Get Out of Debt Card

By Rich Kozlovich

(Editor's Note:  I originally wrote and published this article on January 30, 2013 and May 2, 2017, and it seems I have to keep publishing it.  RK)

What is the news worth knowing and why don’t we know it?  Let’s just deal with domestic issues, primarily the budget and the nation’s debt.  There is more hot air circulating about this than there is even about Lance and Oprah.  Most of it meaningless because the economy really is far worse than the main stream media reports and important facts are being ignored by those in leadership positions!  Why?

Let’s start with the cost of regulations, because they will amount to the same thing to business and the consumers, higher costs.  It was estimated that it would cost the American consumer 1.75 trillion dollars to pay for the regulations imposed by the federal government.  Although that number is disputed because of the way in which that figure was computed, it has to be recognized that it is high and we know it is growing.  And it is the consumer that pays those costs, because as businesses costs go up prices go up.  At least until the costs get so high that they go out of business because the consumer can no longer afford it.   

According to Warner Todd Huston  on January 16^th there has been an increase of  $518 Billion in Regulations Since Obama Took Office.  He goes on to say:

Despite Obama's promise to cut unnecessary regulations, his administration issued $236.7 billion in new rules in 2012.   According to a report by the American Action Forum, headed by former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the direct costs of the regulations force American businesses to waste 87 million man-hours to fill out regulatory paperwork. Adding Obama's 2012 regulatory costs to that of the rest of his first term adds up to a total of $518 billion in new costs forced onto an already anemic economic recovery. ….Indeed, in 2011, Obama released a plan claiming he would cut regulations and reduce the burden on the business sector. Not long after, Obama operative Cass Sunstein praised Obama, claiming that his plan would work "to eliminate unjustified regulatory costs and to reduce burdens." Sunstein went on to say that Obama had done more to cut government red tape than any president in recent history.   Sunstein was given one Pinocchio for his misleading claims, and for good reason, as Obama's small cuts have been dwarfed by the increases.   American Action Forum says that the costs of regulations have "added tremendous costs to the economy" and finds that the year 2012 tops every year in the past twelve in "terms of final rule cost." 

Regulations are an unseen tax on the poor.  Since these impositions, whether needed or not, raise the cost of all products and services. 

On January 14, 2013 Hans Bader wrote and article, Obamacare Imposes New Fees, Cost Increases On The Public, dealing with this issue reporting:

Obamacare was sold to the public based on the fallacy that it would cut healthcare costs, but each month brings additional evidence that it will drive up healthcare costs instead. The New York Times reported last week that “health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers. Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own. In California, Aetna is proposing rate increases of as much as 22 percent, Anthem Blue Cross 26 percent and Blue Shield of California 20 percent for some of those policy holders.” Earlier, Obamacare resulted in hikes of 41-47 percent in health insurance premiums for some policyholders in Connecticut. The Times notes that in “other states, like Florida and Ohio, insurers have been able to raise rates by at least 20 percent for some policy holders

 On January 17^th John Hayward wrote an article, ‘Uncle Sam’s hoarded, wasted wealth”, noting that it is impossible for Washington to go bankrupt due to lack of assets.  He says that:

The federal government is racking up a trillion dollars in bills each year that it cannot pay.  It long ago passed the point where any private-sector business or individual would have been required to declare bankruptcy, if not face charges of mental incompetence to manage their own affairs. But Washington is not really “poor.”  It is very rich in assets, which it could sell or lease to pay its bills, without raising anyone’s taxes.  Many of these assets would produce health economic activity in the hands of private investors, while Uncle Sam leaves them strewn carelessly across the landscape, like toys he refuses to put away after playing with them.

The Institute for Energy Research just released a new study that inventories these “vastly underutilized” federal assets:

Federal real property totals over 900,000 assets with a combined area of over 3 billion square feet and more than 41 million acres of land. Additionally, the federal government owns over 600 million acres of lands and minerals onshore, and owns or manages a total of approximately 755 million acres of onshore subsurface mineral estate.  Offshore, the federal government owns some 1.76 billion acres of lands and mineral estate, extending out 200 nautical miles from our shores.  The federal government’s total mineral estate holdings are therefore about 2.515 billion acres of lands.  Thus, the federal government’s mineral estate land holdings surpass the total surface land area of the nation of Canada.

In fiscal year 2009, federal agencies reported 45,190 underutilized buildings, an increase of 1,830 underutilized buildings from the previous fiscal year. In fiscal year 2009, these underutilized buildings accounted for $1.66 billion in annual operating costs, according to the General Accounting Office (GAO). The majority of federally owned and leased space is held by the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Postal Service, and the General Services Administration (GSA). For example, the federal government’s landlord, the GSA, owns or leases 9,600 assets with more than 362 million square feet of workspace. According to the GSA, in a 2009 report, almost 40 percent of its assets were under performing. In October 2010, a congressional study evaluated the savings that could occur based on better administration of the government’s above ground assets that totaled over several hundred billion dollars.

How much is all this worth?

IER estimated the worth of the government’s oil and gas technically recoverable resources to the economy to be $128 trillion, about 8 times our national debt. Further, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that state and national coffers could generate almost $150 billion over a 10 year period from royalties, rents, and bonuses if these resources were immediately opened to oil and gas leasing. The CBO study estimates are considered to be conservative when compared to historical data and estimates by other analysts and do not consider the earnings from taxes paid by these industries. IER estimated the government’s coal resources in the lower 48 states to be worth $22.5 trillion for a total worth to the economy of fossil fuels on federal lands of $150.5 trillion, over 9 times our national debt. Most of the coal resources in Alaska are deemed to be federally owned and are estimated to be 60 percent higher than those in the entire lower 48 states but are not included in these estimates.

So why are we in debt?  The other thing that is discussed a great deal is the Debt Ceiling and Default.  Both of which are apparently not being reported properly.

On January 14, 2013  J.D. Foster, Ph.D. wrote this article.  “Debt Ceiling: Default Not at Issue, Federal Spending Is”.  He says;

“The only way the federal government would default on its debt in the event the debt ceiling remains unchanged is for the Treasury to choose to default—…... Suggestions to the contrary in the press and elsewhere are simply inaccurate and shameful.  The amount of debt the federal government is allowed to issue is set by statute. Federal spending is similarly established by law. Treasury is at once prohibited by law from issuing additional debt above the limit and obligated by law to spend certain amounts for designated purposes. …..If the federal government exhausted its financial management tools, then government spending would be limited to incoming receipts. At that point, the law setting a debt limit and the laws in place directing government spending would conflict—something would have to give…... Very simply, reaching the debt limit means spending is limited by revenue arriving at the Treasury and is guided by prioritization among the government’s obligations. How the government would decide to meet these obligations under the circumstances is a matter of some conjecture.

One thing is clear.  When those in responsible positions don’t tell the truth and those in the media don’t report the truth we have to ask why?  It is clear that the national debt could be paid, the money owed to the Social Security Administration could be repaid, and Medicare and Medicaid could be solvent.  Admittedly there would still have to be changes, but when we also realize the interest on the national debt in fiscal year 2011 was $454 billion, the highest ever in spite of the lowest interest rate in 200 years,  it must become clear that ending the debt is the first change necessary.  And apparently that can be done. 

The questions that once again must be asked are these. What is the news worth knowing, why don’t we know it, and why aren't we hearing about this on the six o’clock news? 

Liquidating Federal Assets: A Promising Tool for Ending the U.S. Debt Crisis

by William F. Shughart II and Carl P. Close (Revised 4/12/17) @ Independent Institute

The national debt may be the biggest problem in decades that federal policymakers have failed to confront. Its importance is measurable not only in dollars—almost $20 trillion[1] ($61,552 per capita[2])—but also in the grave threat it poses to the American financial system and therefore to the health and well-being of private businesses and households. A default on a scheduled federal debt payment, caused by the government’s lack of funds necessary to service its debt obligations, could spark a fire sale on U.S. Treasury securities, prompt a sharp fall in the value of the dollar, and launch a rapid “flight to quality” as investors and dollar holders flee to the perceived safety of other nations’ bonds and currencies—all culminating in a U.S. financial meltdown.

This worst-case scenario is not the only concern. Even if the Treasury has overdraft protection in the form of the Federal Reserve,[3] the large debt servicing requirements exact a heavy toll on public services and economic growth.

This Executive Summary examines the potential for vastly improving the U.S. government’s fiscal position by using a method seldom utilized for the purposes of federal debt-reduction: the sale of federal assets.

Why Sell Federal Assets?

The sale of federal assets for the purpose of debt-reduction warrants serious consideration mostly because of one fundamental issue: America’s debt obligations are so huge that traditional methods for improving the government’s fiscal stance—namely, by raising more tax revenue, printing more money, or refinancing/reissuing government debt—are inadequate to the task and would create a host of major problems.

Raising the necessary tax revenue would, for example, siphon off significant funds from businesses and households, thereby slowing the wheels of commerce and reducing household wealth. Printing money—either literally through the Treasury’s issuance of more currency or figuratively through the Federal Reserve’s open market purchases of government securities—would cause price inflation that distorts relative prices and makes them more volatile, reduces real incomes, undermines savings and capital accumulation, and creates political pressures for counterproductive “remedies,” such as wage and price controls. Government debt refinancing/reissuance would merely postpone the inevitable day of fiscal reckoning and burden future generations with debt obligations which they had no say in creating.

The sale of federal assets avoids these problems. In addition, compared to the standard alternatives, asset liquidation could be better tied to debt reduction so that the revenues are not diverted to other government programs; its uniqueness promotes transparency. Moreover, basic economic theory predicts that federal asset liquidation would result not in the slowing of commerce and the reduction of household wealth, but rather in the opposite effect. As ownership and control of the formerly government-owned assets move to the private sector, profit-motivated business owners and entrepreneurs gain incentives to employ those assets in ways that maximize their economic value.
Selling federal assets to the non-profit sector would also improve economic efficiency. Non-profit organizations that purchase federal assets thereby gain the ability to manage those resources in a manner consistent with their missions, rather than relying on the indirect method of lobbying the government to treat those assets in ways they desire. Conservation groups, for example, can gain the ability to maintain biodiversity in sensitive wildlife habitats and they can eventually choose to resell some of their holdings in order to finance the purchase of more environmentally significant natural resources.

Selling Buried Treasure

Any effort to assess the revenue potential of federal asset liquidation must start with an inventory of federal assets, including buildings, land, infrastructure, and mineral deposits. This objective is partially met by the Federal Real Property Management System,[4] a federal “database of all real property under the custody and control of all executive branch agencies” (excluding national forests, parks, wildlife refuges, and property deemed sensitive for reasons of national security).
According to its FY 2015 Summary of Findings, federal holdings amounted to 340,353 buildings and 49.7 million acres of land, including federal properties on foreign lands.[5] A more inclusive study by the Congressional Research Service (2014) estimates that federal land holdings total 640 million acres.[6] This sum, however, omits the 1.76 billion acres of federally owned portions of the Outer Continental Shelf.

The Federal Real Property Council in 2006 appraised the value of federal land, buildings, and infrastructure at $1.3 trillion.[7] As large as this estimate is, one class of assets not included in that inventory would likely bring in far more revenue: deposits of oil, natural gas, and coal on federal property, onshore and offshore. This includes technically recoverable resources totaling 1,194 billion barrels of oil and 2,150 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.[8] Estimated recoverable coal reserves on federal lands total 7.4 billion tons.[9] The considerable cost of developing these reserves must also be factored in. Assuming that energy developers bid one-third to one-half the current market prices of these commodities, total revenues would amount to $23.3 trillion to $35 trillion, compared to today’s U.S. debt of $20 trillion.[10]

Any estimate of revenues from federal asset liquidation is, of course, fraught with uncertainties. Variables subject to change include prices, costs, technology, consumer demand, and discount rates. Moreover, a large and rapid sell-off would significantly affect asset values. Despite these caveats, estimates can be helpful guides to policymakers as they compare asset liquidation to policy alternatives that come with their own uncertainties.

Whatever the precise value that the marketplace would set for access (or exploration) rights, it is clear that selling them would reap ample rewards for debt reduction, probably more than all other asset classes combined. Debt hawks would therefore be wise to keep their eyes on this prize.

The Road to Federal Solvency

Politics is about building effective coalitions. Can a coalition form to successfully campaign for federal asset liquidation? Grounds for optimism come from an existing federal asset program. Title V of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, gave homeless-assistance organizations the right of first refusal to acquire federal properties. By giving them a stake in the sale of federal assets, Title V encouraged advocates for the homeless to support passage of the Federal Asset Sale and Transfer Act nearly 30 years later.[11]

The law, signed by President Barack Obama in December 2016, is expected to raise at least $8 billion, exclusively for debt reduction, through the sale of unneeded, underutilized surplus federal buildings and associated real estate.[12] Although this sum would barely put a dent in a $20 trillion national debt, it takes an essential step: it provides proof of concept. Just as homeless groups had material reasons to support the 2016 asset liquidation law, a broader coalition of interest groups could be formed and incentivized to support a bold initiative to sell a much larger portfolio of federal assets, including the rights to most oil, natural gas, and coal deposits on federal lands.

The road to national solvency is paved with sales receipts from the U.S. government’s vast property holdings, particularly its untapped treasure trove of energy deposits. The time has come to take that road and enlist others for the journey.

The public debt clock is ticking. Let’s get started.

Notes
[1] “Federal Debt: Total Public Debt.” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Dec. 14, 2016.
[2] “United States’ National Debt per Capita from 1990 to 2015 (in U.S. Dollars).” Statista.
[3] Lynch, Sarah N., and Jason Lange. “Fed Said to Have Emergency Plan to Intervene if U.S. Defaulted on Debt.” Reuters. May 11, 2015.
[4] “Federal Real Property Profile Management System (FRPP MS).” U.S. General Services Administration.
[5] FRPP Summary Report Library. Government Accountability Office. 2015.
[6] Vincent, C., L. Hanson, and J. Bjelopera. Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data. Congressional Research Service. Dec. 29, 2014.
[7] FY 2005 Federal Real Property Report: An Overview of the U.S. Federal Government’s Real Property Assets. Federal Real Property Council. June 2006.
[8] Federal Assets Above and Below Ground. Institute for Energy Research. Jan. 17, 2013.
[9] Federal Coal Program Programmatic EIS Scoping Report. Bureau of Land Management, January 2017, Table 5-1, p. 5-16. [10] Prices on 4/11/17: WTI crude oil: $53 per barrel; natural gas: $3.17 per thousand cubic feet; Powder River Basin coal: $11.42 per ton. [11] National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. “Letter in Support of the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016.” Feb. 10, 2016.
[12] Doyle, Michael. “Obama Signs Bill by California’s Rep. Denham to Get Rid of Surplus Federal Properties.” McClatchy DC Bureau. Dec. 16, 2016.

SFPPR News & Analysis Features

Trump Lets You Vote on Controversial 2020 Census Changes - The OMB’s decision on whether to implement Barack Hussein Obama’s plan to change the census to create a Middle Eastern-North African racial category and other government surveys is only part of the story. While the Obama Census Bureau has endorsed these changes for the 2020 census, it will not make its final recommendations until April. The Congress has the final say in approving the final wording of census questions..........

Texas Revolt: Over Cibolo Private Toll Road Reveals Bridge to NAFTA Trade - Much of the U.S. portion of the NAFTA Superhighway, consisting of intercontinental infrastructure connecting Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, is already built, quietly financed by successive congressional appropriations over the years and there is no doubt the establishment is anxious to quietly add bits and pieces to it until it’s eventually all done – no matter how long it takes. Texans and all Americans need to reawaken to the reality of the globalist vision of North American integration through NAFTA consisting of open borders and free trade one building block at a time. This building block is called Cibolo............
 
Belarus: Whose Provocation? There will be no Maidan in Minsk. Hence, no need for regime change. There was further a self-serving message to the West: do not support the opposition to try to kick out “the last dictator of Europe” or else there will be a Russian intervention. Get it? Loud and clear............

Michael Mann Vs the Truth at Congressional Climate Hearing

by James Delingpole 31 Mar 2017

Apart from being a tetchy, hotheaded, rude, bullying, cackhanded, ignorant, malevolent and embarrassingly useless excuse for a scientist, Professor Michael Mann – the guy behind the serially-discredited Hockey Stick – is also the most outrageous liar.

Mann used often to claim that he was a Nobel Prizewinner – till someone unhelpfully pointed out that he was but one of hundreds of scientists who contributed to Assessment Reports by the IPCC (which did win the Nobel Prize in 2007)

This week the bald-pated shyster was up to his old tricks again, telling a string of porkie pies at a climate science hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Given how litigious the mendacious, bloviating poltroon can be – he’s currently engaged in at least two defamation suits: one against Tim Ball, the other against Mark Steyn – I obviously have to tread very carefully here. 

(Editor's Note:  It's my understanding Mann lost his suit against Ball in Canada because he refused to turn over information what Mann calls his "dirty laundry" and Ball didn't use the "fair use" defense. He used the "truth" defence, which in Canada is known as the "Scorched Earth Defense".  And in the Steyn case Mann has done all he can to defer judgement on a case he initiated.  These were what's called SLAPP cases - of which he now accuses Steyn.   RK)

So I’d just like to say, as delicately and politely as I can to the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University:

“Liar, liar. Your pants on fire.”

Here’s the evidence:

Porkie Number One

Mann told the Congressional hearing he had no association or affiliation with the Climate Accountability Institute (one of the numerous ad hoc organisations formed in order to give the harassment of climate sceptics an air of scientific credibility).
Yet according to his CV he sits on the Climate Accountability Institute’s advisory board and has done since 2014.

Porkie Number Two

Mann denied having called his fellow climate scientist and special witness, former Georgia Tech Judith Curry, a “denier”.

“A number of statements have been attributed to me. I don’t believe I’ve called anybody a denier,” he solemnly told the hearing.

To which Judith Curry, sitting next to him, replied: “It’s in your written testimony. Go read it again.”
You can watch the moment where Curry smacks him down below:



Mann then proceeded indignantly to quibble that though he might have called Curry a “climate science denier” he hadn’t called her a “climate change denier”. [As if there’s any meaningful distinction between the two slurs]. But this claim – as Stephen McIntyre notes – was also a lie..:.......(follow the link to see the tweets in this article)

 

Porkie Number Three

Mann – busily trying to develop the case that climate scientists like himself are the innocent victims of vicious slurs – was asked whether he’d ever dismissed another of the expert witnesses on the panel, Roger Pielke Jr with the phrase “carnival barker”.   You’d have to provide me with the context. I don’t remember everything I have said or done,” said Mann.......And here’s Mann again using the insult – clearly a personal favourite – on Judith Curry:.......(follow the link to see the tweets in this article)

Porkie Number Four

Mann, in yet another bid to present himself as a persecuted martyr of anti-science Republicans, claimed that Joe Barton – the Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee – had demanded all his “personal emails and correspondence with other scientists.”

This, again, was a lie.

Barton had asked for Mann’s funding sources – which Mann, in his congressional testimony, said was fair game – but not for his personal emails.

Here, once again, Steve McIntyre has the evidence........(follow the link to see the tweets in this article)

Michael Mann claims to be an expert on climate change and is frequently called on by official panels like this Congressional committee to speak on behalf of the scientific establishment.

Is there anyone who still takes this guy seriously?

Energy & Environmental Newsletter

By John Droz, Jr. -- May 1, 2017

The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED) is an informal coalition of individuals and organizations interested in improving national, state, and local energy and environmental policies. Our premise is that technical matters like these should be addressed by using Real Science (please consult WiseEnergy.org for more information).

A key element of AWED’s efforts is public education. Towards that end, every three weeks we put together a newsletter to balance what is found in the mainstream media about energy and the environment. We appreciate MasterResource for their assistance in publishing this information.
Some of the more important articles in this issue are:

US Tax Subsidies For Renewables Now Far Outpaces Fossil Fuels
Wind Industry Titan Soaks Up Billions in Tax Subsidies
Oklahoma ends wind power subsidy
Solar Power: An Environmental Disaster
The Real Threat is ‘Big Environment’
53 year old coal plant generates more electricity that all wind facilities combined
DOE study on electric grid to be done by “renewable skeptic”
We must protect Texas’ military installations from encroaching wind turbines
Failed Economics Of Renewable Energy: The Facts
End of Global Warming Debate — It’s As Easy As 1-2-3
Every green initiative imposed on us by politicians has ended in disaster
Exiting the Paris Climate Agreement
Peer-Reviewed: Paris climate promises will reduce temps in 2100 by 0.05°C
Please: Sign Petition Against Paris Agreement
Real science must guide policy
Major U.S. university publishes ‘Communism for Kids’

Greed Energy Economics:

US Tax Subsidies For Renewables Now Far Outpaces Fossil Fuels
Wind Industry Titan Soaks Up Billions in Tax Subsidies
Oklahoma ends wind power subsidy
NC Tax credits to renewable energy producers = $1.6 billion
Under Scrutiny, Stanford Professor Deletes Data Showing Job Loss from Renewables Transition
The High Cost of Renewable Subsidies
Wind projects could be paid to stop producing power

Turbine Health Matters:

Turbine Flicker and Stray Voltage are complaints in Iowa
Winds of Woe
Industrial Wind Energy and Dirty Electricity

Renewable Energy Destroying Ecosystems:

Solar Power: An Environmental Disaster
The real threat is ‘Big Environment’
ABC: Wind Energy and Birds – Understanding the Threats
Offshore East Coast Wind Development Threatens Endangered Bird
Protect the Eagles
Big Questions for ABC Birds
Environmentalists Kill a Wind Project Near Las Vegas
Federal Court Kills Large Oregon Wind Project

Miscellaneous Energy News:

53 year old coal plant generates more electricity that all wind facilities combined
DOE study on electric grid, to be done by “renewable skeptic”
We must protect Texas’ military installations from encroaching wind turbines
Failed Economics Of Renewable Energy: The Facts
“Conservatives for Clean Energy” Backed by Liberal Interest Groups
The way out of energy crisis is not renewables
Wind Companies Get By with a Lot of Help from their Friends
Pipeline Protesters Selling Manual of Eco-terrorist Techniques
Some Media Outlets Still Ignoring Science by Blaming Fracking for Oklahoma Earthquakes
How The Ethanol Mandate Is Killing The American Prairie
Local Official Promises “No Quarter” in Wind Energy Fight
Renewable Energy Sources: Does Their Output Matter?
Concentrated solar power in the USA: a performance review
UK Reactor Takes First Further Steps Toward Fusion
A brief, good video on radiation
South Dakota Residents Share Frustrations with Wind Energy
A Second Offshore Wind Project Pitch – A Second Cool Reception
Developer offers to Move Offshore Project Further Out

Manmade Global Warming Articles:

End of Global Warming Debate — It’s As Easy As 1-2-3
Every green initiative imposed on us by politicians has ended in disaster
Exiting the Paris Climate Agreement
Peer-Reviewed: Paris climate promises will reduce temps in 2100 by 0.05°C
Please: Sign Petition Against Paris Agreement
Real science must guide policy
Major U.S. university publishes ‘Communism for Kids’
G7 Energy Ministers Fail to Agree on Climate Change
Good Comments on the “Science March”
The March for What?
March For Science a Dud
Fake Warming + A Neglected Sun =  Manmade Climate Change
Judicial Watch Sues EPA for Records from Encrypted App
Earth Day has become polluted by ideology and ignorance
CBS Evening News Runs Story on Climate Realist
Germany’s Once Powerful Green Party in Serious Decline
Climate Scientist Urges Trump Not To Cave
Michael Mann vs the Truth
The Climate Change Information on the Interior Department’s Website Is Almost Gone

See Prior AWED Newsletters

Lessons from the Reagan Tax Cuts

May 1, 2017 by Dan Mitchell

 

In a column in today’s  New York Times, Steven Rattner attacks Trump’s tax plan for being unrealistic. Since I also think the proposal isn’t very plausible, I’m not overly bothered by that message. However, Rattner tries to bolster his case by making very inaccurate and/or misleading claims about the Reagan tax cuts.

Given my admiration for the Gipper, those assertions cry out for correction. Starting with his straw man claim that the tax cuts were supposed to pay for themselves.

…four decades ago…the rollout of what proved to be among our country’s greatest economic follies — the alchemistic belief that huge tax cuts can pay for themselves by unleashing faster economic growth.

Neither Reagan nor his administration claimed that the tax cuts would be self-financing.

Instead, they simply pointed out that the economy would grow faster and that this would generate some level of revenue feedback.
Which is exactly what happened. Heck, even leftists agree that there’s a Laffer Curve. The only disagreement is the point where tax receipts are maximized (and I don’t care which side is right on that issue since I don’t want to enable bigger government).
Anyhow, Rattner also wants us to believe the tax cuts hurt the economy.

…the plan immediately made a bad economy worse.

This is remarkable blindness and/or bias. The double dip recession of 1980-1982 was the result of economic distortions caused by bad monetary policy (by the way, Reagan deserves immense credit for having the moral courage to wean the country from easy-money policy).

But even if one wants to ignore the impact of monetary policy, how can you blame the second dip of the recession, which began in July 1981, on a tax cut that was signed into law in August 1981?!?
Moreover, while Reagan’s tax cut was adopted in 1981, it was phased in over several years. And because of previously legislated tax increases, as well as inflation-driven bracket creep (prior to 1985, households were pushed into higher tax brackets by inflation even though their real income did not rise), the economy did not enjoy a tax cut until 1983. Not coincidentally, that’s when the economy began to boom.

Rattner even wants us to believe the Reagan tax plan caused higher interest rates.

…the Reagan tax cut increased the budget deficit, helping elevate interest rates over 20 percent, which in turn contributed to the double-dip recession that ensued. The stock market fell by more than 20 percent.

The deficit jumped mostly because of the double-dip recession, just as red ink always climbs when there is an economic downturn.

And interest rates were high largely because inflation was so high (lenders don’t like to deliberately lose money).

But the most amazing part of the above excerpt is that Rattner wants us to believe the Reagan tax cuts caused the part of the double-dip recession that occurred in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was still president.

That’s sort of like Paul Krugman trying to imply that Estonia’s 2008 recession was caused by spending cuts that took place in 2009!

You also won’t be surprised to learn that Rattner selectively likes Keynesianism.

Big deficits can sometimes be advisable, as they were in aiding recovery from the 2009 recession.

I guess he wants us to applaud Obama’s so-called stimulus and be impressed by the very anemic recovery that followed.

But we’re supposed to overlook the booming economy of the Reagan years.
Last but not least, it’s noteworthy that Rattner – in spite of his bias – endorses part of the Trump tax plan.

I understand our need to lower the corporate tax rate to compete with other countries and adjust other provisions to keep companies and jobs here. Critics are correct that our business-tax structure encourages companies to ship jobs and even themselves overseas.

And when even folks like Rattner realize that the current corporate tax system is indefensible, that explains why I’m semi-hopeful that we’ll get a lower rate at some point in the near future.
Now let’s look at broader lessons from the Reagan tax cuts.

Lesson #1: Lower Tax Rates Can Boost Growth

We can draw some conclusions by looking at how low-tax economies such as Singapore and Hong Kong outperform the United States. Or we can compare growth in the United States with the economic stagnation in high-tax Europe.

We can also compare growth during the Reagan years with the economic malaise of the 1970s.

Moreover, there’s lots of academic evidence showing that lower tax rates lead to better economic performance.

The bottom line is that people respond to incentives. When tax rates climb, there’s more “deadweight loss” in the economy. So when tax rates fall, output increases.

Lesson #2: Some Tax Cuts “Pay for Themselves”

The key insight of the Laffer Curve is not that tax cuts are self financing. Instead, the lesson is simply that certain tax cuts (i.e., lower marginal rates on productive behavior) lead to more economic activity. Which is another way of saying that certain tax cuts lead to more taxable income.
It’s then an empirical issue to assess the level of revenue feedback.

In the vast majority of the cases, the revenue feedback caused by more taxable income isn’t enough to offset the revenue loss associated with lower tax rates. However, we do have very strong evidence that upper-income taxpayers actually paid more to the IRS because of the Reagan tax cuts.

This is presumably because wealthier taxpayers have much greater ability to control the timing, level, and composition of their income.

Lesson #3:Reagan Put the United States on a Path to Fiscal Balance

I already explained above why it is wrong to blame the Reagan tax cuts for the recession-driven deficits of the early 1980s. Indeed, I suspect most leftists privately agree with that assessment.
But there’s still a widespread belief that Reagan’s tax policy put the United States on an unsustainable fiscal path.

Yet the Congressional Budget Office, as Reagan left office in early 1989, projected that budget deficits, which had been consistently shrinking as a share of GDP, would continue to shrink if Reagan’s policies were left in place.

Moreover, the deficit was falling because government spending was projected to grow slower than the private sector, which is the key to good fiscal policy.

Lesson #4: Lower Tax Rates Are Just One Piece of a Larger Puzzle

Having just disgorged hundreds of words on the importance of lower tax rates, let’s close by noting that fiscal policy is just one of many factors that determines an economy’s performance.

Indeed, tax and budget issues only account for 20 percent of a nation’s economic performance according to Economic Freedom of the World.

So it’s quite possible for a nation to be relatively free even with a bad tax system, and it’s also possible for a country to be economically repressed if it has a good tax system.

And this explains why economic freedom increased in America during the Clinton years, notwithstanding the 1993 tax hike. Simply stated, it’s the overall policy mix that matters.

I’ll conclude by noting that aggregate economic freedom in America increased during the Reagan years.

And the biggest reason for the increase was better fiscal policy.

It’s possible that we may also get more economic freedom during the Trump years. Indeed, I gave him a decent score for his first 100 days.

But it takes a lot of political courage to consistently fight for economic liberty in a town that cheers statism. And even though there’s a strong case to be made that there are political benefits to good policy, I’m not overly optimistic that Trump will be another Reagan.

The Redemption of Israel

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 18 Comments Sunday, April 30, 2017 @ The Sultan Knish Blog

How strange it seems! These Hebrews in their graves,

Close by the street of this fair seaport town,

Silent beside the never-silent waves,

At rest in all this moving up and down!

But ah! what once has been shall be no more!

The groaning earth in travail and in pain

Brings forth its races, but does not restore,

And the dead nations never rise again.

The Jewish Cemetery at Newport - Longfellow

The hand of the LORD was upon me, and the LORD carried me out in a spirit, and set me down in the midst of the valley, and it was full of bones

And He said unto me: 'Son of man, can these bones live?' And I answered: 'O Lord GOD, Thou knowest.

Then He said unto me: 'Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say: Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost; we are clean cut off.

Therefore prophesy, and say unto them: Thus saith the Lord GOD: Behold, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, O My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel.

Yechezkel 37

Human beings quickly learn to take things for granted. A century ago the prospect of a Jewish state was as likely as a city on the moon. There were those who busily worked, agitated and struggled for it, but to the majority of Jews it was a distant dream. And yet as in a dream it exists. It is a matter of a plane ride for a Jew anywhere in the world to arrive there and walk its streets.

Most people think of miracles as entities of smoke and flames. As insubstantial things you cannot see
or touch. The incredible and the unbelievable. But those are wonders. Miracles are everyday things whose wonder is difficult to hold in your mind. The tree that shades the lane. The sun that shines above. A state built out of the ruins of fallen empires rising like a green shoot in springtime to the light.

Now that the State of Israel exists too many take it for granted. Others have unknowingly slipped into the narrative crafted by our enemies, whose goal is to portray the State as a terrible burden, both for the Jews and for everyone else. A burden that is best dismantled for a return to Egypt.

Miracles after all are not supposed to exist and people react badly to them. When the Jews multiplied in miraculous numbers in Egypt, Pharaoh shuddered and brought out the chains and murdered their children. When G-d threw open the gates of Egypt, still he pursued them into the falling waves.

For thousands of years, The Country That Should Not Have Been, struggled against pagan invaders. And when Israel finally fell and the Jews became exiles, for thousands of years they became The People That Should Not Have Been. Now Israel is once again, The Country That Should Not Have Been.

Arnold Toynbee proclaimed that the Jewish people were the fossils of history. And then the fossils rose again. The cemeteries disgorged their dead. A nation composed of farmers and Holocaust survivors stood off the armies of the Jordanian Legion and that of five Arab nations, each of which was many times larger than Israel. And at the end a blue and white flag waved over a new land.

Within a decade that land was bursting with productivity and industry. With settled cities and great works. With toil and labor and art and song. A land that had once been a pile of stones and dust. A relic of history had become new again.

And at the wall of the temple, priests who were the descendants of Aaron raised their hands once more to bless the people. "May the Lord bless you and keep you."

And he had.

None of this stilled the fury. The world does not like miracles. Miracles testify to the miraculous. They warn us of the limits of our powers. They wake the Pharaohs of the world out of their dreams of godhood and endless power. They remind they of that which they do not wish to be reminded of. That there is a G-d in this world. Miracles testify that they and their dreams of a thousand year Reich or a united world are mortal.

Pharaoh did not respond to G-d's wonders by bowing out. He only increased his fury and viciousness. Tyrants, whether they hold thrones or academic chairs whose scepter is the rule of the unyielding ideology of historical necessity, do not bow to miracles. Miracles only demonstrate to them that there is more in heaven and earth than had been dreamed of in their philosophies.

Pharaohs who see slaves becoming free, a nation reborn and the dead rising from the graves have one simple response, to fill the cemeteries with the dead again.

Nations which had cried unendingly, "What Shall We Do With This Accursed People", which had screamed that the Jews had seized their industries, their jobs, their governments-- suddenly discovered that the one thing worse than the exiled Jew, was the unexiled Jew.

By artful crafty propaganda, the forsaken people which had finally rebuilt its homeland were the colonizers and the hate-filled sons of an Empire that had blotted out and continued to blot out freedom and human dignity across the Middle East were its oppressed victims.

The existence of a tiny state in an otherwise Muslim Middle-East was a blow to their honor they could not endure. They might murder their own daughters for stealing a kiss with the neighbor boy and they might make their pilgrimages to London and Paris as eagerly as to Mecca, buying up everything in the stores to haul home to their villas all the while laboring under this demonstration of the superiority of the infidel's commerce and culture; but to tolerate a Jewish State was too much.

And when these modern Egyptians and their Muslim brethren gathered their armies and harnessed their steel chariots and watered them with the oil that flowed from their wells, the world smiled its awful secret smile as it saw them go on their way to drive the Jews into the sea again, as if four thousand years had passed but like a day. Theirs was the smile of those who find secret pleasure in this reassertion of a natural order devoid of miracles in which the Jews should not be.

And then another miracle happened. And another. Burning chariots filled the desert. Great armies came undone. And the Pharaohs fumed in their villas, there was a great gnashing of teeth in the halls of Moscow and all right-thinking Europeans wept.

But they did not weep for long. When a river turns to blood, Pharaohs know they can wait it out. When fire and ice fall from the sky, they may tremble but they will not bow. For the secret of the Pharaoh is that he knows that G-d may be strong but man is weak. And it is over men that Pharaohs rule.

And so the Pharaohs who had divided the borders of the Middle East and proclaimed that this group of Arabs was to be Syrians and this group of Arabs, Egyptians and that Jordan would be ruled by a Saudi King who was to now be a Jordanian King, said that if G-d can bring forth a nation out of nothing, so can they. And as the Egyptian magicians had cast their staffs into snakes, the political magicians behind the Iron Curtain and across Europe and the Middle East cast forth their staffs and behold there was a Palestinian people.

And so the Pharaohs said to G-d, "You have created a nation and we have created a nation and we shall see which nation prevails."

Where G-d had created a Jewish nation to serve him and to bring light to the world, the Palestinian nation existed for no purpose than to strangle the Jewish nation. It had no identity except the name the Roman conquerors had given to Israel when they sought to eradicate the last traces of the Jewish people from their land. And fittingly, this became the name of a people whose sole striving was to once again eradicate the Jewish people.

When the Palestinians wrote poems, it was poems of murder. When they sang songs, it was songs of death. When they gave birth to children, it was to raise them up to kill and die. Old and young, men and women, they lived for no other purpose than to kill.

Given a piece of land, they set up rockets on it. Given a house they dug tunnels under it. Given a tool, they turned it into a blade. Given a child they turned him into a weapon. And as the worshipers of Moloch had done in ages gone, they passed even their own sons and daughters through the flame.

And having cast forth their serpents, the Pharaohs of the world leaned forward eagerly to see their work. And they lavished fortunes on them. And they ceaselessly agitated on their behalf in the international organizations of the world. Whatever Israel might do for them was spurned. Eagerly they waited for the end. Eagerly they waited for the cemeteries once again to fill with the dead.

And when the staffs had been cast, the burden had increased on the people of Israel. And the Jews cried out as they sought to appease all the Pharaohs. They cried out against the redemption wishing only that they could return to the condition of slavery they had become comfortable in. They believed the Pharaohs who told them that it was only because of the redemption that they were being whipped.

They cried out in the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times and on television. Their cry is always the same. "If it were not for you, we might live in peace. If it were not for the trouble you make, the editors of the New York Times, would like us."

The cities may change. Ramses may become London and Pitom may became New York. The opinion makers may wear cassocks or coats or Armani suits or nothing at all. The broadcasts may be the gossip in the street or the transmissions of telecommunications satellites. The details change. The picture remains the same. The end of exile may be more bitter than exile itself.

Israel may be a free nation but Pharaohs do not easily give up. The Pharaoh is the representative of man's tyranny over the world. The force that built up the Tower of Babel. The power that demands that all men be slaves, whether it is in the treasure cities of Egypt or in the academic theories of dialectical materialism. There are many chains and they are forged in many ways.

The redemption of G-d is the destruction of the tyranny of man. It is the miracle that shows that no matter how the chains are forged, they can be broken and no matter how strong the sword, it can be shattered. The culmination of the first age of the history of the world which will reach its close with the final redemption of Israel is the utter annihilation of the slavery of the Pharaohs, in whatever form it comes in. It is the fall of all the images of kings and leaders men have set up to worship. It is the destruction of all privilege and power that has set itself up in place of G-d.

It is the final undoing of history as man has seen it and its completion as G-d has chosen it. A dead nation has already risen and its flag waves over Jerusalem. And when the final redemption comes, the graves too shall give up their dead.

 

Quote of the Day

No amount of truth will penetrate willful ignorance- Lloyd Marcus  

Ignorance, intolerance, violence

Using junk science marches, ignorant professors, resistance and violence to drive public policy

 

Paul Driessen

 

Recent science and climate marches demonstrated how misinformed, indoctrinated, politicized and anti-Trump these activists are – and how indifferent about condemning millions in industrialized nations and billions in developing countries to green energy poverty. Amid it all, University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole helped illustrate how the marchers became so ignorant, insensitive and intolerant.

 

It’s always amazed me how frequently academics, journalists, politicians and students confuse poisonous carbon monoxide (CO) with plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide (CO2). But Professor Cole’s April 17 article in The Nation presents unfathomable ignorance from the intellectual class that is “educating” our young people, while displaying and teaching intolerance toward countervailing facts and viewpoints.

 

Bashar al Assad’s sarin gas attack “consumed the world’s attention,” Prof. Cole intones, but President Trump is committed to releasing hundreds of thousands of tons a day “of a far more deadly gas – carbon dioxide.” Even CO2 that is washed out of the atmosphere “typically goes straight into the oceans,” he continues, “where it turns them acidic,” threatening a “mass die-off of marine life.”

 

Cole’s polemical nonsense is too extensive to address in full. But these two claims require rebuttal.

A deadly gas? Carbon dioxide is the Miracle Molecule that enables plants to grow and makes all life on Earth possible. Plants absorb CO2 exhaled by humans and animals, and emitted by burning wood, dung, fossil fuels and biofuels – and then release oxygen that people and wildlife need to survive.

 

Hundreds of studies demonstrate how slightly higher atmospheric CO2 levels (rising from 0.03% a century ago to 0.04% today) are making crop, forest and grassland plants more drought resistant, helping them grow faster and better, and “greening” vast areas that had been brown and barren. Claims that CO2 has replaced the solar and other powerful natural forces that have always controlled Earth’s climate, and is now causing “dangerous manmade climate change,” are not supported by actual planetary evidence.

 

Marine life thrived when CO2 levels were many times higher during past geologic eras. Far from being or becoming acidic, the oceans are mildly alkaline, and their vast volumes of water will not become acidic from human fossil fuel use: that is, to drop from their current pH of 8.1 into the acidic realm below 7.0 on this logarithmic scale. Oceans may become slightly less alkaline with another century or two of human carbon dioxide emissions, but most marine organisms will be unaffected; others will adapt or evolve.

 

The science marchers forget that President Trump’s actions are in response to eight Obama years of “highly politicized so-called research on climate,” under grants that “anticipated particular scientific outcomes before funding was provided,” Princeton University physicist Dr. Will Happer told me. Real science “is not based on political agendas, belief systems or computer models. It’s based on evidence – and actual observations have found normal icecap fluctuations, seas rising a foot or less per century, drought cycles little different from the twentieth century, and a decline in major landfalling hurricanes.”

 

These inconvenient truths contradict the dominant narratives in college classrooms and political circles. Climate alarmists thus demand that they be vilified, banned and silenced, through vile, even violent confrontations if need be – along with other conservative speech on and beyond too many campuses.

 

It’s as if reality, truth, discussion and debate have become irrelevant where feelings, leftist dogma, climate science or public policies are involved. Even more troubling, it’s as if our culture, education and public forums have been taken over by jack-booted fascists, Mao’s Red Guards, Maduro thugs, and “heroes” like Pavlik Morozov, memorialized by Stalin for betraying his father to the secret police.

 

Some intolerant protesters may be delicate snowflakes, too easily intimidated, offended or made to feel “unsafe” by conservative or other contrarian thought. However, the near-constant intimidation and threats of expulsion or violence have become a deliberate tactic, used repeatedly to impose speech codes and political agendas – and too often ignored, acquiesced in or supported by professors, administrators and politicians who welcome the silencing of opposition voices or lack the courage to confront  it. During Science March weekend in Huntsville, Alabama, shots were fired into the offices where reality-based climatologist John Christy works. “Mainstream media” and academia coverage was minimal.

 

They demand diversity of race, language, handicaps, sex, sexual orientation, transgender status and sexual self-identification. They cannot tolerate diversity of thought, speech or faculty and student ideology.

 

George Mason University economics professor Walter Williams calls it “a spreading cancer,” a re-emerging mentality that gave us loyalty oaths, which today come in the form of demands that faculty members sign “diversity statements, especially as part of hiring and promotion procedures…. The last thing diversity hustlers want is diversity of ideas.” The goal is “political conformity among the faculty indoctrinating our impressionable, intellectually immature young people,” Williams says.
 

As far-left protest marches, window smashing, limousine burning and physical assaults in Berkeley, Portland, Washington, DC and other cities attest, the cancer is metastasizing – particularly when movements and political groups believe their money, power, influence and control are threatened.

 

 On the climate front, at stake are $100 billion a year in reparation funds for poor countries, $7 trillion a year for companies that want to build “sustainable low-carbon” energy systems, and boundless power for politicians and bureaucrats who want to control economic growth, livelihoods and living standards. They cannot tolerate “climate deniers,” even those who merely question the extent of human influences, the degree and impact of temperature and climate changes, whether changes will all be bad, or the supposed inability of wildlife and wealthy, technologically advanced societies to adapt to future changes.

 

Members of this activist, governing and corporate elite also excel at inflating trivial risks and dismissing easy solutions, to advance their agendas and self-interests. For example, as President Trump revises many Obama era environmental rules, activist groups are using other tactics to continue their war on coal.

 

Dry ash from coal-fired power plants can be used in wallboard and to partially replace sand in high-strength concrete for bridges, roads and buildings. However, regulations, engineering considerations and other factors limited that option and resulted in most wet and dry ash being sent to impoundments that can leak barely detectable pollutants into surface and ground water. Studies have shown that these levels of chromium and other metals pose little risk to humans, but scare campaigns are creating pressure to force utility companies to spend billions of dollars relocating the ash and closing more power plants.

 

The best solution is likely to leave the ash in place, shore up the coffer dams, put solid clay seals over the deposits, and let them dry out, locking the metals in place. Radical groups demand relocation and seek to bankrupt the utilities – after which they intend to intensify their attacks on natural gas-fired power plants, drilling, fracking, and the factories, petrochemical plants and other industries that use fossil fuels.

 

In essence, they have brilliantly established a mantra that can ensure victory in every campaign. Whatever they support is safe, sustainable, climate-friendly environmental justice; whatever they oppose is dangerous, unsustainable, ecologically destructive and unjust. End of discussion.
 

In the process, they are unwilling or unable to recognize two facts. One, cheap, reliable energy improves living standards, saves lives, and supports new technologies and opportunities, with poor families benefitting most. Policies that make energy less accessible and affordable harm the poorest most of all.

 

Two, fossil fuels have undeniable environmental impacts, but allow us to produce vast amounts of cheap energy from relatively few acres. Replacing those fuels with wind, solar and biofuel energy would require hundreds of millions of acres worldwide that are now cropland or wildlife habitats. Those “eco-friendly” alternatives are actually our least sustainable, most ecologically destructive energy options.

 

The stakes are too high to let intolerant ideologues continue to control energy policy decisions.

 

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

The Most Emotionally Satisfying Argument for Trump’s Corporate Tax Cut

April 30, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
 

I like the main components of the Trump tax plan, particularly the sweeping reduction in the corporate tax rate.

But, as I say at the beg

inning of this Fox Business interview, there’s a big difference between proposing a good idea and actually getting legislation approved.
 

 

But just because I’m pessimistic, that doesn’t change the fact that a lower tax burden would be good for the country.

Toward the end of the interview, I explained that the most important reason for better tax policy is not necessarily to lower taxes for families, but rather to get more prosperity.

If we can restore the kind of growth we achieved when we had more market-friendly policy in the 1980s and 1990s, that would be hugely beneficial for ordinary people.

That’s the main economic argument for Trump’s plan.

But now I’ve come across what I’ll call the emotionally gratifying argument for Trump’s tax cuts. The Bureau of National Affairs is reporting that European socialists are whining that a lower corporate tax rate in the United States will cause “a race to the bottom.”

U.S. President Donald Trump’s plans to slash corporate taxes by more than half will accelerate a “race to the bottom” and undermine global efforts to combat corporate tax evasion by multinationals, according to a second political group in the European Parliament. The Socialists and Democrats, made up of 190 European Parliament lawmakers, insisted the Trump tax reform, announced April 26, threatens the current work in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Group of Twenty to establish a fair and efficient tax system.

As you might expect, the socialists make some nonsensical arguments.

Paul Tang—who heads the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats and leads the European Parliament negotiations on the pending EU Common Corporate Tax Base (CCTB) proposal—accused the Trump administration of pursuing a “beggar-they-neighbor policy similar to those in the 1930s.”

Huh?!? Does Mr. Tang think there were tax cuts in the 1930s?

That was a decade of tax increases, at least in the United States!

Or is he somehow trying to equate tax cuts with protectionism? But that makes zero sense. Yes, protectionism was rampant that decade, but higher tariffs mean higher taxes on trade. That’s the opposite of tax cuts.

Mr Tang is either economically illiterate or historically illiterate. Heck, he’s a socialist, so probably both.

Meanwhile, another European parliamentarian complained that the U.S. would become more of a tax haven if Trump’s tax cut was enacted.

Sven Giegold, a European Green Party member and leading tax expert in the European Parliament, told Bloomberg BNA in a April 27 telephone interview that the Trump tax plan further cemented the U.S. as a tax haven. He added the German government must put the issue on the agenda during its current term as holder of the G-20 presidency. …The European Green Party insists the U.S. has become an international tax haven because, among other things, it has not committed to implement the OECD Common Reporting Standard and various U.S. states, including Delaware, Nevada and South Dakota, have laws that allow companies to hide beneficial owners.

He’s right and wrong.

Yes, the United States is a tax haven, but only for foreigners who passively invest in the American economy (we generally don’t tax interest and capital gains received by foreigners, and we also generally don’t share information about the indirect investments of foreigners with their home governments).

Corporate income, however, is the result of direct investment, and that income is subject to tax by the IRS.

But I suppose it’s asking too much to expect politicians to understand such nuances.

For what it’s worth, I assume Mr. Giegold is simply unhappy that a lower corporate tax rate would make America more attractive for jobs and investment.

Moreover, he presumably understands adoption of Trump’s plan would put pressure on European nations to lower their corporate tax rates. Which is exactly what happened after the U.S. dropped its corporate tax rate back in the 1980s.

Which is yet another example of why tax competition is something that should be celebrated rather than persecuted. It forces politicians to adopt better policy even when they don’t want to.

That is what gets them angry. And I find their angst very gratifying.

P.S. You may have noticed at the very end of the interview that I couldn’t resist interjecting a plea to reduce the burden of government spending. That’s not merely a throwaway line. When the
Congressional Budget Office released its fiscal forecast earlier this year, I crunched the numbers and showed that we could balance the budget within 10 years and lower the tax burden by $3 trillion (on a static basis!) if politicians simply restrained spending so that it grew 1.96 percent per year.

P.P.S. It’s worth remembering that the “race to the bottom” is actually a race to better policy and more growth. And politicians should be comforted by the fact that this doesn’t necessarily mean less revenue.

How America’s Black Population was Duped into Embracing Political Slavery

By Gary DeMar April 30, 2017

When the master of Frederick Douglass (1818–1895) discovered that his wife was teaching his 12-year-old slave to read the Bible, he stopped her. “If he learns to read the Bible it will make him ever unfit to be a slave,” her husband said. In no time “he’ll be running away with himself.”

In his later years, Douglass reflected on that incident as the first antislavery lecture he had ever heard, and it inspired him to do anything he could to read more of the Bible. Eager to know more about the Bible, Douglass recalled, “I have gathered scattered pages from this holy book, from the filthy street gutters of Baltimore, and washed and dried them, that in the moments of my leisure, I might get a word or two of wisdom from them.”....To Read More....

My Take - Once again we come to one incontrovertible fact - the world's "Christian" religious leaders are failures.  That's of course if you assume success in their field means teaching the Bible versus teaching secular humanism., or for that matter - in opposition to secular humanism.

2 Timothy 4:3 - For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Paul wasn't talking about unbelievers - he was predicting the future of those who would profess to be Christians and their leaders.  What we need is clarity:

Matthew 7:22-24 - Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name done many works of power? And then will I say to them, I never knew you. Depart from me, workers of lawlessness.

One thing seems clear to me.  These "leaders" of the world's "Christian" movements must not believe in the Bible - or for that matter - God.  How else can anyone explain how they've managed to pervert clear Biblical texts on so many issues that are in complete opposition to what the secularists demand we accept.  Since they have no fear in doing this they must believe there are no consequences.  If they believe there are no consequences that can only mean they don't believe in God. 

Or did I miss something? 

Experiments with the Medicinal Properties of Essential Oils

James A. Marusek

A couple years ago, my wife suggested that I experiment with essential oil.  So I complied with her wishes.  Generally when I do something I go all-in and this was no exception.  I bought various books on the subject, ordered a multitude of essential oils and tools.  I devised experiments and carried them out, attempting to be as analytical as I was able.

The purpose of this paper is to document the basic tools, the approaches, and the methodology encompassing my personal experience in experimenting with the medicinal properties of essential oils.

Essential oils are highly concentrated natural aromatic compounds and volatile liquids extracted from the seeds, roots, bark, stems, leaves, flowers, resins, and other parts of plants.  These oils provide plants with protection from disease, insects, and make plants more appealing to pollinators.  The plants developed defenses or attributes over millions of years to aid in their survival.  But these oils, the essence of individual plant species, also provide healing properties for humans and other animals.

For millennia, mankind has relied on the medicinal properties of plants to treat disease, injuries and illnesses.  It has only been rather recently, during the past century, that chemistry has begun to play an ever-increasing roll in medicine..... To Read More....

''You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. In the name of God, go!''

By Rich Kozlovich

 

When Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement giving Hitler a big chunk of Czechoslovakia, (the Czechs weren't thrilled by the way) assuring the world this would give them "peace in our time", he sealed his fate as a failed Prime Minister and an incompetent appeaser because appeasement of dictators, or those with an agenda - doesn't work. 

Even one of his friends "a respected Conservative backbencher, Leopold Amery, rose and addressed to Chamberlain the words that Cromwell had said to the Long Parliament 300 years before:"

''You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. In the name of God, go!''

Chamberlain resigned and Winston Churchill - a man who was despised by many, and at one point thought his career was a failure - became Prime Minister, and Chamberlain was tarred negatively forever. 

 

But that's not really the whole story.

 

We have to remember WWI had just ended twenty plus years before, and the massive losses and suffering of the young men of the British Empire was still very fresh in their minds and hearts.  They would have done almost anything to avoid another war.  Chamberlain was actually doing the will of the British people - avoid war at almost any cost.  He tried and he failed because he was a man of his party.  He failed to understand the one all encompassing fact about effective leadership.  Leaders create consensus - managers follow consensus.  The go along, get along boys may be great go along to get along boys but that doesn't necessarily make great leaders. 

 

On April 29, 2017 Matthew Continetti posted the article, "The Democrats’ First 100 Days" saying: "The president’s first 100 days in office have been analyzed, dissected, evaluated. Not much left to say about them. What about the opposition? What do the Democrats have to show for these first months of the Trump era? Little."

 

The problem isn't with the leadership of the Democrat Party - it's the party - and this leadership is a complete and total representation of that party.  They're clueless about what really makes Americans tick, about what makes America work, and about the importance of traditional values.  Why?   Because the party is not a party of "the people", it's a party of radicals who hate everything that makes Americans tick and what makes America work. 

• They hate capitalism.  Yet there is not now - nor has there ever - been a socialist state that succeeded without adopting some capitalist principles, and that just merely extends their existence before they collapse. 
• They hate American culture.  If it's so bad why are so many keep wanting to come here?  If American culture is so bad why do they work so hard to overturn immigration policies? 
• They hate Christianity and the morality it imposes.  Christianity believing nations have failed to live up to the principles of Christianity more times than not, yet Christianity remains now and forever the only stable moral foundation the world has ever known.  A moral foundation that made the western world amazingly successful, especially the United States. 
• The hate white people.  They claim whites are all racists - and since it appears no matter how much whites do to help minorities - whites face unending accusations of racism - it may not be long before that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  And now with their concepts of multiculturalism and inclusion - if your against homosexuality or Islamism you're a racist, or a "phobe" of some kind meaning you're not only a racist - you're crazy. 

Sound familiar?  Well it should because that's what pours out of the mouths of the leadership of the Democrat Party.  And they're merely reflecting the views of their party - base, foundation and structure.  A party of radicals - racial radicals, environmental radicals, sexual radicals, social radicals, multicultural radicals, union radicals and academic radicals!  And Hillary wonders what's happening in this country?  They really don't understand why they're not connecting with the people they call "deplorables" who live in "fly over" country, "clinging to their Bibles and guns"!

Here's what's sad though.  The Republicans are almost as clueless, and in many ways remind me of the British Parliament during the first days of Churchill's administration.  Early on the "go along to get along" boys who fouled everything up felt he was not the man for the job.  Churchill went before the House of Commons - and on the radio - and gave the now famous,  Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat speech.

Unity followed because leaders create consensus.