Since the release of the GOP’s long-awaited tax reform plan, a flurry of commentators have criticized it, saying it is a regressive plan that will raise taxes on a sizable portion of Americans.
What they often fail to mention is that their estimates depend on details of the plan that have yet to be released. As it turns out, different assumptions about those details can dramatically alter the projections of who gets a tax cut under the GOP plan.
For a vast majority of Americans, the main changes they would experience from the plan would be to their income tax rate, the standard deduction, the personal and dependent exemption, and the Child Tax Credit.
So what do we know about how the GOP plan will affect these variables?
1. It would lower individual tax rates.
The GOP’s framework would lower rates and consolidate tax brackets for individuals. The three new income tax brackets (down from seven) are 12, 25, and 35 percent, but the framework does not specify what the income thresholds will be.
The plan also mentions that an additional fourth top rate may be added.
2. It would double the standard deduction.
The framework would almost double the standard deduction. It would do so by collapsing the additional standard deduction and personal exemptions into the one larger deduction available to everyone.
For married joint filers the deduction would be $24,000, and for single filers it would be $12,000. This means taxes would become much easier for many people because they won’t need to itemize or check frivolous boxes.
3. It would expand the Child Tax Credit.
The framework would repeal the personal exemption for dependents, “significantly increase” the Child Tax Credit, and increase the income limits at which the credit currently begins to phase out.
The framework gives no further details on these items.
Taken together, it is still uncertain how these changes will ultimately alter any individual or family’s tax liability. There are other proposed reforms that could also interact with these changes, but that hasn’t stopped commentators from projecting winners and losers.
Other analyses have simply mapped the current tax brackets on to the new rates so that the current 15 percent bracket would now pay 12 percent, the current 25 and 28 percent brackets make up the new 25 percent bracket, and the 33-39.6 percent brackets are consolidated into the 35 percent bracket.
These assumptions are often biased. They keep many Americans paying the same tax rate and actually project an increase in some people’s rate. It’s very unlikely that these conservative lawmakers intend to do that.
If we assume different income thresholds that are entirely reasonable, we find very different results.
One could, for instance, raise the new income thresholds by 15 percent so that more people would pay a lower tax rate. Lower taxes are, after all, a key stated goal of the plan.
Using The Heritage Foundation Individual Income Tax Model, we estimated what these changes—along with the other details released thus far—would mean for taxpayers. In particular, we modeled:
- 15 percent higher income thresholds for the new brackets.
- Doubling of the standard deduction.
- Elimination of all personal exemptions.
With these three changes, some of our modeled income groups would end up paying slightly more in taxes because the lower rates and higher standard deductions don’t fully compensate for getting rid of the dependent exemption.
But increasing the Child Tax Credit by a modest $100 flips all of our income groups into the black. And that’s even without increasing the credit’s income limits.
Pairing this with the new larger standard deduction and lower tax rates, most families would end up paying less in taxes than they currently do. In fact, every income group would pay a lower tax bill.
Those households with adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $125,000, for example, would see a significant drop in their tax bill of about 6 percent.
Those with adjusted gross income below $50,000 would receive the smallest tax savings because they already pay very little in taxes. However, the Child Tax Credit would likely increase by $500 or more, which would largely benefit this group.
Moreover, other changes to state and local tax deductions and other provisions would likely shift some of the gains for upper-income earners toward middle- and lower-income earners.
(Of course, it is near impossible to enact pro-growth tax reform without some positive benefits for the individuals and small business that pay the majority of taxes, and the top 5 percent of taxpayers pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes.)
These are perfectly reasonable assumptions to make about the details of the GOP plan, given the political promises that have been made. Tax cuts for middle-class Americans are going to be real.
There are also several other possible changes that would alter our analysis, such as eliminating the state and local tax and municipal bond interest deductions (along with some other itemized deductions), creating the newly proposed nonrefundable credit of $500 for non-child dependent care, and nixing the alternative minimum tax.
Regardless of whether these changes occur, the GOP plan makes a huge stride by expanding the standard deduction. Given that 70 percent of Americans already take this deduction, our results show that the GOP plan may very likely result in a tax cut for Americans across the board.
Kevin Dayaratna
Kevin D. Dayaratna specializes in tax, energy and health policy issues as senior statistician and research programmer in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. Read his research. Twitter:
Adam Michel
Adam Michel focuses on tax policy and the federal budget as a policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter:
A Note for our Readers:
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.
SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., making remarks as the GOP introduces its tax reform framework is by Ron Sachs/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom)
The False Ideas Intellectuals Peddle at College Campuses
/in Culture War, Education, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily SignalAs George Orwell said, “some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”
Many stupid ideas originate with academics on college campuses. If they remained there and didn’t infect the rest of society, they might be a source of entertainment, much in the way a circus is.
Let’s look at a few stupid ideas peddled by intellectuals.
During the Cold War, academic leftists made a moral equivalency between communist totalitarianism and democracy.
Worse is the fact that they exempted communist leaders from the type of harsh criticism directed toward Adolf Hitler, even though communist crimes against humanity made Hitler’s slaughter of 11 million noncombatants appear almost amateurish.
According to Professor R.J. Rummel’s research in “Death by Government,” from 1917 until its collapse, the Soviet Union murdered or caused the death of 61 million people, mostly its own citizens.
From 1949 to 1976, Communist China’s Mao Zedong regime was responsible for the death of as many as 78 million of its own citizens.
On college campuses, the same sort of equivalency is made between capitalism and communism, but if one looks at the real world, there’s a stark difference.
Just ask yourself: In which societies is the average citizen richer—societies toward the capitalist end of the economic spectrum or those toward the communist end?
In which societies do ordinary citizens have their human rights protected the most—those toward the capitalist end or those toward the communist end?
Finally, which societies do people around the world flee from—capitalist or communist? And where do they flee to—capitalist or communist societies?
More recent nonsense taught on college campuses, under the name of multiculturalism, is that one culture is as good as another. Identity worship, diversity, and multiculturalism are currency and cause for celebration at just about any college.
If one is black, brown, yellow, or white, the prevailing thought is that he should take pride and celebrate that fact even though he had nothing to do with it.
The multiculturalist and diversity crowd seems to suggest that race or sex is an achievement. That’s just plain nonsense.
In my book, race or sex might be an achievement, worthy of considerable celebration, if a person were born a white male and through his effort and diligence became a black female.
Then there’s white privilege. Colleges have courses and seminars on “whiteness.” One college even has a course titled “Abolition of Whiteness.”
According to academic intellectuals, whites enjoy advantages that nonwhites do not. They earn higher income and reside in better housing, and their children go to better schools and achieve more. Based upon those socio-economic statistics, Japanese-Americans have more white privilege than white people.
And, on a personal note, my daughter has experienced more white privilege than probably 95 percent of white Americans. She’s attended private schools, had ballet and music lessons, traveled the world, and lived in upper-income communities.
Leftists should get rid of the concept of white privilege and just call it achievement.
Then there’s the issue of campus rape and sexual assault.
Before addressing that, let me ask you a question. Do I have a right to place my wallet on the roof of my car, go into my house, have lunch, take a nap, and return to my car and find my wallet just where I placed it?
I think I have every right to do so, but the real question is whether it would be a wise decision.
Some college women get stoned, use foul language, and dance suggestively. I think they have a right to behave that way and not be raped or sexually assaulted. But just as in the example of my placing my wallet on the roof of my car, I’d ask whether it is wise behavior.
Many of our problems, both at our institutions of higher learning and in the nation at large, stem from the fact that we’ve lost our moral compasses and there’s not a lot of interest in reclaiming them.
As a matter of fact, most people don’t see our major problems as having anything to do with morality.
COMMENTARY BY
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
A Note for our Readers:
RELATED ARTICLE: Council on American Islamic Relations Conducted Sensitivity Training for Philadelphia Teachers
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by iStock Photos.
VIDEO: Former CIA Officer Explains ‘The Shadow Government’
/in Elections, National Security, Policy, Politics, Video, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Dr. Rich SwierZero Hedge’s Tyler Durden in an article authored by Aaron Kesel via ActivistPost.com, titled “High-Ranking CIA Agent Blows Whistle On The Deep State And Shadow Government” report:
Former CIA officer Kevin Shipp explains “The Shadow Government” on The Hagmann Report.
What Trump Told Congress He Wants to See on Immigration
/in Culture War, Immigration, Must Read, National Security, Policy, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily SignalBefore granting legal status to illegal immigrants who entered the country as minors, President Donald Trump wants to push enhanced border security, interior enforcement, and move toward a merit-based legal immigration system.
At this point, Democrats would be blamed if an amnesty isn’t enacted, said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a pro-border security think tank.
“It’s the opening bid, the president is going to aim high, but I’m skeptical of whether Democrats will negotiate and come up with a counteroffer,” Krikorian told The Daily Signal. “They just expected Trump to sign an amnesty bill. The ball is now in the Democrats’ court.”
Trump is working with Congress on a legislative fix to the Obama-era executive action granting temporary legal status to illegal immigrants who came to the country as children, the policy known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
Trump’s letter outlines 70 principles for any immigration legislation. This includes the completion of a border wall, which was the cornerstone of his 2016 presidential campaign. However, he indicated that it would not be part of the deal with Congress on codifying the Obama-era DACA policy.
Trump asked the administration to conduct a review and provide recommendations.
“Rather than asking what policies are supported by special interests, we asked America’s law enforcement professionals to identify reforms that are vital to protect the national interest,” Trump said in the letter. “In response, they identified dangerous loopholes, outdated laws, and easily exploited vulnerabilities in our immigration system—current policies that are harming our country and our communities.”
Trump’s principles on immigration—presented in a letter to Congress Sunday—are solid enough, but this still poses the problem of trading amnesty up front for the promise of stronger enforcement maybe later down the road, said David Inserra, a homeland security policy analyst with The Heritage Foundation.
“Amnesty is one and done, but enforcement measures still require annual appropriation, annual policy, and adjustments to the policy,” Inserra told The Daily Signal. “We should enforce our laws first and foremost.”
Trump’s letter to Congress calls for closing loopholes on illegal immigrants to make deportations easier, and to fund another 370 immigration judges to expedite court cases.
Trump also asserted the need to cut off federal funding to sanctuary states and cities, which are jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. California recently became a sanctuary state. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., denounced Trump’s plans.
Trump also calls for cracking down on visa overstays, which the letter says account for 40 percent of all illegal immigration.
“The administration therefore proposes strengthening the removal processes for those who overstay or otherwise violate the terms of their visas, and implementing measures to prevent future visa overstays which may account for a growing percentage of illegal immigration,” the letter says.
The proposal would also debar any company that doesn’t use E-Verify from qualifying for federal contracts. E-Verify is an electronic system for employers to determine the legal status of employees.
UnidosUS, a Hispanic rights group formerly known as the National Council of La Raza, blasted Trump’s principles.
“President Trump has gone back on a promise to support a clean bill and instead is now seeking to sabotage legislation aimed at giving these young people a chance for a stable and prosperous future by loading the bill with unpopular and controversial measures,” said Janet Murguía, president of UnidosUS, in a statement. “Sending these so-called ‘conditions’ to Congress is simply a way to stop the bipartisan effort behind a clean DREAM bill.”
Fred Lucas
Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.
A Note for our Readers:
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of President Donald J. Trump is by Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Newscom.
Obama’s Climate Plan Was a Failure on All Accounts
/in Environment, Policy, Politics, Science, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily SignalThe Trump administration is dismantling President Barack Obama’s climate legacy piece by piece, and this week it’s taking an axe to arguably the biggest piece.
In an expected move, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt officially began the process of rolling back the incorrectly named Clean Power Plan.
If the Trump administration is intent on achieving 3 percent economic growth and rescinding costly regulations that carry negligible climate benefits—and if it is concerned about preserving our energy grid—the Clean Power Plan is a must-go.
Under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, the Obama EPA formalized regulations to reduce carbon dioxide from existing power plants.
Using a name that surely message-tested well, the Clean Power Plan had nothing to do with eradicating hazardous pollutants from power generation. The U.S. already has laws on the books to protect Americans’ health from emissions that have adverse environmental impacts.
Instead, the Clean Power Plan regulated carbon dioxide, a colorless, odorless, nontoxic gas, because of its alleged contribution to climate change.
From Day One, Obama’s Clean Power Plan was fraught with problems—economically, environmentally, and legally.
For starters, families and businesses would have been hit with more expensive energy bills.
How so? The plan set specific limits on greenhouse gas emissions for each state based on the states’ electricity mix and offered “flexible” options for how states could meet the targets.
But no matter how states would have developed their plans, the economic damages would have been felt through higher energy costs, fewer job opportunities, and fewer energy choices for consumers.
The EPA’s idea of flexibility would not have softened the economic blow. It merely meant that Americans would have incurred higher costs through different mechanisms.
Environmentally, the climate impact of the Clean Power Plan would have been pointless. According to climatologist Paul Knappenberger:
Legally, the Clean Power Plan was on shaky ground, to say the least. The regulation grossly exceeded the statutory authority of the EPA, violated the principles of cooperative federalism, and double-regulated existing power plants, which the Clean Air Act prohibits.
Take it from Laurence Tribe, Harvard University professor of constitutional law and a “liberal legal icon” who served in Obama’s Justice Department.
Tribe stated in testimony before Congress that the “EPA is attempting an unconstitutional trifecta: usurping the prerogatives of the states, Congress, and the federal courts—all at once. Burning the Constitution should not become part of our national energy policy.”
It’s no surprise that more than half the states in the country petitioned the Supreme Court to pause implementation of the regulation, and judges obliged, issuing a stay in 2016.
Pruitt, who led the charge against a rogue EPA as attorney general in Oklahoma, will respect the limits of the EPA as head of the agency. The EPA will now go through the formal rule-making and public comment period in order to repeal the Clean Power Plan.
What comes after that remains to be seen. State attorneys general in New York and Massachusetts, as well as environmental activist groups, are lining up to sue. The EPA could offer a far less stringent replacement regulation, which some industry groups are pushing for to buttress against lawsuits.
If members of Congress are fed up that policy continues to be made through the executive branch with a phone and a pen, they should step to the plate and legislate.
In this case, the solution is clear. The Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
Congress should pass legislation prohibiting the EPA and other agencies from implementing harmful regulations that stunt economic growth and produce futile climate benefits.
COMMENTARY BY
Nicolas Loris
Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research. Twitter: @NiconomistLoris
A Note for our Readers:
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of former President Barack Obama is by Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Newscom.
Some Say GOP Tax Plan Would Raise Taxes. Here’s What They’re Missing.
/in Economy, Policy, Regulation, Taxes/by The Daily SignalSince the release of the GOP’s long-awaited tax reform plan, a flurry of commentators have criticized it, saying it is a regressive plan that will raise taxes on a sizable portion of Americans.
What they often fail to mention is that their estimates depend on details of the plan that have yet to be released. As it turns out, different assumptions about those details can dramatically alter the projections of who gets a tax cut under the GOP plan.
For a vast majority of Americans, the main changes they would experience from the plan would be to their income tax rate, the standard deduction, the personal and dependent exemption, and the Child Tax Credit.
So what do we know about how the GOP plan will affect these variables?
1. It would lower individual tax rates.
The GOP’s framework would lower rates and consolidate tax brackets for individuals. The three new income tax brackets (down from seven) are 12, 25, and 35 percent, but the framework does not specify what the income thresholds will be.
The plan also mentions that an additional fourth top rate may be added.
2. It would double the standard deduction.
The framework would almost double the standard deduction. It would do so by collapsing the additional standard deduction and personal exemptions into the one larger deduction available to everyone.
For married joint filers the deduction would be $24,000, and for single filers it would be $12,000. This means taxes would become much easier for many people because they won’t need to itemize or check frivolous boxes.
3. It would expand the Child Tax Credit.
The framework would repeal the personal exemption for dependents, “significantly increase” the Child Tax Credit, and increase the income limits at which the credit currently begins to phase out.
The framework gives no further details on these items.
Taken together, it is still uncertain how these changes will ultimately alter any individual or family’s tax liability. There are other proposed reforms that could also interact with these changes, but that hasn’t stopped commentators from projecting winners and losers.
Other analyses have simply mapped the current tax brackets on to the new rates so that the current 15 percent bracket would now pay 12 percent, the current 25 and 28 percent brackets make up the new 25 percent bracket, and the 33-39.6 percent brackets are consolidated into the 35 percent bracket.
These assumptions are often biased. They keep many Americans paying the same tax rate and actually project an increase in some people’s rate. It’s very unlikely that these conservative lawmakers intend to do that.
If we assume different income thresholds that are entirely reasonable, we find very different results.
One could, for instance, raise the new income thresholds by 15 percent so that more people would pay a lower tax rate. Lower taxes are, after all, a key stated goal of the plan.
Using The Heritage Foundation Individual Income Tax Model, we estimated what these changes—along with the other details released thus far—would mean for taxpayers. In particular, we modeled:
With these three changes, some of our modeled income groups would end up paying slightly more in taxes because the lower rates and higher standard deductions don’t fully compensate for getting rid of the dependent exemption.
But increasing the Child Tax Credit by a modest $100 flips all of our income groups into the black. And that’s even without increasing the credit’s income limits.
Pairing this with the new larger standard deduction and lower tax rates, most families would end up paying less in taxes than they currently do. In fact, every income group would pay a lower tax bill.
Those households with adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $125,000, for example, would see a significant drop in their tax bill of about 6 percent.
Those with adjusted gross income below $50,000 would receive the smallest tax savings because they already pay very little in taxes. However, the Child Tax Credit would likely increase by $500 or more, which would largely benefit this group.
Moreover, other changes to state and local tax deductions and other provisions would likely shift some of the gains for upper-income earners toward middle- and lower-income earners.
(Of course, it is near impossible to enact pro-growth tax reform without some positive benefits for the individuals and small business that pay the majority of taxes, and the top 5 percent of taxpayers pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes.)
These are perfectly reasonable assumptions to make about the details of the GOP plan, given the political promises that have been made. Tax cuts for middle-class Americans are going to be real.
There are also several other possible changes that would alter our analysis, such as eliminating the state and local tax and municipal bond interest deductions (along with some other itemized deductions), creating the newly proposed nonrefundable credit of $500 for non-child dependent care, and nixing the alternative minimum tax.
Regardless of whether these changes occur, the GOP plan makes a huge stride by expanding the standard deduction. Given that 70 percent of Americans already take this deduction, our results show that the GOP plan may very likely result in a tax cut for Americans across the board.
COMMENTARY BY
Kevin Dayaratna
Kevin D. Dayaratna specializes in tax, energy and health policy issues as senior statistician and research programmer in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. Read his research. Twitter: @kdd0211
Adam Michel
Adam Michel focuses on tax policy and the federal budget as a policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @adamnmichel
Rachel Greszler
Rachel Greszler is a senior policy analyst in economics and entitlements at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. Read her research.
A Note for our Readers:
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., making remarks as the GOP introduces its tax reform framework is by Ron Sachs/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom)
Catholics Across the Globe Rally with Poland as a United Front Against Islamization
/in National Security, Policy, Politics, Video/by Thomas More Law CenterHundreds of thousands of Polish Catholics gathered in Poland in a massive rosary prayer against the rise of secularization and the spread of Islamization across Europe.
The event, “Rosary on the Borders,” was held on the anniversary of the October 7, 1571 naval Battle of Lepanto, in which the outnumbered Christian naval fleet dealt a massive blow to the Muslim Ottoman Empire, saving Christendom from Islamic domination.
Watch a short video clip of the event:
Clearly, it was a resounding success, as thousands of Poles were bused in from more than 300 churches to points all along the 2,000-mile border. According to the New York Times, participants in Poland gathered for prayer at 320 churches as well as in 4,000 designated prayer zones.
Citizens of all ages, including many elderly, braved the brisk cold weather to take a stand against Islamization and to pray for the salvation of Poland, as well as all of Europe to remain Christian. Approximately 90% of Poland residents identify as Catholic.
To read the New York Times articles and for additional photos of the massive rosary prayer, click here.
RELATED ARTICLE: Thousands of Poles Pray on the Border Against ‘Islamisation of Europe’
The European Union Is Doomed to Fail
/in Featured, Policy, Politics/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)How on earth can the European Union unite that which history forced asunder?
by Marian L. Tupy
Have you ever heard of Deutsch Jahrndorf? No? I don’t blame you. The tiny Austrian village, which is situated four miles from the Danube, is utterly unremarkable, except for the fact that it sits on the border of three countries. To the east is Slovakia. To the south lies Hungary. As such, within shouting distance of one another, live three peoples speaking completely unintelligible languages. Austria belongs to the West Germanic language group, Hungary to Finno-Ugric and Slovakia to West Slavic.
I thought about the exquisitely rich tapestry of European languages, cultures, customs, and nationalities as I watched the sad spectacle of Spanish riot police and Catalan separatists confronting one another on the streets of Barcelona. How on earth can the European Union unite that which history forced asunder?
The Folly of the EU
The European Union, French President Emmanuel Macron has recently declared to almost universal acclaim, needs more unity, including the creation of “a eurozone budget managed by a eurozone parliament and a eurozone finance minister”.
Therein lies the conundrum of European unification.
The need for the centralization of power in Brussels is, apparently, the lesson that the EU establishment has learned from the outcome of the British referendum on EU membership. Meanwhile, in Catalonia, millions of people have set their sights on independence from Spain. Foremost among their complaints is that the Catalan budget is influenced by Madrid.
Independence, the Catalans feel, will rectify a grave injustice occasioned by the French capture of Barcelona in 1714. The conqueror, Duke of Anjou, became the first Bourbon king of Spain under the name of Philip V. His descendant, Philip VI, is on the throne today. In Europe, ancient lineages last as long as ancient resentments.
Therein lies the conundrum of European unification. On the one hand, people throughout much of Europe desire greater autonomy. Madrid has the vexing problem of the Basque Country to worry about as well as Catalonia. In Italy, Padania and South Tyrol in the North don’t feel like they have very much in common with the Mezzogiorno in the South. Corsica does not want to be French and Britain has only recently revisited a territorial arrangement that dates back to 1707.
On the other hand, every separatist movement in Europe declares its support for the project of European unification. But, how likely is it that people annoyed by Madrid, Rome, Paris, and London will be happy to have their affairs decided upon in Brussels? Will the Catalans, resentful of subsidizing farmers in Andalusia, quietly have no problem with subsidizing Polish peasants in Lower Silesia?
How Did It Go So Wrong?
Speaking of Brussels, it is both the seat of the increasingly dysfunctional EU and the capital of Flanders, which wants to separate from Belgium. It’s complicated.
On a continent inhabited by a multitude of diverse peoples with no shared identity, Macron’s proposal, if implemented, will surely prove to be the EU’s undoing.
Years from now, when the EU is either reformed beyond recognition or gone, historians will debate what went wrong and when. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which reinvigorated the British Eurosceptic movement that ultimately delivered Brexit, will be one of the obvious culprits. But I think that the problems of European integration are of an older vintage. Perhaps because it was signed by none other than Margaret Thatcher, the Single European Act of 1986 does not get the attention it deserves. Yet it was SEA that eliminated the national veto in a number of crucial policy areas and replaced it with qualified majority voting (QMV). Thatcher acceded to this new arrangement, for it was meant to break down intra-European trade barriers and transform the fledgling “common market” into a freer “single market”. Unfortunately, the introduction of QMV also meant that, occasionally, individual nation states got outvoted on issues they cared deeply about. Accusations of “meddling from Brussels” grew.
To make matters worse, the SEA engorged the powers of the Commission. That proved to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the Commission went after the anti-competitive practices of nation states with gusto. On the other hand, it used its new powers to start over-regulating economic activity. The regulatory and protectionist impulses of the nation states, in other words, were replaced by regulatory and protectionist impulses at the pan-European level and Europe became less competitive vis-á-vis the rest of the world. Maastricht and the Lisbon Treaty sped up the excessive centralization of power in Brussels that was already underway and transformed the European Economic Community into the EU with its own flag, anthem, and currency.
To those symbols of statehood, President Macron now wishes to add a financial transfer union, which, he feels, is necessary to make a success of the single currency. On a continent inhabited by a multitude of diverse peoples with no shared identity, Macron’s proposal, if implemented, will surely prove to be the EU’s undoing.
Reprinted from CapX
Marian L. Tupy
Marian L. Tupy is the editor of HumanProgress.org and a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
Obamacare Failed Breastfeeding Mothers
/in Commentary, Culture War, Healthcare, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Science, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)In a classic case of unintended consequences, what was meant to help new mothers actually made things more expensive and difficult.
by Lauren K. Hall
I recently had a conversation with my health insurance company that gave me some interesting perspective on the current US health care system. I’m pregnant, so I called to figure out whether my insurance covered a new breast pump for when I return to work while nursing. There was good news and bad news.
Good news: insurance covers (most of) a new breast pump!
Bad news: Due to federal regulations and insurance bureaucracy, I cannot simply order the pump I want from Amazon, where prices are clearly laid out, the pump I want is in stock, and I know what I am getting. Instead, my insurance gave me a list of 10 different medical supply companies, all of which provide different pumps and half of which do not list prices. This is a problem since my insurance only covers $178 of the pump’s price.
So rather than spending two minutes ordering a pump from Amazon, I will spend at least an entire morning sifting through websites mostly designed circa 2004 and filling out various information request forms to find out whether the company carries the pump I want and how much the same pump costs at these different websites. I will also need to get a prescription from my doctor, which will require another appointment and more paperwork.
All in all, a process that should take two minutes will now take at least a week of back and forth, many emails, multiple phone calls, and shipping that will definitely take longer than two-day Prime shipping.
So what’s going on here?
The Unintended Consequences of Health Insurance Mandates
The breast pump example is a classic case of unintended consequences. When the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed, one much-lauded goal was to provide better support for breastfeeding mothers and their babies. The requirement was touted as a way mothers could nurse longer (a major public health goal that may or may not make a lot of sense), particularly once they re-entered the workforce.
The requirement, as many have noted, turned a normal consumer good into a medical device that all women could get for “free,” regardless of income level. Some four million American women give birth every year, and some large percentage of those at least attempt to breastfeed. Many, if not most, nursing mothers will need a breast pump at some point, so the costs of this mandate are not small.
Insurance companies, predictably, did not respond altruistically and absorb the costs of an expensive new mandate. They passed some of these costs on to consumers in the form of higher premiums but also sought to control costs by limiting the kinds of pumps mothers had access to. My insurance, for example, only covers a single electric pump, which is ironic because the last time I checked, most women have two breasts. But insurers’ rationale is understandable: they’ve been ordered to provide a free thing — not necessarily the best free thing out there, nor the free thing that actually would meet women’s wants and needs for pumping.Companies also, predictably, increased the red tape associated with ordering a breast pump, both to ensure they can prove their compliance to the federal government, and also probably in part to make it harder for women to access the benefit. I didn’t bother getting an insurance-covered breast pump for my second child (the ACA wasn’t fully in effect when I had my first) because I had an old breast pump a friend had given me and I didn’t want to deal with the hassle of getting a new pump while wrangling a newborn.
Without government interference in my insurance plan, where would I be today? I probably would have taken some of the money I would have saved in slightly lower premiums and bought myself the breast pump I really wanted. Instead, I’m faced with both paying higher premiums and being forced to choose a product that does not fit my needs. As FEE’s Pamela Hobart discussed, lower-income women already had access to low-cost breast pumps through the supplemental nutrition program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Why did the government believe it necessary to mandate coverage for all women, when most women not on WIC would have been better served simply buying the breast pump they really wanted out of pocket? Obviously, the answer is political, but it makes little to no economic sense.
Government Micromanagement and Insurance Bureaucracy
My breast pump saga is merely one example of a much broader lesson that goes well beyond nursing mothers. The more government micromanages what insurance companies are required to do, the more insurance companies will respond with red tape and hurdles to lower their own costs and prevent being taken advantage of.The breast pump saga is also an important reminder of what insurance was originally not meant to do. Health insurance was meant to help cover the catastrophic costs of medical care that an average person could not have foreseen: getting hit by a bus, developing cancer, or needing a liver transplant. Health insurance was never meant to provide people with basic consumer goods they can and should be saving for themselves. It also was never meant to pay for regular checkups, physicals, and the foreseeable and moderate expenses of being a human being with a fallible body.
Now we use health insurance to pay for everything from yearly physicals to breast pumps to blood pressure screenings, and the government continues to mandate more and more covered items and procedures. The result has not been better care, but escalating costs and more restrictions on consumer choice. None of that seems like much of a “benefit” to me.
So how did my pump saga ultimately end? After a few hours of wasted time Googling and talking to medical supply companies on the phone, I ended up ordering the pump I wanted from a local medical supply company. That pump, available for $174.98 on Amazon, ended up costing my insurance $178.00 and me another $70, while the sticker price on the receipt inexplicably totaled $318.00. Total extra bureaucratic costs: a few hours of my time, my insurance company’s time, the medical supply company’s time, and an extra $70 to $140, depending on which price you hold to be the “real” price.
But yes, by all means, let’s get MORE government involvement in healthcare.
Reprinted from Learn Liberty
Lauren K. Hall
Lauren has is Associate Professor of Political Science at the College of Liberal Arts, Rochester Institute of Technology. She is also a member of the FEE Faculty Network.
Taxpayer funded resettlement contractor helps organize march opposing Trump ‘Muslim ban’
/in Culture War, Featured, Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Ann CorcoranI continue to be amazed that a quasi-government agency receiving millions of dollars from the US taxpayer is a leading agitator in marches against the hand that feeds them—in this case the Trump Administration. Chutzpah! I suppose!
The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society is helping get people out to the #NoMuslimBanEver rally scheduled for a week from tomorrow—October 18th—in Washington, DC.
Before I get to their latest appeal for marching bodies, here is just a reminder of their financial position.
According to the most recent Form 990 for 2016, they had income from government grants to the tune of $24,493,763 in a category (p. 9) of contributions, gifts and grants of $41,855,465 putting them at 58% funded by the US taxpayer.
58% of course isn’t as bad as some contractors***—Episcopal Migration Ministries is 99.5% funded from the US Treasury, but it is still a significant chunk of change.
According to that same Form 990, CEO Mark Hetfield pulls down a salary, benefits and other compensation package of $343,630 (p. 8).
If the nine contractors*** were truly private non-profit charitable organizations, salaries would not be any of our business, but when organizations like these (really quasi-government agencies) receive taxpayer dollars, it becomes our business.
It seems to me that HIAS is always out as the leader of the pack when it comes to demonstrating against the Trump Administration and filing lawsuits to stop them, all the while taking money from Washington (from us!).
Here they are again!
You should know that HIAS has long supported a ‘religious test’ known as the Lautenberg Amendment that gave preferential treatment to Jews and other religious minorities coming from places like Russia and Iran.
The above is a screenshot so the links are not ‘hot.’ Go to Facebook to learn more about the #NoMuslimBanEver event.
I sure would like to know who is behind this event??? Muslim Brotherhood? CAIR?
***For new readers, these are the nine major federal refugee resettlement contractors. There are over 350 subcontractors working for them throughout the country. Basically they pass federal grant money through their headquarters to their subcontractors and keep a certain amount of it for their headquarters/office/travel/salaries etc.
HIAS has 20 subcontractors, here they are.
It would be important to find out if the other eight contractors (besides HIAS) will be marching next Wednesday.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Scranton, PA school district struggling under weight of needy immigrant students, working poor
New York Times spins Twin Falls rape case story
Refugee resettlement contractors get platform to complain at Christian Post, but….
Donors of Anti-Trump ‘Resistance’ Group Revealed
First 98 of President Trump’s refugees have arrived, see where they went
/in Culture War, Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics, Taxes/by Ann CorcoranThe new fiscal year (2018) is now ten days old and we see that the first of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s and President Trump’s proposed 45,000 refugees have arrived!
According to Wrapsnet:
Top ethnic groups arriving in the group of 98 are from the DR Congo (25), Bhutan (21) and Somalia (16). For our friends in Minnesota know this: the Somalis were distributed to Missouri, New Hampshire, Washington and Wisconsin, but, as you know, they can and often do move within months to be with larger groups of Somalis in Minnesota, Ohio and in San Diego.
NOTE: 26 of the 98 (34%) are Muslims if you count the 4 Ahmadiyya from Pakistan who went to Maryland.
Here is where the first 98 were placed:
States in light blue received refugees.
Top five refugee resettlement states are Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri and New Hampshire.
Alaska and Hawaii received no refugees.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Concerned citizens in St. Cloud, MN ask for a moratorium on refugee resettlement to their city
Supreme Court won’t hear ‘travel ban’ case, but refugee portion not addressed
Scranton, PA school district struggling under weight of needy immigrant students, working poor
New York Times spins Twin Falls rape case story
Refugee resettlement contractors get platform to complain at Christian Post, but….
Donors of Anti-Trump ‘Resistance’ Group Revealed
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and President Trump is by AP Photo/Alex Brando.
EPA’s Scott Pruitt to repeal ‘Clean Power Plan’
/in Environment, Policy, Politics, Science/by Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow“The war against coal is over” was the message coming out of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s visit with coal miners yesterday in Hazard, Kentucky.
Today Pruitt signed a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” beginning the regulatory process to repeal President Obama’s Orwellian-named “Clean Power Plan.”
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt minced no words:
We posted EPA’s full press release at CFACT.org.
Pruitt’s points are well taken.
President Obama’s EPA indulged in broad regulatory overreach when it promulgated the “CPP,” which goes far behind its mandate and authority under the “Clean Air Act.” Bureaucrats usurping the role of Congress was a staple of the Obama era. Administrator Pruitt is determined to restore the rule of law.
Moreover, the CPP fails not only as a matter of law, but even worse on substance.
The CPP flunks any rational cost-benefit analysis, imposing massive economic damage on the United States while doing nothing meaningful to alter temperature of the Earth, even if climate computer models were spot on — which they have never been!
EPA now estimates that if allowed to go forward the “Clean Power Plan” would cost $33 billion in 2030!
Good riddance to this ill-conceived energy draining, economy-wrecking plan.
Well done Administrator Pruitt.
RELATED ARTICLE: Rolling Back Obama EPA Rule Could Save $33 Billion
Iran caught cheating 32 times
/in National Security, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Robert HellerIt remains to be seen what action President Trump takes against Iran, if any. The report below shows how Iran continues to cheat and violate the the intent of the nuclear agreement if not the letter.
Russia, China and our erstwhile allies Great Britain, France and Germany see no problem. It is business as usual for them.
Iran attempted to buy nuclear technology illegally 32 times, German agency says
By Benjamin Weinthal, Fox News
Iran tried to obtain illicit technology that could be used for military nuclear and ballistic missile programs, raising questions about a possible violation of the 2015 agreement intended to stop Tehran’s drive to become an atomic armed power, according to three German intelligence reports obtained by Fox News.
The new intelligence, detailing reports from September and October and disclosed just ahead of President Trump’s planned announcement Thursday on whether the U.S. will recertify the Iran deal, reveals that Iran’s regime made “32 procurement attempts … that definitely or with high likelihood were undertaken for the benefit of proliferation programs.”
According to the document, the 32 attempts took place in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. The report lists Iran as a nation that engages in proliferation, which is defined as “spreading atomic, biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction.”
Missile delivery systems are also included in the definition of illicit proliferation activity in the report.
The North Rhine-Westphalia agency accused Iran of using front companies in the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and China to circumvent international restrictions on its nuclear and missile programs.
The intelligence report, which covered the year 2016 — the Iran deal was implemented on Jan. 16, 2016 — calls further into question Iran’s compliance with the agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.
The overwhelming majority of Iran’s illegal attempts covering the year 2016 in North Rhine-Westphalia encompassed technology for the clerical regime’s missile programs.
The year before, the agency recorded 141 attempts by Iran to secure illicit goods for proliferation purposes.
Read more.
RELATED ARTICLES:
The Case for a ‘Clean Withdrawal’ from the Iran Nuclear Deal
Report: Iranian Nuclear Program ‘Fully Operational’
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a Ghadr-H missile, center, a Sejjil missile and a portrait of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on display for the annual Defense Week, marking the 37th anniversary of the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, at Baharestan Sq. in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, Sept. 24, 2017 (AP)
VIDEO: ‘TRUTH’ With James O’Keefe on One America News Network
/in Culture War, Policy, Politics, Video, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by O'Keefe Media GroupOne America News Network brings you this exclusive one hour series following the active investigations of legendary undercover journalist and investigative reporter James O’Keefe. O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has exposed some of the most sensational corruption and lies in investigative journalism.
This time O’Keefe has his sights targeted on the Holy Grail of media. One America News Network delivers the take down video from Project Veritas. Don’t miss this amazing and revealing three part series exclusively on One America News Network.
EDITORS NOTE: If you or your friends don’t get One America News Network, call your cable provider and demand One America News Network today.
SEIU Community Organizer behind the anti-woman “Women’s March to the Polls” in Chicago
/in Elections, Healthcare, Labor & Unions, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Science, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Dr. Rich SwierThere will be a Woman’s March to the Polls in Chicago, Illinois on October 11th, 2017. Is the march about protecting mothers and their children from the gang violence in Chicago? Is the march focused on eliminating the growing number of murders on Chicago’s streets? Is the march’s mission to restore the family and help create jobs for women?
Jaquie Algee
As of October 10th, 2017 Chicago had a total 530 murders, 8 murders since October 1st, according to DNAInfo.com. Is not the murder rate in Chicago a woman’s issue? Does the Woman’s March to the Polls care about Chicago’s murder rate and its impact on women, families and neighborhoods?
QUESTION: What does The Women’s March to the Polls have to do with helping women?
The organizer of the march is Jaquie Algee the Vice President/Director of External Relations for The Service Employees International Union Healthcare Illinois/Indiana/Missouri/Kansas (SEIU HCIIMK).
The Woman’s March to the Polls (WMC) website describes its mission as follows:
Let’s look at three of the missions of the Women’s March to the Polls.
The first is promoting “intersectional feminism.”
What is intersectional feminism and is it good for women? USA Today’s Alia E. Dastagir defines intersectional feminism thusly:
So does it help a white woman to hate herself because she is white? Does it help a black woman to hate anyone who is not black? Does being a lesbian help women and promote traditional families? Do LGBTQ+ rights help women, fathers, mothers and children?
Here are ten truths about the LGBTQ+ agenda. Here’s a pediatricians take on LGBTQ+.
Of course affordable childcare helps women and is a priority of the Trump administration as is equal justice under the law.
The second is advancing “reproductive justice.”
Reproductive justice are code words for abortion on demand. Is the act of a woman aborting her unborn child good for her health?
According to the Illinois Department of Health in 2015 there were a total of 39,856 abortions of which 25,809 were by unmarried women. Girls under the age of 14-years old accounted for 82 abortions, with girls between the ages of 14-17 years old aborting 1,144 babies. Chicago is in Cook County, which accounted for 22,892 or 64.7% of all abortions in Illinois. Abortion is the inextricable outcome of “reproductive justice.”
Why do underage girls and women abort their babies?
The Federalist’s Greg Scandlen has an answer in an article titled “How Many Women Are Pressured Into Abortions?” Scandlen reported:
Reproductive justice is a form of “reproductive control” and “reproductive coercion.”
Thirdly is futhering “environmental protection.”
How does environmental protection help women? Alex Epstein in “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” writes:
Epstein notes, “To assess the fossil fuel industry’s impact on our environment, we simply need to ask: What is its impact on threats? What is its impact on resources? The moral case against fossil fuels argues that the industry makes our environment more threatening and our resources more scarce.”
With scarce natural resources comes higher prices for food, home heating, gasoline and all other products used by women to sustain human life.
Perhaps the Women’s March to the Polls is all about politics and little to do with the life, liberty and happiness of women? Or is this march just another a get out the vote to reelect Democrats to continue to lead Chicago on the same path that it is headed? You be the judge.
RELATED ARTICLES:
California Can Now Jail People for Misusing Gender Pronouns
When It Comes to Cost of Living, Red States Win
EDITORS NOTE: The feature image is of Colette Gregory, right, with her mentee Sara Phillips, 27 from the January 20th, 2017 Women’s March on Chicago. Photo by WTTW PBS channel in Chicago.
Schooling Was for the Industrial Era, Unschooling Is for the Future
/in Culture War, Education, Policy, Regulation/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)We’ve entered a new era, the Imagination Age, so why are we still schooling kids like we did in the 19th Century?
by Kerry McDonald
Our current compulsory schooling model was created at the dawn of the Industrial Age. As factories replaced farm work and production moved swiftly outside of homes and into the larger marketplace, 19th century American schooling mirrored the factories that most students would ultimately join.
The bells and buzzers signaling when students could come and go, the tedium of the work, the straight lines and emphasis on conformity and compliance, the rows of young people sitting passively at desks while obeying their teachers, the teachers obeying the principal, and so on—all of this was designed for factory-style efficiency and order.
The Imagination Age
The trouble is that we have left the Industrial Era for the Imagination Age, but our mass education system remains fully entrenched in factory-style schooling. By many accounts, mass schooling has become even more restrictive than it was a century ago, consuming more of childhood and adolescence than at any time in our history. The first compulsory schooling statute, passed in Massachusetts in 1852, required eight to 14-year-olds to attend school a mere 12 weeks a year, six of which were to be consecutive. This seems almost laughable compared to the childhood behemoth that mass schooling has now become.
Enclosing children in increasingly restrictive schooling environments for most of their formative years, and drilling them with a standardized, test-driven curriculum is woefully inadequate for the Imagination Age. In her book, Now You See It, Cathy Davidson says that 65 percent of children now entering elementary school will work at jobs in the future that have not yet been invented. She writes: “In this time of massive change, we’re giving our kids the tests and lesson plans designed for their great-great-grandparents.”
While the past belonged to assembly line workers, the future belongs to creative thinkers, experimental doers, and inventive makers. The past relied on passivity; the future will be built on passion. In a recent article on the future of work, author and strategist John Hagel III writes about the need to nurture passion to be successful and fulfilled in the jobs to come. He says:
Passion-Driven Learning
Cultivating passion is nearly impossible within a coercive schooling structure that values conformity over creativity, compliance over-exuberance. This could help explain why the unschooling, or Self-Directed Education, movement is taking off, with more parents migrating from a schooling model of education for their children to a learning one. With Self-Directed Education, passion is at the center of all learning. Young people follow their interests and pursue their passions, while adults act as facilitators, connecting children and teens to the vast resources of both real and digital communities. In this model, learning is natural, non-coercive, and designed to be directed by the individual herself, rather than by someone else.
Self-Directed Education and unschooling often take place in homes and throughout communities, but increasingly individuals and organizations are launching self-directed learning centers geared toward homeschoolers with both full- and part-time options. These centers make Self-Directed Education more accessible to more families in more places, and each has a unique philosophy or focus. Some are geared toward teens and value real-world apprenticeships and immersion; others are makerspaces that emphasize tinkering and technology, and so on. In Boston, for instance, the JP Green School in the city’s Jamaica Plain neighborhood serves as a part-time self-directed learning space for homeschoolers and unschoolers with a focus on sustainability and nature connection. Co-founder Andrée Zaleska says:
Instead of complaining about the education status quo, entrepreneurial individuals are building alternatives to school that challenge it. Centered around passion and an overarching belief in individual self-determination, these entrepreneurs — who are often parents, former school teachers, and others who have become disillusioned by coercive schooling — are freeing young people from an outdated and harmful mass schooling system. Enlightened parents and innovative entrepreneurs may be the key players in constructing a new education model focused on freedom and designed for the Imagination Age.
Kerry McDonald
Kerry McDonald has a B.A. in Economics from Bowdoin and an M.Ed. in education policy from Harvard. She lives in Cambridge, Mass. with her husband and four never-been-schooled children. Follow her writing at Whole Family Learning.