coerce Hooters into ending its discriminatory hiring practices. These clueless bureaucrats thought it was unfair that fat, middle-aged men weren’t properly represented on the serving staff.

In a rare victory for common sense, the EEOC eventually backed down, in large part because Hooters launched a public “get a grip” campaign to embarrass the government which included newspaper ads and billboards showing how absurd it would be to change the company’s hiring practices.

Now, as Yogi Berra would say, it’s deja vu all over again. The EEOC is agitated because a Massachusetts coffee chain apparently has hired too many attractive young women. Here’s some of what the Boston Herald reported.

South Shore coffee chain Marylou’s is singing the blues over a federal employment-discrimination investigation, crying foul that the feds are going after its long-standing practice of hiring bubbly young bombshells to peddle the shop’s trademark joe. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been quietly probing Marylou’s’ hiring practices for nearly a year, the Herald has learned, with investigators pulling reams of job applications, interviewing company brass and grilling the 29-store chain’s pink-clad clerks about their co-workers’ gender, age, race and body type, according to the company. …Katherine J. Michon, a Boston lawyer who specializes in discrimination cases, said the length and scope of the investigation indicates the feds are serious about cracking down on the company. …he company also complained about the probe to state Sen. Robert L. Hedlund, who blasted the EEOC as “a meddlesome, overblown, intrusive federal agency.” He said he plans to contact the local congressional delegation, and is dumbfounded the agency is probing the stalwart South Shore coffee shop. “Why, because they haven’t hired old overweight men who want to wear a pink T-shirt and serve coffee?” Hedlund said. “The federal government has better things to do with my tax dollars than to harass a legitimate business.”

What’s especially nauseating about this case is that nobody complained about discrimination. Instead, some moron bureaucrats got upset that the TV ads featured attractive young women. Here’s more from a follow-up story in the Herald.

She [the head of the EEOC] refused to answer general questions about the agency, which critics say has run amok by initiating investigations into businesses even if no one has complained about their hiring procedures. Marylou’s execs, for example, say the feds’ yearlong inquiry started when investigators saw the chain’s flirty TV commercials. Sandry said the groundswell of support for Marylou’s has remained strong since the Herald broke the news Wednesday of the yearlong EEOC inquiry, which company founder Marylou Sandry has called “a witch hunt.” “It’s been crazy, but everywhere I go people are cheering the girls,” Ronnie Sandry said. “Boy, people hate the government.”

I’m greatly encouraged by the last sentence in the excerpt. We should all be very upset that overpaid bureaucrats are harassing and pestering people in the productive sector of the economy. These leeches should be immediately terminated.

Even though I don’t like coffee, I wish Marylou’s had some branches in the DC area. I would find something to buy just to show my support.

P.S. In the interests of fairness, I should point out that the federal government is not the only entity to pursue idiotic regulations. California lawmakers, for instance, have considered rules to regulate babysitting. And since we’re on the topic of coffee, let’s not forget the Seattle campaign to ban scantily clad baristas. But the all-time record for strangest government regulation belongs to Japan, which actually has government rules on the application of coffee enemas.

Funny Cartoon about Washington’s “Spending Cut” Charade

Last year, I made fun of the Washington Post for biased reporting when they used the world “slash” to describe a budget proposal that would have trimmed $6 billion out of a giant $3,800 billion budget.

I wrote that this was the budgetary equivalent of “going on a diet by leaving a couple of french fries in the bottom of the bag after bingeing on three Big Mac meals at McDonald’s.” A couple of other bloggers then had some fun by doing the exact calculations of what this would mean.

Now we have a cartoon version of Washington budgeting, authored by Gary Varvel.

Keep in mind, though, that this cartoon actually is inaccurate because it implicitly accepts the dishonest Washington definition of a budget cut (having spending grow, but not as fast as previously planned).

Every budget plan, even the very admirable proposals put forth by Sen. Rand Paul and the House Republican Study Committee, merely restrains the growth of federal spending.

So the cartoon should show Uncle Same with some clippers, simply seeking to keep the weed from growing even faster.

And if we replaced Uncle Sam with Barack Obama, instead of scissors or clippers, he’d be holding fertilizer.