Posts
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
After November 2 | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary
After November 2 | Michael D. Tanner | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Therefore, if this election is going to be the start of a long-term trend and not a one-time blip, the new Republican-dominated Congress is going to have to deliver. In particular, Republicans are going to have to follow through on their promises to reduce government spending and the deficit."
Highlights of deficit reduction proposals - FoxNews.com
Highlights of deficit reduction proposals - FoxNews.com: "Highlights of proposals by leaders of President Barack Obama's bipartisan deficit commission:"
"— Increase the Social Security retirement age by one month every two years after it reaches 67 under current law. It would reach 68 around 2050 and 69 around 2075."
"— Overhaul individual income taxes and corporate taxes. For individuals and families, eliminate a host of popular tax credits and deductions, including the child tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction. Significantly reduce income tax rates, with the top rate dropping to 23 percent from 35 percent.
— Reduce the corporate income tax rate to 26 percent from 35 percent, and stop taxing the overseas profits of U.S.-based multinational corporations."
"— Reduce congressional and White House budgets by 15 percent, freeze federal compensation at non-defense agencies for three years, cut the federal work force by 10 percent, eliminate 250,000 non-defense contractors and end money for commercial space flight.
— Eliminate noncompetitive spending bills known as 'earmarks.'
— End grants to large and medium-sized hub airports; require airports to fund a larger portion of the cost of aviation security.
— Cut funding for the public broadcasting."
Those sounds like good ideas.
"— Increase the Social Security retirement age by one month every two years after it reaches 67 under current law. It would reach 68 around 2050 and 69 around 2075."
"— Overhaul individual income taxes and corporate taxes. For individuals and families, eliminate a host of popular tax credits and deductions, including the child tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction. Significantly reduce income tax rates, with the top rate dropping to 23 percent from 35 percent.
— Reduce the corporate income tax rate to 26 percent from 35 percent, and stop taxing the overseas profits of U.S.-based multinational corporations."
"— Reduce congressional and White House budgets by 15 percent, freeze federal compensation at non-defense agencies for three years, cut the federal work force by 10 percent, eliminate 250,000 non-defense contractors and end money for commercial space flight.
— Eliminate noncompetitive spending bills known as 'earmarks.'
— End grants to large and medium-sized hub airports; require airports to fund a larger portion of the cost of aviation security.
— Cut funding for the public broadcasting."
Those sounds like good ideas.
Shipping Out Jobs | Daniel Griswold | Cato Institute: Commentary
Shipping Out Jobs | Daniel Griswold | Cato Institute: Commentary: "In 2008, US companies sold more than $6 trillion worth of goods and services through overseas affiliates — three times what US companies exported from America. And, no, those affiliates aren't mainly 'export platforms,' set up to ship goods back to the United States: Almost 90 percent of what they produce abroad is sold abroad.
It's not about access to 'cheap labor,' either: More than three-quarters of outward US manufacturing investment goes to other rich, developed economies like Canada and the European Union. That's where they find the wealthy customers, skilled workers, open markets, efficient infrastructure and political stability to operate profitably.
Indeed, US manufacturing companies invest a modest $2 billion a year in China, compared to $30 billion a year in Europe.
Nor do jobs created by those investments come at the expense of American workers. In fact, the more workers US multinationals hire abroad, the more they tend to hire at their parent operations in America."
It's not about access to 'cheap labor,' either: More than three-quarters of outward US manufacturing investment goes to other rich, developed economies like Canada and the European Union. That's where they find the wealthy customers, skilled workers, open markets, efficient infrastructure and political stability to operate profitably.
Indeed, US manufacturing companies invest a modest $2 billion a year in China, compared to $30 billion a year in Europe.
Nor do jobs created by those investments come at the expense of American workers. In fact, the more workers US multinationals hire abroad, the more they tend to hire at their parent operations in America."
Obama's Imaginary Tax Cuts | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
Obama's Imaginary Tax Cuts | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary: "The tax increase of $725.7 billion dwarfs the tax cuts of $373 billion, leaving a net tax increase of $352 billion. But it gets worse. Just $107.6 billion of the tax cuts are permanent — the rest are temporary — but all of the $725.7 billion increases are permanent."
"The vast majority of these tax increases fall on middle- and lower-income people."
"'If Democrats are being truthful, why did they not enact the tax cuts before adjourning to campaign for re-election, when such an act would have been to their political advantage?' The answer is that they did not have a majority of Democrats who could agree on any specific tax-cut measure.
Remember, the lame-duck Congress will contain the same members who have been serving, even though, perhaps, 50 or 60 of them will have lost the election. What incentive do they have at that point to agree suddenly to tax cuts they previously opposed? Yes, the people might have spoken in favor of the cuts through the electoral process, but many of these defeated members will be more interested in returning home well before Christmas rather than spending time in Washington, debating tax-cut legislation. They also would be beholden to the president for appointments to new jobs."
"The vast majority of these tax increases fall on middle- and lower-income people."
"'If Democrats are being truthful, why did they not enact the tax cuts before adjourning to campaign for re-election, when such an act would have been to their political advantage?' The answer is that they did not have a majority of Democrats who could agree on any specific tax-cut measure.
Remember, the lame-duck Congress will contain the same members who have been serving, even though, perhaps, 50 or 60 of them will have lost the election. What incentive do they have at that point to agree suddenly to tax cuts they previously opposed? Yes, the people might have spoken in favor of the cuts through the electoral process, but many of these defeated members will be more interested in returning home well before Christmas rather than spending time in Washington, debating tax-cut legislation. They also would be beholden to the president for appointments to new jobs."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)