The 2013 budget being released Monday will propose public works spending while seeking tax increases on the wealthy and corporations to claim progress on the federal deficit in his upcoming budget. The spending plan projects a deficit for this year of $1.3 trillion, the fourth straight year of $1 trillion-plus deficits, and $901 billion next year.

Jacob Lew, the president’s chief of staff, said the new budget would put the country on track to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reductions over the next 10 years, achieved by raising taxes on the wealthy and trimming government spending. Lew said the president’s budget would cut spending by $2.50 for every $1 it raises in new taxes.

(more…)

Back in 2010, I crunched the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office and reported that the budget could be balanced in just 10 years if politicians exercised a modicum of fiscal discipline and limited annual spending increases to about 2 percent yearly.

When CBO issued new numbers early last year, I repeated the exercise and again found that the same modest level of budgetary restraint would eliminate red ink in about 10 years.

And when CBO issued their update last summer, I did the same thing and once again confirmed that deficits would disappear in a decade if politicians didn’t let the overall budget rise by faster than 2 percent each year.

Well, the new CBO 10-year forecast was released this morning. I’m going to give you three guesses about what I discovered when I looked at the numbers, and the first two don’t count.

Yes, you guessed it. As the chart illustrates (click to enlarge), balancing the budget doesn’t require any tax increases. Not does it require big spending cuts (though that would be a very good idea).

(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…)

Dannel Malloy, Connecticut’s Democratic and Working Families Party Governor, told citizens of his state last year that the highest tax increase in the history of Connecticut, including a retroactive state income tax hike, would balance his state’s budget. It appears he was wrong. Bloomberg has reported that Connecticut will have a $94.9 million revenue shortfall in fiscal year 2012. In addition, official estimates indicate that the state’s revenues will trail by $139 million in fiscal year 2013.

Minimizing the significance of the shortfall, Gov. Malloy said in a press release:

All today’s announcement means is that, as is the case in other states with high wage earners, fourth quarter revenue is coming up short of expectations. That’s why today, I’ve instructed Secretary Barnes to pare back on current year expenses.  But let there be no confusion – we will end the current fiscal year in the black, and in a more stable fashion than this state has seen in many years.

Blaming the shortfall on the “uncertainty surrounding the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts,” Mr. Malloy said that such “uncertainty at the federal level” resulted in taxpayers’ shift of capital gains and income, as well as declines in bonus levels in the financial service industry.

Last year, Gov. Malloy used the tax hike to balance his state’s budget against a public sector union concession package that actually required few concessions of unions: no layoffs for four years and no furloughs; wages frozen for two years, then followed by three annual 3 percent raises; retirement age raised by only two years, and not until after 2022; and minor changes in health benefits such as mandatory annual physician visits and mail-order prescription plans.

(more…)

I don’t blame the Democrats for wanting to seduce Republicans into a tax-increase trap. Indeed, I completely understand why some Democrats said their top political goal was getting the GOP to surrender the no-tax-hike position.

I’m mystified, though, why some Republicans are willing to walk into such a trap. If you were playing chess against someone, and that person kept pleading with you to make a certain move, wouldn’t you be a tad bit suspicious that they weren’t trying to help you win?

When I talk to the Republicans who are open to tax hikes, they sometimes admit that their party will suffer at the polls, but they say it’s the right thing to do because of red ink.

I suppose that’s a noble sentiment, though I find that most GOPers who are open to tax hikes also tend to be big spenders, so I question their sincerity (with Senator Coburn being an obvious exception).

But even if we assume that all of them are genuinely motivated by a desire to control deficits and debt, shouldn’t they be asked to provide some evidence that higher taxes are an effective way of fixing the fiscal policy mess?

I’m not trying to score debating points. This is a serious question.

(more…)

In a recent column for the Wall Street Journal, I explained why Mitt Romney’s interest in a value-added tax is deeply troubling.

One of my key points was that the VAT is a money machine for big government.

But don’t believe me. Look at Japan, where the politicians see increases in the VAT as a way of financing a much larger burden of government spending. Here’s some of what is being reported by Bloomberg.

Noda reshuffled his cabinet last week, aiming to win support for doubling Japan’s 5 percent national sales tax by 2015… Japan’s finances are “getting worse and worse every day, every second,” Takahira Ogawa, Singapore-based director of sovereign ratings at S&P… Japan’s aging population is also weighing on Noda’s struggle to achieve fiscal health. Social-security expenses have more than doubled in two decades and will account for 52 percent of general spending for the year starting in April, according to a budget proposal the cabinet approved last month.

The key point in this excerpt is that the VAT is a substitute for entitlement reform. Without the VAT, politicians might actually reform the welfare state. But because of the VAT, they want to take the easy (but extremely destructive) route and boost the tax burden.

This is why I get so agitated about the threat of a VAT in America, as illustrated by this recent appearance on Larry Kudlow’s show.

(more…)

Austan Goolsbee, the former Chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, has a column in the Wall Street Journal that argues government spending isn’t too high.

That’s obviously a silly assertion, as I explain here, here, and here, but I want to focus on what he wrote about tax revenues.

Here’s the relevant passage from his column.

The true fiscal challenge is 10, 20 and 30 years down the road. An aging population and rising health-care costs mean that spending will rise again and imply a larger size of government than we have ever had but with all the growth coming from entitlements—while projected federal revenues as a percentage of GDP after the rate cuts of the 2000s will likely remain below even historic levels of 18%.

He’s right that the main problem is in the future. As I’ve noted before, America is doomed to become Greece because of rising entitlement spending.

But he’s completely wrong when he implies that the problem is because taxes will stay below the long-run average of 18 percent of economic output. Here’s a chart I posted last year showing that tax receipts will soon rise above the long-tun average – even if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent. And these numbers are from the left-of-center Congressional Budget Office.

It’s rather shocking that a former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers isn’t aware of this CBO data. Or, if he is aware of the data, it’s unseemly that he would deliberately mislead readers.

But let’s set aside any discussion of why Goolsbee made such a fatuous claim about revenue. What really matters is that this is a debate about fiscal policy and the size of government.

The folks on the left want to convince us that inadequate revenue is causing deficits, both in the short run and long run.

We can see that they’re wrong in the short run.

But what’s especially remarkable is that they are wildly wrong about the future.  The long-run data from the Congressional Budget Office shows that the federal tax burden over the next 70-plus years will jump to more than 30 percent of GDP.

This CBO baseline data assumes the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, so it exaggerates the increase in the future tax burden compared to current policy. But even if you correct for this assumption and reduce tax receipts by about 2-percentage points  of GDP (and presumably even more than that in the long run), it’s clear that the tax burden will be far above the historical average of 18 percent of GDP.

It’s easy to understand why Goolsbee ignores this data. After all, why report on information that completely debunks the left-wing argument about the supposed need to increase the tax burden.

But this isn’t the first time Goolsbee’s been wrong about tax policy. Let’s dig into the 2010 archives and share this video, which takes apart his arguments for class-warfare tax policy.

So what’s the bottom line? Well, we know Goolsbee and other leftists are being deceptive about taxation.

But my main takeaway is that I wish the left would be honest and admit that taxes already are projected to increase. And I’d like them to level with the American people and admit that they want the tax burden to climb even faster because they want government to get even bigger.

My Iowa caucus predictions from yesterday were hopelessly wrong, probably because I was picking with my heart rather than my head. As I noted a couple of weeks ago, Mitt Romney’s openness to a value-added tax makes him a dangerously flawed candidate, and I hoped Iowa voters shared my concern.

In a column for today’s Wall Street Journal, I elaborated on those concerns, explaining why a VAT is bad fiscal policy. I had three main points. First, I noted that the big spenders need a VAT in order to achieve a European-sized welfare state in America.

… the left needs a VAT. It is the only realistic way to collect the huge amount of revenue that will be necessary to finance the mountainous benefits promised by our entitlement programs. Which is exactly what happened in Europe, where welfare-state policies only became feasible after VATs were adopted, beginning in the late 1960s.

Second, I explained that the left favors this giant tax on the middle class because they want more money and soak-the-rich taxes don’t generate much revenue.

(more…)

I’ve written before about whether California is the Greece of America, in part because of crazy policies such as overpaid bureaucrats and expensive forms of political correctness,

And we all know that California has one of the nation’s greediest governments, imposing confiscatory tax rates on a shrinking pool of productive citizens.

So it is hardly surprising that the Golden State is falling behind, losing jobs and investment to more sensible states such as Texas.

But not everybody is learning the right lessons from California’s fiscal and economic mess.

There’s a group of crazies who want to increase the top tax rate by five percentage points, an increase of about 50 percent. And they have made Kim Kardashian the poster child for their proposed ballot initiative.

I’m relatively clueless about popular culture, but even I’m aware that there is a group of people know as the Kardashian sisters. I don’t know who they are or what they do, but I gather they are famous in sort of the same way Paris Hilton was briefly famous.

(more…)

To be blunt, I’m not a big fan of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. But my animosity isn’t because OECD bureaucrats threatened to have me arrested and thrown in a Mexican jail.

Instead, I don’t like the Paris-based bureaucracy because it pushes a statist agenda of bigger government. This Center for Freedom and Prosperity study has all the gory details, revealing that OECD bureaucrats endorsed Obamacare, supported the failed stimulus, and are big advocates of a value-added tax for America.

And I am very upset that the OECD gets a giant $100 million-plus subsidy every year from American taxpayers. For all intents and purposes, we’re paying for a bunch of left-wing bureaucrats so they can recommend that the United States adopt that policies that have caused so much misery in Europe. And to add insult to injury, these socialist pencil pushers receive tax-free salaries.

And now, just when you thought things couldn’t get worse, the OECD has opened a new front in its battle against America. The bureaucrats from Paris have climbed into bed with the hard left at the AFL-CIO and are pushing a class-warfare agenda. Next Wednesday, the two organizations will be at the union’s headquarters for a panel on “Divided We Stand – Tackling Growing Inequality Now.”

Co-sponsoring a panel at the AFL-CIO’s offices, it should be noted, doesn’t necessarily make an organization guilty of left-wing activism and mis-use of American tax dollars. But when you look at other information on the OECD’s website, it quickly becomes apparent that the Paris-based bureaucracy has launched a new project to promote class-warfare.

(more…)

OLYMPIA, Wash. – Hundreds of protesters are converging on the state capitol in Olympia, Washington to protest cuts in K-12 education spending, and promote various plans to restore that funding.

We wish we could be on hand to join the protest – but for very different reasons. The teachers unions and Occupy crowd want higher taxes on those they call rich. Gov. Christine Gregoire wants a sales tax increase or the unthinkable – a school year shortened by four days.

Those are the only two choices they’re offering. What a crock!

The fact is the state of Washington, like the entire nation, is embroiled in a vicious economic recession. That means people are making less money and paying fewer taxes. And that, in turn, means government institutions like public schools are facing financial problems.

When a private sector company has money problems, it necessarily cuts costs. While we realize that Washington schools have already cut a lot from their budgets, we doubt they’ve looked under every rock.

Every school district in the state should open its teachers union collective bargaining agreement and start identifying costs that could be frozen or cut.

We guarantee there are many, including automatic, annual step raises for teachers (regardless of performance), free or low-cost employee insurance coverage, free or low-cost retirement pensions, reimbursement for unused sick or personal days, seniority bonuses, retirement bonuses, longevity bonuses, salaries and benefits for union officials who do not teach, etc.

The list of pricey provisions in a typical teachers union contract is quite long. That’s why most school districts spend 75-80 percent of their budgets on labor costs.

(more…)

From The Hill:

Supercommittee member Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) accused Democrats on Monday of torpedoing the deficit supercommittee because a success would have “stepped on” President Obama’s campaign narrative.

Speaking Monday on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Toomey said there’s “something to” suggestions that Democrats had an incentive to see the supercommittee fail.

“That goes to the asymmetry of the incentives and I think there was something to that,” Toomey said. “The president’s fundamental campaign message was to run against Congress — never mind the fact that half of Congress is controlled by the Democrats, but that’s his purpose, and certainly an agreement in this committee would have stepped on that narrative for the president.”

(more…)

We last week passed the $15 trillion national debt mark.  It continues hurtling upward, almost completely unabated.

We the People did our job and then some in the historic 2010 election, delivering more than 70 new Republicans to the Congress – on their promises to rein in out-of-control Washington spending.

We sent these folks to D.C. in large part to prohibit President Barack Obama and his Democrats from continuing to explode the budget – and the deficits and debt along with it – the way they had when exclusively in the Majority in 2009 and 2010.

So when President Obama campaigns asking for reelection and more D.C. Democrats – to undo this “do nothing” Congress – remember that stopping Obama and his Party colleagues was what We the People elected these “do-nothings” to do.

Serving as an impediment (modest though it may be) to the Democrat fiscal train wreck is, in fact, doing something.

(more…)

Some people have asked why I’m so agitated about the possibility that Republicans may acquiesce to tax increases as part of the Supercommittee negotiations.

Rather than get into a lengthy discourse about the proper role of the federal government or an analysis of how the Bush-Obama spending binge worsened America’s fiscal situation, I think this chart from a previous post says it all (click to enlarge).

Republicans are considering a surrender on taxes because they are afraid that a deadlock will lead to a sequester, which would mean automatic budget savings. And the sequester, according to these politicians, would “cut” the budget too severely.

But as the chart illustrates, that is utter nonsense.

There are only budget cuts if you use dishonest Washington budget math, which magically turns spending increases into spending cuts simply because the burden of government isn’t expanding faster than it potentially could.

If we use honest math, we can see what this debate is really about. Should we raise taxes so that government spending can grow by more than $2 trillion over the next 10 years?

Or should we have a sequester so that the burden of federal spending climbs by “only” $2 trillion?

The fact that this is even an issue tells us a lot about whether the GOP has purged itself of the big-government virus of the Bush years. (more…)

According to the Institute for Truth in Accounting (IFTA), Connecticut has been identified as the top financial “sinkhole” state in the nation. IFTA, a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization that works for greater accounting transparency across all levels of government and business, reports that the Constitution state is at the top of a list of five states which are in the worst financial position. According to the organization’s Financial State of the States report, Connecticut has $29.4 billion worth of assets, but only $10.1 billion are available to pay $63.4 billion of bills as they come due. In addition, each Connecticut taxpayer’s financial burden is $41,200.

The report indicates that the other four states considered to be financial “sinkholes” are New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, and Kentucky, all of which have a per taxpayer burden of over $23,000. However, Wyoming, North Dakota, Nebraska, Utah and South Dakota are considered “Sunshine States” because either a per taxpayer’s surplus or nominal per taxpayer’s burden exists in these states.

Interestingly, Republican Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a “Sunshine State,” was invited to Hartford by Democratic and Working Families Party Governor, Dannel Malloy, of Connecticut for a regional economic summit in October. Gov. Heineman’s description of his success in bringing about the largest tax cut in his state’s history, and Nebraska’s 4.2% unemployment rate- the second lowest in the nation- drew a sharp contrast to Gov. Malloy’s explanation of his experience in “straigtening out the state’s finances” by enacting the largest tax increase in his state’s history.

“I believe we’re moving in the right direction,” Mr. Malloy said. “The reason I did what I did with respect to the budget was so that I could look business in the face and say, ‘Listen, I believe we’ve got the bulk of our problem behind us. We’ve balanced a budget. We’ve taken the steps necessary to wrestle a structural deficit to the ground and we move forward.’ ”

Sheila Weinberg, founder and CEO of IFTA, however, disagrees. Ms. Weinberg said that Connecticut’s “state officials say their budgets are balanced but do not include employee pension and healthcare obligations in their calculations.”

(more…)

An unprecedented nor’easter that ravaged the northeast last weekend with snow, wind, ice, fallen trees, and downed wires, left more than 820,000 Connecticut residences and businesses without electric power as of last Sunday. Some in Connecticut and Massachusetts remained still, after a week, without power. The storm arrived just two months after Tropical Storm Irene left nearly the same number of customers without power, some also for a week.

Many school districts in Connecticut have been closed for a full week, with school buildings that have generators having been turned into shelters for those needing hot meals and protection from evening subzero temperatures. Long lines at gas stations, reminiscent of the Carter presidency shortages, became a familiar sight in some areas. Halloween was officially “cancelled” in many towns, and many small businesses, already struggling due to both the economy, in general, as well as recent tax increases in Connecticut, have now suffered two full weeks of losses this year due to the lack of power.

Connecticut Light & Power (CL&P), a subsidiary of Northeast Utilities (NU), the state’s main electric utility,  reports that storm-related repairs are expected to cost between $75 million and $100 million. The company, which, like other utility companies affected by the storm, had to import line crews from other states, set a goal of 99% restoration of power by midnight, November 6th, a goal it was unable to meet.

But the serious tangle of trees and wires on the ground also mirrors the messy mixture of honest outrage of Connecticut residents and the political grandstanding of the state’s Democratic politicians who have had, in fact, a marriage of convenience with the mega-utility. 

In response to the anger and frustration of Connecticut residents and businessowners, there is plenty of Democratic finger-pointing and blaming to go around. Democratic and Working Families Party Governor Dannel Malloy, and Democratic lawmakers, are vowing to hold CL&P’s feet to the fire. Democratic Speaker of the State House, Christopher Donovan, a candidate for Congress, has suggested that CL&P be fined for not restoring power to customers sooner. Democratic Attorney General George Jepsen has called for an investigation into the utility company. And Jeff Butler, chief operating officer of CL&P, appears always ready to draw fire with his statements about how the company is “frustrated” that it has not been able to obtain more line crews, and how it has not met its stated goals. An interesting cast of characters, many of whom are also prepping Connecticut residents for rate increases to pay for the restoration for two major storms or “fines,” if they are imposed.

There are some legitimate problems with CL&P.

(more…)

For years we’ve been preaching the same fundamental message – public schools have more of a spending problem than a revenue problem.

And the spending problem is largely caused by skyrocketing labor costs and stubborn unions that refuse to make any concessions during hard times.

The union’s answer, of course, is to raise taxes to provide more revenue for public schools. As long as struggling taxpayers cough up more money, teachers won’t have to give up their perks, and everything will be back to normal, right?

Not according to the voters of Colorado, who had the good sense to soundly reject a ballot proposal Tuesday that would have increased income and sales taxes to help fund public schools. The proposal died an ugly death, with 64 percent of voters saying no.

The main supporters of the measure were the usual suspects: School boards, the Colorado Education Association, and one very wealthy state senator, Rollie Heath, who can afford higher taxes.

(more…)

I have sometimes wondered whether it is accurate to say that Republicans are the “Stupid Party.” We’ll soon know the answer to that question. As part of the debt limit agreement, the politicians agreed to set up a “Super Committee” comprised of six Republicans and six Democrats that are responsible for producing at least $1.2 trillion of supposed deficit reduction. But the Democrats appointed a group of hardcore leftists to the super committee, which means that it is virtually impossible to get the necessary seven votes for a good agreement. Indeed, the more relevant question is whether one or more of the Republicans surrenders to a big tax hike.

Fortunately, there is an alternative. The law says that there will be automatic spending reductions if the super committee does not reach an agreement. The political establishment in Washington thinks that this outcome – known as sequestration – would be horrible. They say that a sequester would mean “savage” and “draconian” budget cuts. The only “responsible” approach, we are told, is to go along with a tax increase. This is hogwash. The automatic spending cuts are only “cuts” using Washington’s dishonest budget math. Here’s a chart (click to enlarge) showing how much spending will grow over the next 10 years, and the relatively tiny reduction in budgetary expansion that will be caused if there is a sequester.

We’ve actually been down this path before. There was a small sequester back in the mid-1980s, shortly after the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law was enacted. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but the sequestration helped restrain the growth of spending and helped bring about a record amount of deficit reduction in 1987.

(more…)

There is a word missing from the “solutions” offered by both Democrats and Republicans to the searing economic crisis visited upon America by a combination of craven financial speculators, complacent regulators, feckless politicians and not a little bit of greed amongst many borrowers.

That word is “sell.”

It is only in the selling of surplus manufactures – as Adam Smith taught us – that new income enters the economic system, with the corollary effect of demonstrating, maintaining and advancing the  institutional and operations frameworks for national competitiveness.

So we must ask ourselves, what is America selling to the world? (more…)

“It’s not class warfare, it’s simple math!”

That’s how President Obama defended the tax-the-rich foundation of his so-called American Jobs Act.  The President’s rhetoric was, of course, overreaching, as it so often is when he is in campaign mode, and none other than the Associated Press took him to task for his overzealous, inaccurate generalization that the rich are not paying their “fair share.”

Here’s the President setting up a straw man and then knocking him down with the practiced skill of a populist debater. “It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million… Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires,” Obama said. “That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that.”

Well, middle-income households shouldn’t be paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than high-income households, and, of course, they aren’t.  As the AP pointed out, the rich, are (Mr. Buffett, apparently, notwithstanding), in fact, paying the highest marginal tax rates, as they should. On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government according to AP’s Stephen Ohlemacher.  The ten percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They contribute over 70 percent of federal income tax revenue, says the Congressional Budget Office. (more…)