In politics, as in life, there can be an overwhelming temptation to go along to get along; to be a team player; to do the easy thing even when it’s not the right thing.

For far too long, insiders from both parties have played these games. Talk up fiscal responsibility, but spend big. Talk about a federal government that fulfills its basic responsibilities, but then vote to expand it beyond all recognition so that it cannot possibly do so. Talk about doing what’s right, but then do what the establishment wants instead.

Americans deserve better—and they deserve to get to choose something better this year. In 2012, Americans have the opportunity to decisively move away from big government, built up over years and years by both parties in Washington, D.C.

As I said in Sunday’s NBC/Facebook debate, President Obama has thrown gasoline on the fire, but let’s be honest: The bonfire was raging well before Obama ever left Chicago.

Policies and spending served up by Washington, D.C. insiders, in several notable instances designed and written by Wall Street insiders to suit their needs, not ours, caused and then exacerbated this situation. In too many cases, these advocates of big spending and bad policy have used their positions of power to enrich themselves, both while in office and once outside of it. Republicans have been complicit in this scheme, just as Democrats have.

It is time for it to end.

(more…)

BigGovernment.com has obtained records of Massachusetts Democrat Senator John Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz’s stock portfolios that show almost perfectly timed pharmaceutical stock trades during the Obamacare debate, which fattened their already enormous personal fortune.

The documents further support allegations of suspicious trading leveled during Sunday’s 60 Minutes report about the explosive new book by investigative reporter and Breitbart News editor Peter Schweizer, Throw Them All Out.

Sen. John Kerry’s position on the powerful Senate Finance Committee’s Health Subcommittee gives him direct access to critical information regarding health care policy. In July 2009, pharmaceutical industry representatives met with key members of Congress to flesh out the Obamacare bill. Then, in November 2009, with the bill’s passage was looking more likely, the Kerrys’ portfolios reflect a drug stock buying spree.

First, $750,000 worth of stock in drug maker Teva Pharmaceuticals was added to their portfolios at around $50 a share. Once Obamacare passed, the value of the stock rose to $62 per share. Subsequently, in 2010, a portion of Teva holdings was dumped from the Kerry portfolio, resulting in tens of thousands of dollars in capital gains (exact profits are unclear because politicians are only required to report ranges, not exact dollar amounts). (more…)

U.S. Representative Spencer Bachus (R-AL) had access to highly sensitive financial information during the 2008 bailout debates that may have helped him earn tens of thousands of dollars by trading stock options, even as most Americans’ portfolios took a beating.

On Sunday, Rep. Bachus’s trading behavior came under fire in a 60 Minutes report based on Throw Them All Out, the book by investigative journalist and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer that has triggered a political earthquake in Washington. Schweizer, who is also a Breitbart editor, devotes a significant portion of the book to exposing possible congressional insider trading.

Bachus’s trades during debate over the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) raise serious questions about whether he invested based on information he acquired as a result of his political power.

“Here’s the rub: all too often his trades coincided with his congressional work,” says Schweizer. “Bachus was neck-deep in crucial financial decision-making at the highest levels.”

BigGovernment.com has obtained and reviewed Rep. Bachus’s Fidelity stock options trading records. The dates of the congressman’s trading patterns paint a troubling picture.

In the summer and fall of 2008, Rep. Bachus–who is the current chairman of the House Financial Services Committee–was then the ranking Republican on the committee. That gave him access to high-level private meetings and phone conversations with then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, among other senior financial officials.

From July to November 2008, by executing well-timed, highly risky options trades throughout the turbulent period, Congressman Bachus made at least 40 options trades that netted him as much as $50,000 in capital gains. (more…)

Former Speaker of the House–and current Minority Leader–Nancy Pelosi apparently bought $1 million to $5 million of Visa stock in one of the most sought-after and profitable initial public offerings (IPO) in American history, thwarted serious credit card reform for two years, and then watched her investment skyrocket 203%.

The revelation appears in Throw Them All Out, the new book by investigative journalist and Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer, which was the focus of 60 Minutes on CBS this evening, and which is featured in this week’s issue of Newsweek.

Schweizer’s investigation of Pelosi and other members of Congress–from both parties–raises a critical question:  should it be legal for lawmakers to buy stocks in companies directly affected by their legislative efforts?

In early 2008, Nancy Pelosi and her real estate developer husband, Paul, were given an opportunity to buy into a Visa IPO. It was a nearly impossible feat–one that average citizens almost certainly could never achieve. The vast majority of purchase opportunities went to institutional investors, large mutual funds, or pension funds.

Despite Pelosi’s consistent railing against credit card companies, on March 18, 2008, the Pelosis bought between $1 million and $5 million (politicians do not have to report the exact amounts, only ranges) worth of Visa stock at the IPO price of $44 per share. Two days later, the stock price rocketed to $65 per share, yielding a 50% profit. The Pelosis then bought Visa twice more. By their third purchase on June 4, 2008, Visa was worth $85 per share.

How did Nancy Pelosi snag one of the most coveted initial public offerings in history? The facts are still emerging. Yet according to Schweizer, corporations that wish to build congressional allies will sometimes hand-pick members of Congress to receive IPOs. Pelosi received her Visa IPO almost two weeks after a potentially damaging piece of legislation for Visa, the Credit Card Fair Fee Act, had been introduced in the House. If passed, the bill would have cut into Visa’s profits substantially by lowering so-called “interchange fees,” the 1% to 3% charge retailers pay Visa when customers use Visa cards for purchases. Interchange fees are a critical source of revenue for the four credit card companies–$48 billion in 2008, to be exact.

(more…)

During his recent rallies to galvanize support for his “American Jobs Act,” President Obama stated that he wanted to ensure that millionaires paid the same percentage of taxes as secretaries.  While this is a great soundbite, this statement is inflammatory and demonstrably false.  “Millionaires” in this country, which according to President Obama’s definition now includes small business owners and job creators along with the likes of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, pay a significantly higher portion of their salary to federal income tax, and pay a disproportionate amount of the entire tax burden.

When President Obama states that high income earners are paying less tax then the middle class, he cites the example of Warren Buffett, a multi-billionaire who only pays 17.4% of his taxable income.  However, Mr. Buffett is an anomaly in the upper tax bracket, because most of his income is earned through capital gains, which is taxed at a relatively lower 15% rate (IRS, February 2011).  According to figures compiled by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), those making over $1 million per year pay an average tax rate of 23.3%, while those making between $30-50,000 dollars pay an average tax rate of 7.2%.

Most people in the upper tax brackets are not receiving stock options as compensation, and are therefore subject to the same progressive tax structure as “secretaries.”

Under the current tax system, millionaires don’t just pay a higher tax rate; they also are responsible for a much higher percentage of income taxes paid.  Again, the most recent CBO statistics available demonstrate that the top 1% of wage earners contribute nearly 40% of all income taxes paid in this country.  The bottom 50% of America’s wage earners contribute only 3% of all income taxes.  Additionally, under the current tax structure created under the Bush tax cuts, lower income citizens received a new lower tax bracket as well as the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has enabled further reductions to their tax burden.

(more…)

It could almost make your head spin. With an economy on the front end of another recession, President Obama’s tax attack on the folks who are most likely to succeed, invest, start new businesses, and create jobs is nothing short of staggering. Only liberal-left class-warfare ideology can explain this.

In his speech on Monday, Obama laid out $1.5 trillion in tax hikes over ten years, aimed almost entirely at America’s well-to-do. This includes $800 billion from rolling back the top rates in the Bush tax-cut plan, $470 some-odd billion to reduce itemized deductions for upper-bracket payers, and — oh yes — a millionaire’s tax called the “Buffett Rule.”

Pause a moment on the Buffett Rule. Almost all of Warren Buffett’s income comes from capital gains taxed at 15 percent. He only pays himself $100,000 a year, which would be taxed at the top rate. Most of his wealth is untaxed as unrealized capital gains. So his effective income-tax rate is lower than his secretary’s.

So what?

The vast majority of millionaires pay a 35 percent current tax rate on personal income from salaries, bonuses, and small-business income. Their effective tax rate is around 30 percent, much higher than the roughly 20 percent effective rate for the so-called middle class (depending, of course, on how you define the middle class).

Remember that the top 1 percent of income-tax payers shoulders 40 percent of all income taxes. They are paying their fair share. Then remember that 50 percent of income-tax filers don’t pay any income tax at all.

(more…)

Just when the world financial markets had seemed to stabilize after five weeks of the violent convulsions caused by the first credit downgrade in the history of the U.S.; Standard & Poors announced the United States remains on negative credit watch and there is now a one-in-three chance of another U.S. credit downgrade. S&P understands that the President has been politically successful when he refused to cut spending and let the world suffer massive financial losses when S&P downgraded. It appears to be in President Obama’s political interest for America to suffer another credit downgrade crisis.

The new S&P warning follows President Obama’s efforts to sabotage bipartisan cooperation on the “Supercommittee” deficit reduction panel by making confrontational demands for half of a trillion dollars more in stimulus spending and trillions of dollars of new class warfare tax increases on investment and charity.

Most investors prior to August 5, 2011 assumed that the President would be so afraid of voter wrath if the U.S. credit rating was downgraded; that he would wait until the last moment possible before agreeing to just enough Republican spending cuts to save the AAA rating. Those assumptions turned out to be very expensively wrong.

President Obama refused to make any last minute cuts; then calmly left the Capitol for a family vacation on Martha’s Vineyard. On the next trading day, markets around the world suffered $2.5 trillion in losses. The New York Stock Exchange is off 11% from its recent highs; but China’s Shanghai Exchange is down 28% and Germany’s DAX exchange is down 26% from their highs:

Investors mistakenly was assumed President Obama’s opinion polls would suffer from a downgrade. According to the Gallup Poll; President Obama maintains the same 43% voter approval level he held from before the crisis, as he does today. But Congress hit a new all-time low approval rating of 13% during the crisis.

On the eve of the first meeting of Congressional Supercommittee, the Obama Administration leaked to the New York Times their demands for millionaires to lose the favorable tax treatment on capital gains, municipal bonds and charitable donations. This political poison pill to bipartisan cooperation is affectionately referred to as the “Buffett Rule”; in a honor of Warren E. Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained repeatedly that the richest Americans generally pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than do middle-income workers, because investment gains are taxed at a lower rate than wages.

(more…)

Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty turned out a blockbuster economic-growth plan this past week, including deep cuts in taxes, spending, and regulations. It’s really the first Reaganesque supply-side growth plan from any of the GOP presidential contenders. And he caps it all off with a defense of optimism as he charges ahead with a national economic growth goal of 5 percent.

That’s right: 5 percent.

Pawlenty calls this target aspirational. Okay, fine. But deeper down, he’s basically saying no to the declinists and pessimists who seem to populate the economic landscape these days. Big government doesn’t work. Let’s try something different.

Ronald Reagan always believed that America is exceptional. By removing obstacles to growth, the Gipper held that economic policies could unleash a massive outpouring of risk-taking, creativity, and entrepreneurship. He was right, and his policies launched a two-decade-long boom.

Actually, the first couple years of the Reagan recovery came in at over 7 percent. And as Pawlenty noted in his speech at the University of Chicago this week, between 1983 and 1987, the Reagan recovery grew at 4.9 percent annually. I note that Pres. John F. Kennedy also had a 5 percent growth target, a response to Ike’s three recessions.

So while those on the left criticize Pawlenty, and while even some conservatives scoff at his growth target, history says we’ve been there before.

(more…)

In a new Fortune piece, former Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., Chairman of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council, hits out at President Obama saying he needs to make some “halftime adjustments” including “order[ing] his department heads and agency chiefs to declare a moratorium on new regulations until further notice.”

The critique is timely, given news that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski is engaged in a less-than-stealthy, renewed effort to ram through net neutrality regulations in advance of a Republican takeover of the House that will see one of several opponents of net neutrality assume chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), a leading contender for the job, recently wrote in a policy memo that “The FCC’s regulatory compass is broken as it continues in its unrelenting pursuit to impose so-called network neutrality regulations, regardless of whether the agency has the legal authority for such a blind power grab.”

In addition, Ford’s urging of a regulatory moratorium will no doubt hearten Gulf state residents concerned about an ongoing, de facto “permitorium” preventing the resumption of drilling operations in the region in the wake of the BP disaster, and subsequent drilling moratorium, earlier this year.

(more…)

Here are a handful of the posters being used in the United Kingdom to fight the perversely-destructive proposal to increase tax rates on capital gains. (for an explanation of why the tax should be abolished, see here)

Which one is your favorite? I’m partial to the last one because of my interest in tax competition.

But this isn’t just a popularity contest. With Obama pushing for higher capital gains rate in America, it’s important to find the most persuasive ways of educating people about the damage of class-warfare tax policy.

By the way, “CGT” is capital gains tax, and “Vince” and “Cable” refers to Vince Cable, one of the politicians pushing this punitive class-warfare scheme.

(more…)

Thanks to the Obamacare legislation, we already know there will be a new 3.8 percent payroll tax on all investment income earned by so-called rich taxpayers beginning in 2013. And the capital gains tax rate will jump to 20 percent next year if the President gets his way. This sounds bad (and it is), but the news is even worse than you think. Here’s a new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity that exposes the atrociously unfair practice of imposing this levy on inflationary gains.

The mini-documentary uses a simple but powerful example of what happens to an investor who bought an asset 10 years ago for $5,000 and sold it this year for $6,000. The IRS will want 15 percent of the $1,000 gain (Obama wants the tax burden on capital gains to climb to 23.9 percent, but that’s a separate issue). Some people may think that a 15 percent tax is reasonable, but how many of those people understand that inflation during the past 10 years was more than 27 percent, and $6,000 today is actually worth only about $4,700 after adjusting for the falling value of the dollar?

(more…)

Ben Bernanke threw a curveball in his midterm report to Congress this week. The Fed view of the economy has been downgraded since it last reported in February. Although the official Fed forecast for 2010-11 is still 3 to 4 percent real growth, Bernanke sounded particularly gloomy when he characterized the economy as “unusually uncertain.” And he indicated that the majority view of the Fed Board of Governors and Reserve Bank presidents is that the risks to growth are “weighted to the downside.”

But here’s the disconnect. With no inflation and weaker growth, including stubbornly high unemployment, Bernanke mostly talked about an exit strategy that would shrink the Fed’s balance sheet by removing liquidity. This was the Fed’s bias last winter when the recovery looked stronger. Now that the recovery looks weaker, the stock market was hoping to hear Bernanke hint of an easier policy that would increase liquidity if necessary. Didn’t happen.

At the end of two days of testimony, Bernanke’s message seemed to be this: Expect the zero-interest-rate policy to be extended for another year. Futures markets now predict free money until September 2011.

Whether the economic outlook is as downbeat as Bernanke suggests is an interesting question. The vast majority of corporate profit reports for the second quarter show better-than-expected earnings and top-line revenues. In other words, the CEOs are a lot less pessimistic about the future economy than Wall Street or Main Street. And a combination of strong profits, a zero interest rate, and a positively sloped Treasury yield curve would certainly seem to rule out a double-dip recession.

However, one year into recovery, private jobs should be growing much faster and unemployment should be a lot lower. Following a deep recession, economic growth should be closer to 8 percent than 3 percent.

But there are limits to Fed fine-tuning. The central bank can produce more money, but that doesn’t mean it can produce more jobs.

(more…)

The former communists running Russia apparently understand tax policy better than the crowd in charge of U.S. tax policy. Not only does Russia have a 13 percent flat tax, but the government has just announced it will eliminate the capital gains tax (which shouldn’t exist in a pure flat tax anyhow).

Here’s a passage from the BBC report:

Russia will scrap capital gains tax on long-term direct investment from 2011, President Dmitry Medvedev has said. …Mr Medvedev told the St Petersburg International Economic Forum that long-term direct investment was “necessary for modernisation”. …Its oil revenues fund, which has been financing the deficit, is expected to end next year, and the government wants to attract more foreign investment to boost the economy.

(more…)

The Senate will soon vote on the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act; a counterproductive bill that, purportedly, extends unemployment benefits for millions of out of work Americans. And yet ironically, found in the bowels of this legislation is a dangerous, anti-business tax increase that promises to harm American investors, kill American jobs and slow the nation’s long-term economic recovery.

A little-known element of the version of that legislation adopted last week by the House, the “Carried Interest Tax” raises taxes on private equity firms, venture capitalists and real estate partnerships. These partnerships make much-needed investments in American startup ventures, and their returns, upon which they rely for sustained investing, are taxed at the regular capital gains rate of 15 percent.

But under the pending bill, taxes on these investments would increase 40 to 150 percent. Such a tax increase would severely curtail investment, development and growth in urban communities nationwide where real estate investors have created jobs and had a substantive impact on the lives of low-income families. Business leaders and think tanks alike have panned the idea; Steve Forbes characterized it as “economic suicide.”

Of course, the bill’s fate is not sealed.

(more…)

A former reporter for the New York Times, Fox Butterfield, became a bit of a laughingstock in the 1990s for publishing a series of articles addressing the supposed quandary of how crime rates could be falling during periods when prison populations were expanding. A number of critics sarcastically explained that crimes rates were falling because bad guys were behind bars and invented the term “Butterfield Effect” to describe the failure of leftists to put 2 + 2 together.

We now have a version of the Butterfield Effect in tax policy. Recent IRS data show that rich people earned a record amount of income in 2007 and also faced their lowest effective tax rate in almost two decades. Proponents of soak-the-rich tax policy complain about these developments, but they seem oblivious to the Laffer Curve insight that rich people earned more income in part because tax rates were lower. This video explains how the Laffer Curve works.

Liberals don’t understand that if they penalize the rich with higher tax rates, as President Obama is proposing, they will be disappointed to discover that they collect considerably less revenue than predicted for the simple reason that wealthy taxpayers will respond by earning less taxable income. This Bloomberg excerpt is a good example. The leftist quoted in the article assumes that income is a fixed variable and successful taxpayers will passively endure higher taxes.

(more…)