Taking a break from His busy schedule as the world’s savior and redeemer, Jesus Christ found time two weeks ago to immerse himself in United States Presidential politics, endorsing Obama’s tax plan on wealthy earners. Or at least the President believes he did. At the National Prayer Breakfast, he invoked the Christian savior in order to sell his tax reform plan to a more religious audience, saying, “For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’ teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”

More recently, this week, in line with his increasingly partisan rhetoric, President Obama unveiled his annual budget proposal, calling for over a trillion dollars in tax increases on America’s most successful citizens. Indeed after taxing capital gains and dividends as real income, repealing the Bush tax cuts, and factoring in a 4% surtax for Obamacare, President Obama’s budget proposal would triple the tax burdens of many wealthy and middle income earners. Although President Obama now claims to be a representative of Jesus’ teachings, his new tax plans would probably make the Christian Savior quite disappointed.

President Obama contends that since Jesus Christ placed significant emphasis on charity, the Savior would favor a tax policy that institutionalizes such philanthropy by forcibly redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. Through taxation, the President seeks to enforce mandatory charity and make wealthy Americans relinquish larger portions their income to the government regardless of their will or intention. However Jesus taught in Corinthians 9:7, “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.” When paying taxes, one determines their donation based on the mandatory payments established by the government rather than the generosity of their own being. Thus Jesus Christ would not view increased taxation as being in line with his teachings, which judge believers based on the voluntary sacrifices that they impose upon themselves for the benefit of others.

(more…)

The contraception mandate being enforced under ObamaCare has the Catholic Church under assault, not only by the Administration, but by critics in the media and around the blogosphere, who think the non-existent “right” to free contraception over–rules Catholic principles. Most of the criticism being leveled against the church is simply anti-Catholic bigotry, which has been making fun of the Catholic position on birth control as long as it’s been acceptable to say “condoms” in public.  The difference is that now, the Constitutionally mandated independence of the Church is being questioned.

Archie Bunker once said, “Faith is something you believe, that no one in their right mind would believe.” Which is why our founders wrote a hands-off policy into the Constitution. It’s why we have a tradition of not charging taxes on religious organizations, so that churches never have to pay for activities they find abhorrent, like wars, death penalties, and Modern Art. It’s long been recognized that religion is a vital building block of American Culture, as well as one that cannot always be simply explained in legal, political or scientific terms.

As a comic (and a product of a Catholic elementary school) I’ve probably been guiltier than most of ridiculing Catholic traditions. It’s easy to mock principles you don’t really understand. Trusting the will of God in family planning seems as hypocritical as the bulletproof glass windows on the Pope-mobile. But underneath the surface, lies the important message of treating sex with more respect than a round of golf.

But it isn’t just the Catholic position on birth control that’s under attack here. Nor is it only the Catholics who are under assault. If this mandate is allowed to stand, the relationship between the Federal Government and Religion will be permanently altered.

(more…)

According to Dr. Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute, the ObamaCare mandate which orders health insurers to pay for contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs, is only the tip of the iceberg. In a Wall Street Journal editorial, Dr. Gottlieb explains that the federal government will continue to issue similar mandates and edicts via the ObamaCare United States Preventive Services Task Force, a single committee that has the power to evaluate preventive health services and decide which will- and will not- be covered by health insurance plans.

The committee already has a letter grading system (“A” through “D”) to rate medical services and prevention screenings. Services rated “A” or “B” must be covered by health insurers in full- with no copayments, or, in the language of President Obama and liberal politicians, “free.” According to Dr. Gottlieb, “A” or “B” rated colon cancer screenings for middle-aged Americans and seniors will be provided “free,” while other tests that are rated “C” or “D,” such as some which screen for ovarian or testicular cancer, would be eliminated entirely.

Because of the high costs associated with “A” and “B” mandated services (turns out they are not “free” after all), many health plans will ultimately drop coverage for the types of screenings and services that get a lower “grade” on the ObamaCare report card.

The Preventive Services Task Force essentially functions as a “czar,” in that it is exempted from the rules that govern other government advisory boards and regulation agencies.

(more…)

Early last year, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity released this video, narrated by yours truly, making the case that the United States and other nations should shift from a tax-and-transfer entitlement scheme to a system of personal retirement accounts.

Some left wingers criticized the idea, saying the big drop in the stock market in 2008-2009 is proof that personal retirement accounts were too risky.

You won’t be surprised to learn, though, that they are wrong. It is true that retirement income fluctuates with a system of personal accounts, but that simply means that it is difficult to predict how much more income one would enjoy when compared to being stuck with Social Security.

(more…)

According to President Obama’s budget proposal today, his budget would continue “investment in program integrity by providing $1 billion to ensure benefits are paid to the right person and in the right amount.”  Yes, you read that correctly: we are supposed to spend one thousand million dollars in order to achieve what American Express does correctly every single day (or, come to mention it, what the Dewey Decimal System did for books 100 years ago).

Social Security fraud and waste, of course, is a very real problem.  In 2008, the Social Security Administration was so negligent in keeping its information up-to-date that it paid up to $11 billion to people who weren’t disabled anymore (Social Security pays for many disabled folks, as well as the elderly).  And there were still nearly 800,000 people who were trying to get access to the agency’s judges to secure the benefits they were allegedly owed.  So the Obama Administration stands on solid ground when it suggests that for every dollar it spends on system maintenance, many dollars in waste and fraud may be saved.

Or they may not be.

(more…)

When Sherrod Brown (D-OH) spoke at the Ohio Education Association Representative Assembly last spring, he had a receptive audience for his class warfare routine. Since Sherrod is the most extreme leftist in the U.S. Senate and must face Ohio voters this fall, the state’s public union fight was a perfect chance to remind Big Labor he’s their man.

At the same event where he told horror stories about privatization and the Republican scheme to ruin Medicare, Sherrod rolled the NEA affiliate’s war against union reform into a theme of conservative “attacks.”

By the end of his 40-second detour into the Progressive causes and glorious federal programs conservatives are attacking, Sherrod had built up a 9x attack multiplier! This sort of word power makes Sherrod Brown a rhetorical king, so long as no one ever asks how to pay for the bankrupt boondoggles he adores.

Similar to the speech where he slammed the faith of the governors on Big Labor’s enemies list, Sherrod gets so wound up talking about conservative attacks that he forgets to explain his alternative! It’s a shame, because Sherrod Brown has had decades in Congress to cook up the perfect tax-and-spend formula.

(more…)

Following a somewhat vague initial response to President Obama’s “accommodation” to Catholic and other religious leaders’ objections to the ObamaCare mandate requiring religiously-affiliated charities, hospitals, and organizations to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has issued a much stronger statement regarding the “accommodation:”

…we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral. We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.

We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government. For example, we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all.

Indeed, the Wall Street Journal confirms that President Obama’s “accommodation” has simply made matters worse for him. An editorial sums up the lameness of his attempt at making his edict more politically tolerable:

(more…)

When Ronald Reagan said that big government undermined the economy, some people dismissed his comments because of his philosophical belief in liberty.

And when I discuss my work on the economic impact of government spending, I often get the same reaction.

This is why it’s important that a growing number of establishment outfits are slowly but surely coming around to the same point of view.

• The European Central Bank published a study showing “…a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth.”
• A study by two Harvard economists found that “large adjustments in fiscal policy, if based on well-targeted spending cuts, have often led to expansions.”
• The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development noted in recent research that welfare programs are economically destructive because they lure people into dependency because “net disposable income would increase despite putting in fewer hours.”
• A study from the International Monetary Fund concluded that “Cuts to pension and health entitlements had the most beneficial effect on economic growth.”

This is remarkable. It’s beginning to look like the entire world has figured out that there’s an inverse relationship between big government and economic performance. (more…)

Members of the Obama administration do not care whether Catholics and those of other faiths are angry about the ObamaCare mandate regarding contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs. It’s quite possible that, like exhibitionists, the White House enjoys the shock value that accompanies all their edicts and executive orders to people of main-street America. Waiting for average Americans to recover from the shock gives them a window of time to amuse themselves at the reaction as they also develop their talking points and spin. But, this year, they have an election to win.

To appease those they view as rigid, conservative Catholics, the administration’s talking points are that they’ll “work it out” with them, give them a year to “adapt” their consciences to engaging in behavior that is against their values, and, perhaps, the favorite means of the White House to ensure a minimum of voter loss: hand out a waiver.

But, exactly what should be “worked out?” “Adapt” to what? A “waiver” from what? All of this talk of flexibility is helping the White House to muddy up the real issue.

The spin by the White House, in the midst of this constitutional crisis, is simply a variant on its age- old theme that healthcare is an unalienable right that the government must give to people. Remember that, in liberalism, unalienable rights come from the government, not from the Creator. With the contraception, etc. mandate, the administration just tweaked the message a bit- made it a bit “pinker,” dare we say: that all women deserve access to free contraception- including Catholic women. How could we leave Catholic women out? After all, that would be discriminatory, right? Wrong.

(more…)

“The new debate in the Republican party needs to be between conservatives and libertarians,” says Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). “A lot of the libertarian ideas that Ron Paul is talking about…should not be alien to any Republican.”

Yet right after the 2010 midterm elections, the influential Tea Party favorite proclaimed that “you can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative,” a comment that was widely viewed as a slap at libertarians. And South Carolina’s junior senator is also a staunch pro-lifer, has favored a constitutional ban on flag burning, and is on the record saying that gays shouldn’t be allowed to teach at public schools.

More recently, DeMint has been leaning libertarian. His new book, Now or Never: Saving America from Economic Collapse, is a warning to the nation that we need radical spending cuts (including putting defense spending on the table) or else face economic oblivion. And he was instrumental in getting Tea Party Republicans elected in 2010, including the most libertarian member of the caucus, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who also wrote the foreword to DeMint’s book.

(more…)

Is it April Fool’s Day? Has somebody in Paris hacked the website at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development? Have we been transported to a parallel dimension where up is down and black is white?

Please forgive all these questions. I’m trying to figure out why any organization – even a leftist bureaucracy such as the OECD – would send out a press release entitled, “Rising tax revenues: a key to economic development in Latin American countries.”

Not even Keynesians, after all, think higher taxes are a recipe for growth.

Ah, never mind. I just remembered that the OECD is a hotbed of statism, so the press release makes perfect sense. After all, the US-taxpayer-funded organization has become infamous for reflexively advocating big government.

(more…)

What’s the worst policy idea that would cause the most damage to society?

I’m tempted to say the value-added tax since our hopes of restraining the federal government will be greatly undermined if we give the buffoons in Washington a new source of revenue. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why Mitt Romney may be an ever greater long-term threat to American exceptionalism than Barack Obama.

But even though the VAT is fiscal poison, it’s not the most dangerous policy proposal.

At the top of my list is global taxation.

I wrote in 2010 about some of the awful global tax schemes being pushed by the United Nations. And I also noted that unrepentant statists such as George Soros are pimping for global taxation.

I even wrote a paper back in 2001 to explain why global taxes are such a bad idea.

The details of the tax don’t matter. It’s the principle.

(more…)

Wednesday night, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R.3567; The Welfare Integrity Now for Children and Families Act of 2011; which makes it illegal to use an EBT card in a strip club, liquor store or casino. The concern began, shortly after welfare recipients were issued funds electronically through ATMs, when Welfare Reform passed in 1996. Since then there has been a disturbing trend of welfare not being spent on the things people think welfare should be spent on.

And I don’t understand that concern. It is the theory of most Democrats that giving money to people stimulates the economy. It should be of no concern to anyone whether that money is used to stimulate patrons of a strip club, liquor store owners, or casino magnates (who BTW are often HUGE political contributors).

The bill is almost completely futile. It won’t insure that welfare money is not spent at a strip club; it only means that the ATM at the gas station across the street from the strip club is going to see a lot more traffic.

This is just the kind of government bias, that gives legitimate business a bad name. Certainly those girls are working as hard as any SEIU employee; whose pensions were paid out of stimulus funds, while they protested in Wisconsin. Money spent on bikini wax, cover stick, and glittery lingerie will trickle down through the economy just like any other stimulus package.

(more…)

On this day last year, I posted two charts that I developed using the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank’s interactive website.

Those two charts showed that the current recovery was very weak compared to the boom of the early 1980s.

But perhaps that was an unfair comparison. Maybe the Reagan recovery started strong and then hit a wall. Or maybe the Obama recovery was the economic equivalent of a late bloomer.

So let’s look at the same charts, but add an extra year of data. Does it make a difference?

Meh…not so much.

Let’s start with the GDP data. The comparison is striking. Under Reagan’s policies, the economy skyrocketed.  Heck, the chart prepared by the Minneapolis Fed doesn’t even go high enough to show how well the economy performed during the 1980s.

(more…)

“When you look at government policies, there’s a massive transfer of wealth from the young and relatively poor members of society toward the old and relatively members of society,” says Veronique de Rugy, a Reason magazine columnist and economist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

In 1970, de Rugy notes, transfers from the young to the old took up about 20 percent of the federal budget. In a few years, that figure will break the 50 percent barrier as the population ages and Social Security and Medicare ramp up. Those programs are paid for by payroll taxes that suck up around 15 percent of every dollar most workers will ever make.

Yet the #Occupy movement spends most of its energy railing against “the 1 Percent” richest Americans, whose wealth is not gained at the expense of the “99 Percent.” Rather, it comes from providing goods and services that people want to consume.

(more…)

Over the last three years, the number of Americans on food stamps has skyrocketed by two-thirds and stands at a record-high 46 million citizens, or one out of every seven people in the United States.  Despite the historic rise in food stamp use, however, the Obama Administration believes not enough people are receiving food stamps who should be and is offering $75,000 grants to groups who devise “effective strategies” to “increase program participation” among those who have yet to sign up.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s website singles out Hispanics and elderly Americans as groups who often fail to enroll in the food stamp program (officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP) and says  that one of the contributing factors that must be overcome to get more people to sign up for SNAP benefits is individual “pride”:

There are many reasons why eligible people, including seniors and Hispanics, do not participate in the SNAP. These include unawareness of eligibility, confusion about program rules and requirements, a complex application process, and a lack of transportation and pride.

To reduce these “barriers” to food stamp enrollment, the Department of Agriculture offers non-profit groups the chance to receive $75,000 grants for projects designed to boost food stamp participation among those who are eligible but have yet to sign up.  The Department of Agriculture believes that the SNAP program is “severely underutilized” and says that 33 percent more Americans who are eligible to receive food stamps have yet to apply, thus the need to offer federal grants to sign more citizens up.

(more…)

Last night President Obama renewed his calls for a so-called “middle class tax” cut that would all but kill Social Security:

“Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile. People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year. There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let’s agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay.”

And yet only two paragraphs later, he said this:

Alas, in calling for a renewed payroll tax holiday, President Obama continues to raid Social Security and imperil the retirement account that many Americans have paid into and continue to depend upon.

On the one hand, he raids the Social Security trust fund, while on the other he attacks Republicans for threatening Social Security.  Republicans ought not let him get away with such transparent chutzpah.

(more…)

I’ve already bragged that the Cato Institute is America’s best think tank, highlighting the fact that we took the lead in battling against Obama’s faux stimulus at a time when many were dispirited and reluctant to fight big government.

I’m biased, of course, so I’ll understand if you discount what I say. But I hope you’ll agree that my colleagues have put together an excellent video response to the President’s state-of-the-union speech.

As part of my contribution to the video, beginning around 6:35, I debunk the President’s class-warfare tax agenda by citing IRS data from the 1980s to explain that higher tax rates don’t necessarily mean higher tax revenue.

After a night’s sleep, here are a few additional observations on the President’s remarks.

• I was disappointed, but not surprised, that he repeated the economically foolish assertion that Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.
• I also was not surprised that he didn’t say much about jobs and the economy. These four charts show he doesn’t have much to brag about.
• It was also noteworthy that he didn’t spend much time talking about Obamacare, which suggests that White House pollsters understand that government-run healthcare isn’t very popular.
• It was equally revealing that he didn’t spend much time on the so-called income inequality issue. Redistribution was implicit in what he said, to be sure, but the Occupy-Wall-Street crowd is probably disappointed that he didn’t explicitly embrace their agenda. More evidence that the pollsters played a big role in this speech.
• I’m definitely not surprised that he talked about eliminating Osama bin Laden. Kudos to the Commander-in-Chief.
• I was amazed that he had the gall to say “no bailouts,” particularly given his support for TARP, the Dodd-Frank bailout bill, and the giveaway to GM and the auto unions. And if the GM bailout is supposed to be a success, I’d hate to see his definition of failure.
• And I was stunned that he could talk about the housing meltdown and mortgage crisis without mentioning the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac. Sort of like analyzing World War II and pretending Germany and Japan didn’t exist.

Since most of the previous observation are critical, I want to stress that I’m not being partisan. I also was disappointed in the Republican response. Was the GOP smart to showcase a governor who was part of the big-spending Bush Administration? Especially one who has said nice things about the value-added tax?

(more…)

The German Chancellor and French President have put together a plan to boost growth. Sounds like a good goal, but what specifically are they proposing?

Some of the obvious ideas include:

• Lowering tax rates to boost incentives for productive behavior.
• Reducing the burden of government spending to allow more efficient allocation of labor and capital.
• Cutting back regulation and red tape to boost market efficiency.

But those are only obvious ideas if you want a growth plan that actually leads to…(drum roll, please)…more growth.

Merkel and Sarkozy must have some other objective in mind, because they’ve proposed a plan comprised of new taxes, higher taxes, and tax harmonization.

This is beyond satire. Even if I was trying to make fun of the French and Germans (perish the thought), I wouldn’t be able to make up something this absurd.

(more…)

With members of the mainstream media now hurling charges of using racially coded language against GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, Big Government has uncovered a private memorandum written over three decades ago that offers a unique glimpse into Mr. Gingrich’s longstanding attitudes about race.

The private memo, dated July 1, 1980, was written by Mr. Gingrich on his official House of Representatives stationery and was sent to then-candidate Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager, Bill Casey, who would later become President Reagan’s CIA Director.

In the memo, Mr. Gingrich urges Governor Reagan’s campaign to reconsider its decision not to speak to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Convention.

“This is a great opportunity to prove that a conservative Republican can speak to the hearts and pocketbooks of Black Americans,” Gingrich urged in the memo.

The memorandum goes on to explain that a decision not to speak at the NAACP convention would insult African American voters and be a “tragedy” for the nation:

Many middle class Black Americans who would vote for Reagan will be insulted by his non-attendance.  I urge you to schedule the speech and talk about Kemp’s Inner City Jobs Bill, which Kilpatrick and George Will have both endorsed as acceptably conservative.

Failure to attend the NAACP convention will be a tragedy for Gov. Reagan and the country.  Symbolic events are vital.  Thank you for considering this.

(more…)