I periodically post TV interviews and the second-most-watched segment – edged out only by my debate with Robert Reich on Keynesian economics – was when I discussed how President Obama’s statist policies are bad for young people.
So there’s obviously some concern about the future of the country and what it means for today’s youth.
The Center for Freedom and Prosperity has examined this issue and taken it to the next level, cramming a lot of information into this six-minute video.
The video highlights four specific ways that government intervention disadvantages younger Americans.
1. Labor market interventions such as minimum wage mandates make it more difficult for young people to find employment and climb the economic ladder.
Government is even bigger in Europe…leading to even worse results for young people
2. Obamacare harms young people by requiring them to pay substantially more to prop up an inefficient government-run healthcare system.
3. Young people are trapped in a poorly designed Social Security system and politicians such as Obama think the answer is to make them pay more and get less.
4. Government has created a major third-party payer problem in higher education, putting young people on a treadmill of ever higher tuition and record debt.
What makes this situation so surreal is that young people – as noted at the start of the video – are the one group who think the “government should do more”!
I hope you share this video with every young person you know and help them understand that statism is the enemy of hope and opportunity.
And maybe also show them this poster if they need some extra help grasping the problem.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Big Government, Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Economics, Fiscal Policy, Government Spending, Obama, stimulus, Waste, tagged Big Government, Bush, Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Clinton, Government Spending, Obama, stimulus on August 13, 2012 |
24 Comments »
The burden of federal spending in the United States was down to 18.2 percent of gross domestic product when Bill Clinton left office.
But this progress didn’t last long. Thanks to George Bush’s reckless spending policies, the federal budget grew about twice as fast as the economy, jumping by nearly 90 percent in just eight years This pushed federal spending up to about 25 percent of GDP.
President Obama promised hope and change, but he has kept spending at this high level rather than undoing the mistakes of his predecessor.
This new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation uses examples of waste, fraud, and abuse to highlight President Obama’s failed fiscal policy.
Good stuff, though the video actually understates the indictment against Obama. There is no mention, for instance, about all the new spending for Obamacare that will begin to take effect over the next few years.
But not everything can be covered in a 5-minute video. And I suspect the video is more effective because it closes instead with some discussion of the corrupt insider dealing of Obama’s so-called green energy programs.
Read Full Post »
The Obama campaign’s “Life of Julia” ad is a disturbing sign. It suggests that political strategists, pollsters, and campaign advisers must think that the people living off government are getting to the point where they can out-vote the people paying for government.
If that’s true, America is doomed to become another Greece – which would be an appropriate fate since, for all intents and purposes, Julia is the fictional twin of a real-life Greek woman who thought it was government’s job to give her things.
In general, I think the best response to Julia is mockery, which is why I shared this Iowahawk parody and this Ramirez cartoon.
But we also need a serious discussion of why dependency is a bad thing, which is why I’m glad the Center for Freedom and Prosperity has produced this new “Economics 101″ video.
It’s narrated by Emily O’Neill, who contrasts the moocher mentality of Julia with how she wants her life to develop. To give away the message, she wants the kind of fulfillment that only exists when you earn things.
Emily’s view could be considered Randian libertarianism, conventional conservatism, or both. That’s because there’s a common moral belief in both philosophies that government-imposed coercion and redistribution erode the social capital of a people.
This is perhaps the key issue for America’s future, which is why I hope you’ll share this video widely. Otherwise, we my face a future where this Chuck Asay cartoon becomes reality. Speaking of Asay, this cartoon is a pretty good summary of what the Julia ad is really saying.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Big Government, Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Constitution, Fiscal Policy, Government Spending, Video, tagged Big Government, Fiscal Policy, Government Spending, Video on February 7, 2011 |
2 Comments »
A new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity gives four reasons why big government is bad fiscal policy.
I particularly like the explanation of how government spending undermines growth by diverting labor and capital from the productive sector of the economy.
Some cynics, though, say that it is futile to make arguments for good policy. They claim that politicians make bad fiscal decisions because of short-term considerations such as vote buying and raising campaign cash and that they don’t care about the consequences. There’s a lot of truth to this “public choice” analysis, but I don’t think it explains everything. Maybe I’m an optimist, but I think we would have better fiscal policy if more lawmakers, journalists, academics, and others grasped the common-sense arguments presented in this video.
And even if the cynics are right, we are more likely to have good policy if the American people more fully understand the damaging impact of excessive government. This is because politicians almost always will do what is necessary to stay in office. So if they think the American people are upset about wasteful spending and paying close attention, the politicians will be less likely to upset voters by funneling money to special interests.
For those who want additional information on the economics of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too much debt (in other words, deficits are merely a symptom of an underlying problem of excessive spending).
Last but not least, this video reviews the theory and evidence for the “Rahn Curve,” which is the notion that there is a growth-maximizing level of government outlays.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Big Government, Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Debt, Deficit, Economics, Fiscal Policy, Government Spending, Higher Taxes, Leviathan, Obama, Spending, Tax Increase, Taxation, Uncategorized, Video, tagged Balanced Budget, Big Government, Debt, Deficit Spending, Deficits, Fiscal Balance, Fiscal Policy, Government Spending, Higher Taxes, Leviathan, Spending, Tax Increases on October 4, 2010 |
78 Comments »
Our fiscal policy goal should be smaller government, but here’s a video for folks who think that balancing the budget should be the main objective.
The main message is that restraining the growth of government is the right way to get rid of red ink, so there is no conflict between advocates of limited government and supporters of fiscal balance.
More specifically, the video shows that it is possible to quickly balance the budget while also making all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent and protecting taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax. All these good things can happen if politicians simply limit annual spending growth to 2 percent each year. And they’ll happen even faster if spending grows at an even slower rate.
This debunks the statist argument that there is no choice but to raise taxes.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Big Government, Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Financial Privacy, Government Thuggery, International bureaucracy, International Taxation, Jurisdictional Competition, News Appearance, Obama, OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Singapore, Sovereignty, Tax Competition, Tax Harmonization, Taxation, tagged Financial Privacy, International bureaucracy, News Appearance, OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Singapore, Sovereignty, Tax Competition, Tax Harmonization on September 29, 2010 |
26 Comments »
I’m in Singapore for two days to help fight the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a statist international bureaucracy based in Paris. The OECD has something called a global tax forum, the purpose of which is to harass so-called tax haven in hopes of coercing them into acting as tax collectors for Europe’s decrepit welfare states. Here’s the executive summary from the memo I wrote, which warns low-tax jurisdictions that the OECD may push even harder to undermine fiscal sovereignty because of fears that a GOP takeover of Congress will make it more difficult to push for tax harmonization policies in the future.
The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has an ongoing project to prop up Europe’s inefficient welfare states by attacking tax competition in hopes of enabling governments to impose heavier tax burdens. This project received a boost when the Obama Administration joined forces with countries such as France and Germany, but the tide is now turning against high-tax nations – particularly as more people understand that such an approach inevitably leads to Greek-style fiscal collapse. Looming political changes in the United States will further complicate the OECD’s ability to impose bad policy. Because of these developments, low-tax jurisdictions should be especially wary of schemes to rush through new anti-tax competition initiatives at the Singapore Global Forum.
The good news is that nothing dramatic took place on the first day of the two-day conference. the OECD continued to bully low-tax jurisdictions to sign information-sharing agreements and the low-tax jurisdictions kept asking for double-taxation agreements so they could get some benefit in exchange for weakening their human rights/financial privacy laws. The OECD and high-tax nations have been ignoring these requests for a two-way street, thus continuing their bad-faith behavior.
For more information on this issue, here’s a link to my video on tax competition, and here are a handful of TV appearances where I discuss the issue. This is a challenging issue to debate, so I’d welcome feedback on which arguments you think are most effective.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Big Government, Bureaucracy, Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Collectivism, Economics, Europe, Fiscal Policy, Government Spending, Harmonization, Higher Taxes, International bureaucracy, Jurisdictional Competition, OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Sovereignty, Spending, Tax Competition, Tax Harmonization, Tax Increase, Taxation, Value-Added Tax, VAT, Video, tagged Big Government, Higher Taxes, International bureaucracy, OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Tax Cartel, Tax Harmonization, Tax Increases, Value-Added Tax, VAT on August 2, 2010 |
140 Comments »
The federal government is capable of enormous waste, which obviously is bad news, but the worst forms of government spending are those that actually leverage bad things. The old welfare system, for instance, paid people not to work and have babies out of wedlock (this still happens, but it’s not as bad as it used to be). Paying exorbitant salaries to federal bureaucrats is bad, but it’s even worse if they take their jobs seriously and promulgate new regulations and otherwise harass people in the productive sector of the economy. In a previous video on the economics of government spending, I called this the “negative multiplier” effect.
One of the worst examples of a negative multiplier effect is the $100 million that taxpayers spend each year to subsidize the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. This video has the gory details.
Read Full Post »