Budget and Finance Archives - Page 2 of 51

Trump Takes the Lead in Post-Debate Battleground Polling

September 13, 2024/in Budget and Finance, Communism, Culture War, Elections, Featured, Hot Topics, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues, Socialism/by Family Research Council

Ahead of Tuesday night’s debate, most commentators and voters alike anticipated that former President Donald Trump’s and Vice President Kamala Harris’s performances would do little to sway voters one way or the other, but a series of recent polls suggests otherwise. On Thursday, Trump released internal polling data targeting seven battleground states, showing an increase in support for the man vowing to “Make America Great Again.”

Conducted by veteran Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, the survey found a two-point increase in support for Trump following the debate, and no increase for Harris. In a six-way contest featuring Trump, Harris, and a handful of Independent and third-party candidates, the poll found that Trump and Harris were tied at 46% support each prior to the debate, but Trump pulled ahead to 48% support following the debate. Likewise, while Trump and Harris were tied at 48% each in a one-on-one contest ahead of the debate, Trump’s support increased to 50% following the debate, while Harris’s support dropped to 47%. “These are largely Independent Voters, who are tired of watching our Country go down, and want to, [Make America Great Again]!” Trump observed in his social media post publicizing the polling information.

In a memo accompanying the polling results, Fabrizio wrote, “We found that despite the best efforts of Kamala Harris and media to portray the debate as some kind of overwhelming win for her, voters did not see it this way as support for her remained flat. The only change we saw was a 2-point bump for President Trump in both ballot configurations.” The pollster added, “Clearly, target state voters were not impressed by Kamala Harris’s empty platitudes and while the media would have people believe she is cruising to victory, this couldn’t be farther from the truth.”

Another post-debate poll, this one from Insider Advantage, shows Trump leading Harris in hotly-contested Michigan, where the 45th president leads the incumbent vice president by one point (49% to 48%). Insider Advantage pollster Matt Towery explained, “While there remains some enthusiasm gap in many of these states, with an advantage to Democrats, Michigan has no gap whatsoever. The candidates are basically tied in every age demographic, with Trump slightly ahead among independents.” An Insider Advantage survey prior to the debate found Harris leading in Michigan by two points (49% to 47%), so that the post-debate polling represents a three-point swing away from Harris.

A series of focus group interviews in the immediate aftermath of the debate also indicated burgeoning support for Trump, especially among Independent and undecided voters. Reuters surveyed ten undecided voters after the debate and found that six of the ten had decided to back Trump, while only three supported Harris; one remained undecided. Referring to the newly-minted Trump supporters, Reuters explained, “Four of those six also said Harris did not convince them she would pursue different economic policies than Democratic President Joe Biden, a Democrat they largely blame for the high cost of living.”

The New York Times also reported that undecided voters were unimpressed with Harris’s debate performance, with many siding with Trump throughout the debate. Fox News found that Independent voters tracked almost entirely with Republicans during the debate, aligning with Trump’s positions on inflation, immigration, and other issues. A CNN survey found that Trump had a 20-point post-debate lead over Harris on economic issues and a 23-point lead on immigration issues.

Numerous other polls have found that a majority of Americans are deeply dissatisfied with the state of the nation under the Biden-Harris administration. A Napolitan News Service survey found that nearly 60% of Americans believe that they were better off four years ago, under Trump’s presidency, than they are today. Two-thirds of respondents also said that their income “has been falling behind” and not keeping up with inflation. A Pew Research poll discovered that 74% of Americans are “very concerned about the price of food and consumer goods,” while concerns over the cost of housing have increased nearly 10 points just over the past year. A New York Times/Siena College poll reported that nearly two-thirds (63%) of likely voters directly fault Harris for the ongoing illegal immigration crisis.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

PODCAST: Kamala Harris’s Policies

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

38% Rise in Home Prices Leaves Families Stranded in Place

September 12, 2024/in Budget and Finance, Culture War, Economy, Elections, Hot Topics, Marxism, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

The average price of a single-family home has risen nearly 38% since President Joe Biden took office, according to the S&P Case-Shiller home price index. The sudden spike, along with rising interest rates, has acted as a giant emergency brake on homebuying, leaving many families stranded in places they did not expect to be long-term. It also drove a giant wedge between those who own a home and those who do not. But not all is hopeless.

First, the data. The Case-Shiller index for home prices rose 38% between January 2021 and June 2024. For comparison, the index rose 44% over a comparable, three-and-a-half-year period (January 2003 to June 2006) during the mid-2000s housing bubble. Interest rates have risen over the same period, with the average rate for a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage rising by 127%, from 2.79% on January 14, 2021 to 6.35% on September 5, 2024 (after peaking at nearly 8% in November 2023).

These facts combine to make purchasing a new house costlier — and in many cases cost prohibitive — particularly for first-time homebuyers. According to data compiled by Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, “For the low-downpayment loans commonly pursued by first-time buyers, the total monthly payment on the median-priced home is now $3,096 after taxes and insurance” (compared to a median monthly payment of slightly over $2,000 in January 2021). To afford the current monthly payment for a median-priced home “under common payment-to-income ratios” (with the payment equal to 31% of income), a family would need an annual household income of $119,800. The Harvard report adds that only one in seven American families who do not own a home can meet that threshold.

It may seem counterintuitive at first, but this dramatic increase in the cost of buying a new home does not translate into rising costs for all housing. For instance, families who already own a home are locked into a mortgage with a pre-determined principal and interest rate, which is not affected by these rising costs. However, these rising costs do affect their ability to move by making it more expensive to sell their house and buy a different one.

Rising home costs will also affect rental costs. Because it is more expensive to buy a home, some people who would have purchased a home will choose to rent instead. As a result, the demand for home rentals will be higher than it otherwise would be. And, when rental home demand increases, basic supply-and-demand stipulates that the price of rental homes will increase too. Thus, the rising costs of homes affects non-homeowners in two ways. Not only are many people priced out of buying their first home, but they will also see their rental costs rise as well.

These rising costs affect homeowners and non-homeowners in slightly different ways. People who already own a home benefit in the sense that their property value is increasing, although they lose flexibility if they have to move. Families may choose not to pursue a job opportunity in another city, for example, or have more children, due to the extra costs related to moving. Meanwhile, people who do not own a home suffer from rising costs whether they buy a home or not. Additionally, they also miss out on the opportunity for independence and wealth accumulation provided by home ownership. In a way, the rising costs of purchasing a home drives a further wedge between homeowners and renters.

In an indirect way, the current record-high home prices may be on the November ballot, but for now, families must take them as a life circumstance beyond their control. The sovereign Lord of the universe does not judge us based on what we cannot control, but based on how we respond to the trials he does control. So, in this far-from-ideal situation, how should Christians respond?

Non-homeowners can respond by pursuing godly community. As renters, they have more freedom to move, and they should use that freedom to locate themselves among God’s people. Those who are not married can join houses of likeminded men or women, where they can cultivate habits of daily discipleship, fellowship, and prayer, which God blessed in Acts 2:42-47. Those who are married, or who have children can choose to locate themselves close to a church community so that they can be an integral part of the church’s life — serving and fellowship at every opportunity.

Homeowners can respond by investing in their local church, especially through hospitality. Perhaps the economic conditions that prevent them from moving are God’s way of nudging them to go deeper in their current church community, building the deep discipling relationships (Matthew 28:19) that only come with time.

Christian homeowners should also use the homes God has given them to bless his people through showing hospitality, as the New Testament commands (Romans 12:13, Hebrews 13:2, 1 Peter 4:9). Perhaps they can house a visiting missionary or refugee. Perhaps they can invite another family over for a weeknight dinner or a Sunday afternoon meal. Perhaps they can host a Bible study.

Instead of viewing these activities as hassles or burdens, they should recognize that they are making investments in the kingdom of God and particularly in the souls with whom they share their own local church. Jesus concluded his parable of the dishonest manager, “Make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings” (Luke 11:9).

Jesus continued, “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much” (Luke 11:10). So, whether you have much or little, whether you live in a paid-off mansion or have been frustrated in your first home purchase by the poor economy, use whatever you have to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33).

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

A Very Short List, and a Very Long Question

September 12, 2024/in Budget and Finance, Culture War, Elections, Hot Topics, National Security, News, Policy, Politics, Religion, Socialism, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Jihad Watch

I was wondering, not exactly idly, where American foreign aid now is sent, and found online a list of the ten countries that receive the most aid from Washington. Here is that list.

In 2023, the United States spent nearly $61 billion on foreign aid. Fully half of that budget has gone to just ten countries:

Ukraine ($16.4 billion)
Israel ($3.3 billion)
Ethiopia ($1.95 billion)
Jordan ($1.65 billion)
Egypt ($1.43 billion)
Afghanistan ($1.19 billion)
Somalia ($1.13 billion)
Yemen ($1.05 billion)
Congo ($987 million)
Syria ($896 million)

Now I have no objection to aid for Ukraine, as it fights to push Putin’s troops out of the country. This unusually large sum — $16.4 billion, and much more so far in 2024 — far outstrips the amounts for the other recipients of aid. This aid only started to be given in 2020, after Russia invaded Ukraine, and it will not continue at anything like that level once that Ukraine-Russia war is over.

As for #2 on the list, I certainly do not object to the sums given to Israel, which for the fourth time in its young life is having to fight for its very existence (the previous wars were in 1948, 1967, and 1973) as it faces a seven-front war, with Hamas in Gaza, with Hezbollah in Lebanon, with the Houthis in Lebanon, with Assad’s army in Syria, with assorted terrorist groups — Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — in Judea and Samaria, with the Shi’a militia, Kata’ib Hezbollah, in Iraq, and looming behind them all, pulling the strings of these various proxies, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nor do I begrudge Ethiopia its aid, for that Christian country has endured several years of severe drought and internal conflict, including the war involving the Ethiopian central government and the northernmost region of Tigray. Ethiopia has once again become engaged in violent internal conflict, this time involving militia groups from the regions of Amhara and Oromia. And Ethiopia has long had a close relationship with the United States for many decades, beginning under the reign of Haile Selassie. The amount we provide is to help the government restore peace; as with the aid given to Ukraine, it isn’t intended to be a long-term commitment.

But. beyond that, I wonder. Of the seven remaining countries on the list of the top ten recipients, all but one are Muslim countries. Why are we transferring wealth to Muslim countries when the Arab states of the Gulf have trillions of dollars in their sovereign funds? Why do we not insist that the rich Arabs should be helping their brethren, instead of assuming that we should support Muslim states that, precisely because they are Muslim, cannot possibly be our friends (as the Qur’an directs them not to be; see suras 3:28 and 5:51)? Saudi Arabia has more than $1 trillion in its sovereign wealth fund. The UAE has even more: $1.7 trillion. In the first half of 2024 the sovereign wealth funds of five Gulf Arab states — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain — invested $39 billion. Surely they can spare $8 billion to provide to other Arab states, which is roughly the total the United States now gives to the seven Muslim states on the list above.

For reasons that deserve to be pondered, Anwar Sadat got the American aid ball rolling for Egypt with his “prince-of-peace” impersonation. And that money has continued ever since, despite the litany of human rights abuses in that country. Egypt need not be continuously bribed to keep the peace with Israel. What keeps the peace between Israel and Egypt is the IDF. If Egypt needs money, the Gulf states, whose monarchs share El-Sisi’s fear and hatred of the Muslim Brotherhood, should be happy to help.

Jordan, similarly, need not be given large sums by the Americans. The Hashemite king need only hold out his hand in Eleemosynary Position #1, and the Emirates and Saudis will be glad to help out a fellow monarch, especially one who doesn’t want to be overthrown by the two-thirds of his population that is Palestinian. That would be a dangerous example for the monarchs in the Gulf. King Abdullah, like the Saudi Crown Prince and the Emirati rulers, is prepared to repress the Muslim Brotherhood. He, too, needs no American bribe to keep the peace with Israel. The IDF maintains that peace.

AUTHOR

Hugh Fitzgerald

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kansas City, Kansas: Imam says that Jews have ‘now become cursed by Allah’

Hamas has made half a billion dollars from ‘humanitarian’ aid, pays jihadis

University of Michigan’s Black Student Union Cuts Ties To Anti-Zionist Group

Palestinian Authority Calls On UN to Remove 500,000 Israelis From Judea and Samaria Within Six Months

9/11 MIA at Debate

The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election and its Potential impact on Israel

Fraud Grips $112.8 Billion U.S. Food Stamp Program, $61.5 Million in Stolen Benefits Replaced

September 12, 2024/in Budget and Finance, Economy, Elections, Marxism, News, Policy, Politics, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Judicial Watch

Fraud in the government’s food stamp program is so pervasive that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the agency that administers it, launched a special system to facilitate the replacement of the welfare benefit when recipients claim it stolen. In the two years since the Biden administration created the program, the government has doled out a hefty $61.5 million to replace pilfered food stamps—rebranded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by the Obama administration to eliminate stigma—in 127,290 cases. Keep in mind, this is in addition to the staggering $112.8 billion that Uncle Sam spends to provide 42.1 million with free groceries, according to the latest government figures.

The USDA’s SNAP Replacement of Stolen Benefits Dashboard reveals that 79% of claims were approved by the agency and that 339,269 fraudulent transactions were identified through approved stolen benefits claims. Recipients in every state in the nation have submitted claims and New York has by far the most food stamp fraud cases—50,678. Maryland is second with 33,509, followed by Illinois (16,369), Texas (11,633), Washington State (4,208), New Jersey (3,630), Arizona (3,541), North Carolina (3,434), Indiana (3,309) and New Mexico (3,027). Three states have reported over 2,000 cases and more than half a dozen have over 1,000. The federal government allows states to replace benefits stolen as far back as October 2022, according to the USDA dashboard.

“The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is aware of increased reports of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) theft due to card skimming, cloning, and similar fraudulent methods,” the agency announced in January 2023, revealing that at the end of 2022 President Biden signed a measure that includes a provision for the replacement of stolen food stamp benefits with federal funds. The USDA cites the section of the law that requires it to issue guidance to state agencies and “promulgate regulations to protect and replace SNAP benefits stolen via card skimming, card cloning, and other similar fraudulent methods.” Other similar fraudulent methods may include, but are not limited to, scamming through deceitful phone calls or text messaging that mimics official state agency messaging and phishing. “A theft that resulted from any of these methods would be eligible for replacement,” according to the USDA.

Rather than so easily replacing the stolen benefit, perhaps the government should create a system to crack down on the rampant fraud. Besides saving American taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, it seems like a more efficient way to operate. After all, the nation’s bloated food stamp program has long been plagued by problems that have fleeced the system out of large sums. A few years ago, the USDA disclosed that it sees over a billion dollars annually in food stamp fraud. Many of the retailers authorized by the government to accept food stamps also engage in illegal practices, the agency has found. A few years ago, nearly 200 people were arrested in Florida for operating a sophisticated ring in which 22,000 fraudulent food stamp transactions totaling $3.7 million were recorded by a task force of local and federal authorities. In 2016 the feds busted the largest food stamp fraud operation in history, a $13 million scheme run by flea market retailers in the largely black and Hispanic areas of south Florida’s Miami-Dade County known as Opa-Locka and Hialeah.

The government has failed to mitigate the illicit activities that have long plagued the program and now it is doling out tens of millions of dollars to replace stolen benefits rather than implement a system to prevent it. Just a few weeks ago, a Kentucky news station reported that thieves have stolen more than $5 million worth of food stamps in the past year from families in Kentucky and Indiana. “Scammers are draining accounts linked to EBT cards,” used by the government to distribute benefits, the story says. In South Carolina a woman recently got busted for fraudulently receiving more than $28,000 in food stamp benefits. Another woman was also recently arrested in the state for fraud after taking over $12,000 in food stamps that she did not qualify for. In Delaware and Tennessee, the government recently replaced hundreds of thousands of dollars in stolen food stamps, according to local news reports. The list goes on and on.

‘Kamala Harris Is Running a Giveaway Campaign’: Economist

September 9, 2024/in Budget and Finance, Culture War, Elections, Featured, Hot Topics, Marxism, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues, Socialism, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

As presidential hopefuls Donald Trump and Kamala Harris approach their first debate on Tuesday, their campaigns have unveiled economic policies that seem in some ways diametrically opposed — and only one could stimulate “robust economic growth,” a leading economist has warned.

Harris has proposed imposing price controls on food, undoing the Trump tax cuts of 2017 by raising the top tax rate to 39.6%, hiking corporate taxes and capital gains taxes to 28%, giving first-time homebuyers $25,000, and doubling down on Obamacare by raising taxpayer-funded subsidies for those who buy their plans from the exchange.

She also proposed one tax cut to benefit small businesses. “I want to see 25 million new small business applications by the end of my first term,” said Harris last week. “So, part of my plan is we will expand the tax deduction for startups to $50,000.”

In a speech at the Economic Club of New York last Thursday, former President Trump proposed unleashing the power of the free market by maintaining the 2017 tax cuts and further slashing the corporate tax from 21% to 15%, cutting red tape, protecting U.S. manufacturing by raising tariffs on imported goods, clawing back all unspent funds from the Biden-Harris administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, and making more jobs available to U.S. citizens by deporting illegal immigrants who lower wages and compete for jobs.

Both candidates agree on ending federal taxation on tips, a policy first proposed this presidential race by Trump and parroted by Harris.

“Kamala Harris is running a giveaway campaign,” Paul Mueller, a senior research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) told “Washington Watch” guest host Joseph Backholm last Thursday. “Of course, the Biden administration has been trying to cancel various forms of student debt for years now. And her approach, I think, to stimulating the economy is more of what we’ve seen over the past four years, which is extensive government involvement, huge amounts of spending. It’s not really an organic growth within the economy.”

Artificial stimulus raises prices, a major problem over the course of the Biden-Harris administration. “When you subsidize people’s ability to buy things — whether that’s higher education or health care — and we give people money in the form of loans or grants or scholarships to do that, what it does is boosts demand. And so what we see over time in both of those areas is rising costs. The cost of higher education has grown much faster than everything else in the economy. The rate of increase for health care has increased very rapidly,” Mueller stated. “And so this $25,000 credit for first-time home buyers, while it sounds nice, it’s actually going to continue to put upward pressure on the price of housing overall.”

The entire amount of the subsidy is “actually going to be eaten up by rising prices,” Mueller noted.

Even a putatively pro-business tax policy like a small business tax credit could backfire. “There are a lot of small business owners who maybe will close down their existing business and start a new one just to get the tax credit,” Mueller warned.

On the other hand, “President Trump’s agenda” has the potential to spur “robust economic growth” in an organic way, said Mueller. “He has talked about wanting to roll back regulations.”

Mueller noted he opposed Trump’s tariff policy, “and, then, he hasn’t really addressed runaway government spending. And the more money that is spent by the federal government, the less money there is for people in the private sector to spend on their businesses, their houses, their projects.”

Backholm suggested the greatest vacuum in economic dialogue involves America’s $35 trillion national debt. “So far, we are not seeing a lot of politicians raise their hand and say, ‘I’m the guy that’s going to give you less so we can save the future.’ I think that might be what we need. We’re not getting that from anybody at this point.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

Kamala Harris’s Housing Plan Would Be Worse Than Doing Nothing

September 6, 2024/in Budget and Finance, Economy, Elections, News, Politics, Regulation, Social Issues, Socialism, Taxes/by Edward Pinto

On August 16, presidential candidate Kamala Harris unveiled a series of housing proposals that recycle the same failed strategies that have plagued federal housing policy for decades. Among the key components are subsidies for the construction of 3 million new housing units over four years, as well as a total of $100 billion over four years in down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers (FTBs).

Experience tells us her plan would be worse than doing nothing.

These proposals rest on the faulty premise that housing affordability can be improved through subsidies for construction and home purchases. But history offers a cautionary tale: From the 1930s to 2008, Congress passed and presidents signed into law at least 43 housing, urban renewal, and community development programs. Despite their lofty promises, these initiatives consistently failed in making housing more affordable.

Candidate Harris’s plan will be no different.

First, the plan to provide up to $25,000 in down payment assistance to 4 million first-time buyers over four years is likely to inadvertently raise home prices, thereby diminishing the intended benefits of this support. Currently, first-time buyers typically make a median down payment of around $10,500, or 3 percent of the home price. We estimate that even without the Harris proposal, 3 million of its recipients would have been able to purchase a home without any additional assistance and would experience a significant boost their purchasing power, in an already supply limited market. Additionally, the subsidy will also create and draw forward new demand from approximately 1 million additional buyers, further inflating prices. The cost-effectiveness of this plan is also questionable: With only one in four buyers truly needing the assistance, the cost per added homebuyer rises to a steep $100,000.

Second, Harris’s proposal to subsidize the construction of 3 million new housing units over four years is unlikely to significantly increase the overall housing supply. Much of this plan depends on expanding the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), a program that, like many other subsidy programs, faces several challenges, which we dub the Five Cs: cost, complexity, corruption, a cartel of specialized LIHTC developers and non-profits, and the crowding out of private developers; studies show that nearly all LIHTC developments displace other housing that could have been built by the market without subsidies.

On the cost side, we estimate that the average new LIHTC unit costs around $450,000. Additionally, nearly half of the LIHTC units funded are allocated for the renovation and preservation of existing affordable units, rather than adding new ones.

Harris’ proposed tax incentive for building starter homes is the other main driver to add supply. It would suffer from many of the same Five Cs as LIHTC, and like the down payment assistance program, many of these new homes would have been built without the subsidy.

History shows that this approach can lead to significant market distortions. For example, the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 provided easy credit terms and substantial subsidies, resulting in a surge of housing permits by 1971-1972, only for this boom to dissipate by 1975. This program left lasting scars on cities like Detroit, Chicago, and Cleveland—areas that remain hollowed out to this day. Similarly, the 1992 congressional mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to meet affordable housing goals led to an easing of credit before the Great Financial Crisis. This policy caused housing permits to double from 1.1 million in 1992 to 2.2 million in 2005, but the market collapsed by 73 percent in 2009, leaving behind millions of foreclosures and a persistent housing supply deficit that still affects us today.

Third, Harris’s $40 billion fund for local governments to explore “innovative” housing solutions will likely funnel money into projects burdened by self-defeating government-mandated affordability requirements, which HUD loves but markets abhor. By further empowering federal bureaucrats, it will do more harm than good.

The fundamental problem with past programs and Harris’s proposed efforts is not insufficient subsidies but structural issues—namely, restrictive zoning and land use rules—that are holding back housing construction. These regulations make buildable land both scarce and expensive.

What is needed is a paradigm shift. As Charles Marohn, the founder of Strong Towns, succinctly put it, “We have to move beyond the narrow, almost futile task of making affordable [subsidized] housing and start working on the broader and more meaningful effort of making housing affordable.”

To achieve this, we need to significantly increase housing supply. The federal government has several levers at its disposal to encourage this result. First, a 10-year plan to auction surplus federal lands for new market-rate home construction could add 200,000 homes per year. This initiative could generate $10 billion in annual receipts. Second, eliminating the mortgage interest deduction for second homes could free up 700,000 existing homes over the next decade for first-time buyers. Third, reducing regulatory costs that hold back builders by increasing construction expenses is crucial—and indeed, this is an issue that Harris’s plan rightfully addresses.

These measures, in combination with state and local efforts to deregulate land use and zoning, can more effectively address the housing affordability crisis, all at no taxpayer cost and without unintended consequences.

AUTHORS

Edward J. Pinto and Tobias Peter

Kamala Harris the Marxist Chameleon Walking in Venezuela’s Footsteps

September 6, 2024/in Budget and Finance, Commentary, Culture War, Economy, Elections, Hot Topics, Marxism, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Social Issues, Socialism, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Geoff Ross USN retired Surface Warfare/Air Warfare

Kamala Harris is a Marxist puppet of George Soros and the corrupt deep state. She is a fake American intent on destroying our free market capitalist republic.

Her long term objective is to continue former Communist President Barack Hussein Obama’s “Hope and Change” unconstitutional transformation of our country into a Marxist state and she was well trained by her Marxist father.

Her ideology is also an exact mirror image of the Communist government running Venezuela under the dictatorship of comrade Nicolàs Maduro, a narco drug trafficker with a $15 million bounty on his head and minus his private, jet thanks to president Trumps former administration and his sanctions.

Let’s compare Comrade Kamala Harris and Comrade Nicolàs Maduro’s economic policies and ideology.

1. Federal Price Controls.

Kamala Harris stated she will implement Federal price controls to curb the inflation if elected President, inflation which she created with her deciding vote in the Senate in August 2022 adding close to 4 trillion dollars in additional national debt.

In his first year as president, Nicolàs Maduro was responsible for the closure of 77,839 businesses destroying 173,000 jobs across Venezuela when he implemented Federal price controls according to the Venezuelan National Statistics Institute (INE).

2. Government Rent Controls.

Kamala Harris in July 2024 stated while speaking in Atlanta Georgia to a crowd of 10,000 supporters, Harris promised to “take on corporate landlords and cap unfair rent increases.”

In 2014, President Maduro also created “a freeze on commercial rents at rates more than 50 percent lower than they had been which resulted with Venezuela’s private rental sector including apartments, malls and the retail industry with landlords losing 75% of their incomes. Landlords discontinued maintenance on their properties and stopped renting apartments creating a housing shortage.

3. Inflation and Hyperinflation.

Kamala Harris was the deciding vote in August 2022 with the fraudulently named Inflation Reduction Act which actually was the approval of the Green New Deal. It inflicted an increase close to 7% more inflation on our republic and more devaluation of the dollar creating a massive reduction of American consumers spending power and the printing of more dollars to pay the interest on our national debt.

During President Maduro’s presidency, Venezuela’s economy began hyperinflation in response to the high inflation rate created by both unprecedented money-printing and government deficit spending.

4. Government Control of Minimum Wages.

Kamala Harris supported the government implementation and control of minimum wages in California. When it was implemented this resulted in an immediate loss of over 10,000 jobs in the restaurant industry and hundreds of service industry businesses closing when government interference in Sacramento forced a $20 minimum immediate 22% wage increase on certain franchised businesses.

In April 2014, President Maduro raised by force the minimum wage by 30%, hoping to improve citizens’ purchasing power. This resulted in over half of the small businesses closing or laying off staff costing the Venezuelan government millions in income tax revenue and an immediate loss in citizens purchasing power and jobs.

5. Effects of Communist interference in free market capitalism and entrepreneurial risk taking.

The unemployment rate data promulgated by Biden’s US Department of Labor cannot be trusted and has submitted fake claims recently. Fraudulent Communist propaganda is a common practice in the Biden administration. The current state of our economy is very bad.

When President Maduro took office in early 2013, the unemployment rate in Venezuela was 7.6%. By 2017, after more of his Marxist economic policies where implemented this resulted in an unemployment rate of over 25% in Venezuela.

6. Promises of Low Income Homes and Free Money.

Kamala Harris copying a Communist blue print disguised as the “Build the American Dream: Lowering the Costs of Renting and Owning a Home,” said she will construct 3 million new housing units in the next four years, with rent controls and she also proposed $25,000 in down payment support for first-time homeowners. No word on how this will be funded by us taxpayers.

In May 2024 Nicolàs Maduro continued the Great Housing Mission created by Communist President Hugo Chavez in 2011 to allocate homes to low-income families at low cost or free.

His program supposedly built 4.6 million homes with no evidence to back up his claim. My family that lives in Venezuela would never accept any government benefit from Maduro and they see no such project was ever built. The limited number of homes that were built under this program was proven to be filled with corruption and structural deficiencies.

Kamala Harris is an exponential threat to our constitutional republic, she is following a Venezuelan government Communist path to our economic destruction.

I am amazed that Americans would support her Marxist policies so it must be a reflection of the low IQ Americans that vote for and support these tyrannical people.

No doubt they are a product of an indoctrinated left wing administered public school system and propaganda machine ran from the highest levels in state, local and federal governments.

To protect our free market economy, to protect our free speech and lawful ownership of weapons for self defense from a Marxist Harris dictatorship vote for Donald Trump this November 2024. Our children and grand children are depending on us to keep them free.

Harris/Trump Debate: Let’s Give Them Something to Talk About — Fiscal Sustainability, Says Concord Coalition

September 6, 2024/in Budget and Finance, Culture War, Elections, Featured, Hot Topics, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Social Issues, Socialism, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Dr. Richard M. Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.)

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire/ — The presidential debate early next week is the perfect opportunity for us to hear from Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump about how they would tackle the challenges of $2 trillion annual budget deficits, ballooning national debt, and the pending insolvency of Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

These problems are not new. In fact, 30 years ago The Concord Coalition’s co-chairmen, Jack Danforth and Bob Kerrey — both then U.S. Senators – chaired a commission that warned of unsustainable fiscal trends. And, because politicians have failed to act in the intervening decades, the commission’s findings are still valid today.

The Concord Coalition today is releasing an updated edition of those findings, which received broad bipartisan support among the commission members, Kerrey-Danforth Commission Findings Still Need Solutions Thirty Years Later. Taken together, they comprise a blueprint for presidential candidates and all those in national office to guide their policymaking.

As Senators Danforth and Kerrey put it:

“In our introduction to the August 1994 Interim Report of the Commission we wrote ‘America is at a fiscal crossroads…if we fail to act, we threaten the financial future of our children and our Nation…If the country does not respond, Americans 10,15…20 years from now will ask why we had so little foresight.’ Thirty years have passed, and the American people have a right to ask that question. Why has there been so little action? “There is no good answer. So, we are issuing a challenge to a new generation of national leaders: Take up this cause. Solve this problem.”

ABOUT THE CONCORD COALITION

The Concord Coalition is a nationwide, non-partisan, grassroots organization advocating generationally responsible fiscal policy. The Concord Coalition was founded in 1992 by the late former Senator Paul Tsongas (D-Mass.), former Senator Warren Rudman (R-N.H.), and former U.S. Secretary of Commerce Peter Peterson.

The Concord Coalition is dedicated to educating the public about the causes and consequences of large-and-growing federal budget deficits and national debt, the long-term challenges facing the economy and how to build a sound fiscal future for all generations. The Concord Coalition’s national field staff and volunteer Fiscal Lookouts cover the country, hosting lectures, facilitating interactive exercises, conducting classes, giving media interviews and briefing elected officials and their staffs.

Trump & Musk Will Restore Fiscal Responsibility To Our Republic

September 5, 2024/in Budget and Finance, Economy, Elections, Hot Topics, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Social Issues, Socialism, Taxes/by Geoff Ross USN retired Surface Warfare/Air Warfare

President Trump and Elon Musk will do, what the do nothing Republican’s have never done – audit and dismantle all the wasteful federal government spending and departments.

WATCH: TRUMP: “At the suggestion of Elon Musk.. I will create a Government Efficiency Commission’

The Republican and Democrat Uni-Party pigs have been sucking on the taxpayers mammaries for years and years. The federal government is so fat it would qualify as a DEI hire.

Soon we will return to fiscal responsibility and sanity and fund only what is required to maintain a strong national defense.

Trump will secure our borders, and also return our constitutional republic to energy independence.

Trump will tell the Speaker of the House no more bullxxxx continuing resolutions (CR) it’s time for a fiscally conservative budget that puts American citizens first.

The weak Republican Party is also being flushed and cleansed of its fraud party members. The Communist Democrat party is imploding under its tyranny.

Trump 2024.

The Democrats’ War on Reality: Spending Bills Reveal a Twisted Vision for the Future

September 3, 2024/in Budget and Finance, Economy, Elections, Hot Topics, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Social Issues, Socialism, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

It’s almost September, and that can only mean one thing: Congress is returning to Washington, and Americans should hold on to their wallets. Several things could combine to make this fall a budget-buster: The fiscal year end means that $6 trillion worth of federal budgeting must be renewed by September 30th; the last three weeks of September are the last time Congress will be in session before the November 5th election; and, liberals in Washington only know one way to win — by buying reelection with your taxpayer dollars.

Dear taxpayer, September ain’t gonna be pretty, so buckle up.

Already in July, well ahead of next month’s funding fights, several reporters who cover Capitol Hill suddenly began simultaneously reporting that House Republicans are “fighting culture wars” by stuffing supposedly unrelated provisions into congressional spending bills. They are repeating Democratic talking points that characterize the spending bills in the Senate (controlled by Democrats) as neutral and bipartisan. The obvious implication of this reporting is that the “fair” approach would be to reject House conservatives’ “inflaming” language and instead adopt the Senate’s “neutral” language. Look for that framing to be used in force in September, when the House and Senate return to Washington to try to pass a budget.

This framing gets at least two things wrong.

First, the House and Senate are miles apart, not just on moral issues but on basic spending levels. Last year, the House and Senate fiscal year 2024 (FY24) spending bills were more than $150 billion dollars apart. (Neither set of spending bills balanced the budget, much less made a dent in the national debt, but the Republican-controlled House was proposing spending levels that were either pared down or more modestly increased than the Democrat-controlled Senate.)

This year will be no different, and the difference between what House Republicans and Senate Democrats (with some Republicans) want to spend will likely be even greater. With inflation ballooning under the Biden-Harris administration because of government spending, Democrats in Washington and their friends in the media would like nothing better than to deflect attention onto so-called “culture war issues.” Don’t miss the sleight of hand.

Second, when it comes to standing for life, marriage, and religious liberty, it’s important to realize that conservatives on Capitol Hill are actually playing defense against the Biden-Harris administration’s aggressive offense. Last year, for example, Planned Parenthood received one-third of its budget — $699.4 million — from taxpayers. The Biden-Harris administration is actively and aggressively using the levers of government to advocate for false sexual identities (LGBT) in everything from federally-funded school lunch programs to foreign assistance to poor countries. The government is being weaponized against people of faith and people with no faith at all who continue to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.

In other words, if there is a “culture war,” it is one that the Biden-Harris administration is waging, with the help of Congressional Democrats who dominate the Senate. Meanwhile, House Republicans — the only bulwark to this onslaught — comprise a bare majority that is split into several factions. Conservative House Republicans are pushing back against the Democrats’ radical agenda, but other House Republicans try to stay as far away from the issues as they can, and some Republicans even join Democrats in destructive efforts to undermine marriage and target the unborn. Senate conservatives often do not have the votes to block harmful Democratic policies.

While some Republicans seem embarrassed by conservative principles, Democrats have seemingly no shame in using taxpayer funding to advance a radical leftist agenda. In the Senate, for example, here are some examples of radical, “culture war” earmarks that Senate Democrats have offered in this year’s spending bills:

Supporting abortion providers

$5,106,000 in earmarks for a hospital that provides the abortion drug, mifepristone, up to 10 weeks and surgical abortions up to 23 weeks, when some infants would be able to survive outside of the womb (Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., ChristianaCare Health Services, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies — Labor-HHS appropriations bill, in two separate earmarks).
$500,000 earmark for a hospital that provides abortions through 13 weeks and six days (Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., Stroger Hospital, Labor-HHS bill).

Pushing false sexual identities on youth

$1,050,000 earmark for an LGBT advocacy organization that pushes this ideology on youth and advocates for them to undergo harmful gender transition procedures (Laphonza Butler, D-Calif., The Trevor Project, Labor-HHS bill).
$750,000 earmark to push gender ideology on youth ages 11-18 years old (Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Long Island Gay and Lesbian Youth, Inc., Labor-HHS bill).
$500,000 earmark for a “mental health support initiative” to counsel youth through the lens of LGBT ideology (Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.M., and Schumer, Lesbian and Gay Community Services, Inc., Labor-HHS bill).
$356,000 earmark for an all-expenses-paid “training intensive” for self-identified transgender and non-binary theater artists in New York City (Schumer, D-NY, Unremarkable Productions, Labor-HHS bill).
$238,000 earmark for an organization said to serve not only girls, but “gender-expansive youth,” signaling that the organization pushes gender ideology on youth (Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., Asian Girls Ignite, Labor-HHS bill).

Directing funding for women’s services to serve men, and vice versa

$2,846,000 in earmarks for a young men’s organization to provide “accessibility” to YMCA programs regardless of certain characteristics, including gender identity, suggesting that the money will be used (in part) to facilitate the provision of services meant for men to women who identify as men (Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, D-Va., Young Men’s Christian Association of Central Virginia, Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development, and Related Agencies — T-HUD appropriations bill).
$1,500,000 earmark to provide “gender-inclusive shelter” to victims of abuse, raising the concern that biological men will be housed with women, increasing the latter’s risk of harm in the name of inclusivity (Tina Smith, D-Minn., Alexandra House, Inc., T-HUD bill).

House Democrats are no slouches, either, offering at least one “culture war” earmark and many, many amendments to stop conservatives from pumping the brakes on the radical Biden-Harris agenda.

Here are some examples of ways they have prioritized false LGBT identities:

Pushing false sexual identities on youth

$125,000 earmark for a heretical church seeking to establish a taxpayer-funded program that would likely push LGBT ideology on at-risk youth struggling with their gender or sexual identities under the guise of “juvenile justice prevention and education” (Mark Pocan, D-Wis., First Congregational United Church of Christ, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies —CJS appropriations bill).

Discriminating against Americans who believe in one-man, one-woman marriage

Amendments to seven appropriations bills to strike language protecting Americans who believe in man-woman marriage from federal government discrimination (Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, amendment to the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration — Ag bill; Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., amendmentto the CJS bill; Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., amendment to the Energy & Water Development — E&W bill; Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y., amendment to the Financial Services and General Government — FSGG bill; Rep. Eric Sorensen, D-Ill., amendment to the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies — Interior bill; Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill; Rep. Julia Brownley, D-Calif., amendment to the T-HUD bill).

Advocating for false sexual identities

Amendments to prevent Republicans from removing false sexual identities (“sexual orientation and gender identity”) from housing law (Nanette Barragan, D-Calif., and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., amendments to the T-HUD bill).
Amendments to strike sections precluding Pride flags from being flown over federal government facilities (Pingree, D-Maine, amendment to the Ag bill, Rep. Chu, D-Calif., amendment to the E&W bill; Rep. Sorensen, D-Ill., amendment to the Interior bill; Rep. Craig, D-Minn., amendmentto the Labor-HHS bill; Rep. Brownley, D-Calif., amendment to the T-HUD bill).

Putting women at risk, paying for false sexual identities

Amendment to strike a section preventing the Bureau of Prisons from assigning placements based on gender identity, which would allow the placement of men in women’s prisons (Tlaib, D-Mich., amendment to the CJS bill).
Amendment to strike a section that would prohibit placement in federal prisons based on gender identity, and a section prohibiting public funding of gender transition procedures (Lee, D-Pa., amendment to the CJS bill).
Amendment to strike sections barring funding for gender transition procedures, defunding Biden’s anti-religious liberty in adoption final rule, and barring funding for schools that allow males to participate in women’s and girls’ sports (Craig, D-Minn., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).

Here are a few examples of ways House Democrats are prioritizing the promotion of abortion and other policies leading to the destruction of human life:

Advocating for dangerous, do-it-yourself, at-home abortions

Amendment expressing the sense of Congress that the abortion drug, mifepristone, was appropriately approved and is appropriately regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and that this law supersedes any state effort to regulate this drug to mitigate harms to women (Pat Ryan, D-N.Y., amendment to the Ag bill).

Paying for/subsidizing abortions and the destruction of human life

Amendment to strike the Hyde Amendment, which has been in place for 47 years and prohibits HHS funds from being used for abortions (Barbara Lee, D-Calif., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Amendment to restore Title X Family Planning Funding to FY23 levels. Title X pays for drugs and devices that can destroy human embryos, and programs that bypass parental consent laws for minors; it also heavily subsidizes abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood (Kathy Manning, D-N.C., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Amendment to strike a section barring funding for certain organizations that provide abortions, including Planned Parenthood (Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Amendment to strike a section that would allow an individual to sue in court for a suspected violation of the Weldon amendment, which prohibits funding for programs/agencies that discriminate against healthcare entities that decline to provide/pay for abortions (Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Amendment to strike a section prohibiting the NIH from using fetal tissue obtained from an elective abortion in medical research (Diana DeGette, D-Colo., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Amendment to strike a section barring funding for elective abortions for federal prisoners (Lois Frankel, D-Fla., amendmentto the CJS bill).
Amendment to narrow the scope of the Dornan amendment, which prohibits D.C. funds from paying for abortions, allowing the use of local funds for this purpose (Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., amendment to the FSGG bill).
Amendment to prevent the Office of Personnel Management from contracting with Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) carriers unless their plans cover IVF, a procedure that results in the routine destruction and perpetual freezing of living human embryos (Gerry Connolly, D-Va., amendment to the FSGG bill).
Amendment to strike a provision prohibiting abortion coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (Ritchie Torres, D-Calif., amendment to the FSGG bill).
Amendment to strike a section prohibiting funds to establish, support, administer, oversee, or issue a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement to provide information on, promote access to, or facilitate an abortion (Lizzie Fletcher, D-Va., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).

Paying for abortion advocacy

Amendments to strike a section barring funding for the Biden DOJ’s Reproductive Rights Task Force to promote abortion in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs and a section barring funding for litigation against states’ pro-life laws. (Lisa Blunt Rochester, D-Del., amendment; Rep. Gabe Vasquez, D-N.M., amendment; and Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, amendment to the CJS bill).

Allowing the District of Columbia to side-step pro-life federal protections

Amendment to strike a section requiring D.C. to submit a report to Congress on its enforcement of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, keeping Americans in the dark about unlawful abortions being performed on (sometimes viable) babies (such as the DC Five) in D.C. (Norton, D-D.C., amendment to the FSGG bill).
Amendment to strike a section barring D.C. from enforcing its law allowing physician-assisted suicide and from passing any other similar legislation in the future (Norton, D-D.C., amendment to the FSGG bill).

Discriminating against Americans who are pro-life

Amendment to strike a section prohibiting funds to implement the EEOC’s rule requiring reasonable accommodations for employees to get abortions, even if such actions would be against the employer’s conscience (Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., amendment to the CJS bill).
Amendments to prevent Republicans from protecting the conscience rights of employers from being forced to provide coverage of or accommodations for abortions and contraception for their employees (Norton, D-D.C., amendment to the FSGG bill).
Amendment to strike a section that would bar funding for post-graduate physician training programs if they don’t provide an opt-out option for abortion training or if they discriminate against physicians who do opt-out (Kathy Castor, D-Fla., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Amendment to strike a section barring funding for two pro-abortion Biden executive orders — the first contained directives to convene volunteer lawyers to sue against pro-life legislation, use the FTC to go after pregnancy resource centers, and convene an interagency task force to promote abortion while the second set up policies to pay for out-of-state travel for abortion through Medicaid and used sex discrimination laws to go after health care providers that will not provide abortions because of moral objections (Manning, D-N.C., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Amendment to strike a section prohibiting funding for HHS to administer, enforce, or finalize its proposed rule that would stop taxpayer dollars from going to pregnancy resource centers, which provide practical support for women facing unplanned pregnancies (Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).

Jim Wallis, a liberal theologian, left-wing activist, and author of the ambitiously titled “Politics According to the Bible,” famously helped coin the phrase, “A budget is a moral document” to argue that it is immoral to cut federal spending. For close to two decades, Democrats have used itto cloak policy prescriptions for everything from wide-open borders to abortion-on-demand in biblical-sounding verbiage and to berate conservatives who opposed the expansion of the federal government far beyond its authority or means.

Maybe it’s time for conservative Republicans to take liberals at their word and take the fight to them. (Hint: They started to last year, and many of those spending provisions either made it into the final package or at least blunted radical Democrats’ counter-proposals.)

Whether or not spending bills are moral documents, they are a battleground. Those are your tax dollars being spent, and you have a right to demand that they reflect your values.

AUTHORS

Chantel Hoyt and Quena Gonzalez

RELATED PODCAST: Pros and Cons of the Child Tax Credit

COMMUNISM: Oregon Voters to Consider Approving Nation’s First Universal Basic Income

August 29, 2024/in Budget and Finance, Culture War, Elections, Hot Topics, Labor & Unions, Marxism, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Socialism, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Geller Report

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” — Karl Marx, German-born philosopher, political theorist, economist, historian, sociologist, journalist, and revolutionary socialist.

Who pays for this? The hardworking Oregon taxpayer.

Is it any wonder that THIRTEEN Oregon counties voted to secede and join Idaho.

Oregon Voters to Consider Approving Nation’s First Universal Basic Income

The proposal is meeting stiff bipartisan resistance from elected officials and pushback from the business community.

By Scottie Barnes, The Epoch Times, August 23, 2024;

Oregonians will vote in November on a controversial ballot measure that would give every resident, regardless of age or income, $1,600 each year—as long as they live at least 200 days in the state.

A family of four would receive $6,400 annually, with no strings attached. The money would be nontaxable and would not affect other benefits.

If voters approve Measure 118, the universal basic income (UBI) program would be funded by a tax on the gross receipts of corporations that generate more than $25 million in annual sales.

Oregon would be the first state to roll out such a comprehensive UBI.

As of June, no U.S. states had a UBI program, though several states and cities have run pilot programs.

Oregon Rebate, the group backing the measure, says on its website that Measure 118 (previously known as IP 17) would increase minimum corporate taxes to 3 percent.

The organization claims that the “largest corporations” currently pay less than 1 percent in Oregon tax, while individual taxpayers pay from 5 percent to 10 percent.

Local small businesses would not be affected by the tax increase, it says, as the tax would apply only to corporations making more than $25 million a year.

The Tax Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, disputes the claim that corporations pay less than 1 percent in Oregon taxes. It notes that the state already has “one of the highest business tax burdens in the country.”
In a report on the measure, the foundation concludes that Oregon corporations pay a 7.6 percent corporate income tax and a 0.57 percent gross receipts tax.

If they’re in the Portland area, they are subject to a 2.6 percent business license tax, a 2 percent business income tax, a 1 percent supportive housing services tax, and a 1 percent Clean Energy Surcharge, all of which are additional taxes on net income.
Story continues below advertisement

Oregon corporations pay taxes on profits and gross receipts (sales attributable to Oregon), making it one of only two states (the other is Delaware) that impose both types of taxes.

Money provided by the measure would decrease overall poverty in the state by 36 percent, childhood poverty by 53 percent, and senior citizen poverty by 26 percent, according to Oregon Rebate.

“More money in the pocket of Oregonians will boost our economy and mean more jobs, opportunities, and taxable revenue,” the group states.
According to an Oregon legislative fiscal analysis published on July 23, households making less than $40,000 won’t have any Oregon tax liability should the measure pass.

“The [payment] might sound good,” the Tax Foundation wrote, “but if it raises the cost of goods, drives jobs and economic activity out of state, and puts Oregon-based businesses at a massive disadvantage with their out-of-state competitors, it’s likely to be an awful deal for Oregonians.”

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: Socialism Never Works

Kamala is economically stupid: Her plan proves it!

August 20, 2024/in Budget and Finance, Economy, Elections, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Michael Charles Master

‘These gimmicks do not include even one fix for the root causes of higher prices’.

On Friday, Aug. 16, Que Mala Harris laid out her economic plan: price controls, $25,000 to first-time home buyers, credits for children and legislation against price gouging. Those are all band-aids trying to deal with higher prices, but these gimmicks do not include even one fix for the root causes of higher prices.

Harris compared prices now to the prices prior to COVID and shared how many food prices and other prices are up more than 40 and 50% since before the pandemic. Why prior to COVID? Because prices were actually much lower after COVID when Biden/Harris took control and have increased more than 40% since the Democrats took control.

Even with her comparison to prices before COVID, prices are up for food, housing, energy and clothing more than 40% – by her own admission.

So what are the root causes of price increases? And what did Harris propose to fix those root causes? Nothing.

Why? Because government is the root cause. This Democrat-run government caused the inflation with federal spending that increased from a norm of 18% of GDP to this current record high of 25% of GDP (a 40% increase) and by limiting oil production, which drove up oil prices and prices for every product oil influences, including costs for basic transportation to ship products.

Questions: How much will these programs of Harris cost? She doesn’t know. Many experts say trillions of dollars. And where does that money come from? Taxpayers, you and me – or more government debt. And what does that debt cause? More inflation!

None of these types of programs worked to lower inflation when Jimmy Carter was president. Rationing and price controls just caused product shortages when Nixon was president. None of these types of programs work. They exacerbate the problem by causing product shortages just like in Russia and China. They have never worked in socialist countries. Did Harris study any of that?

Robert Reich is an economic adviser to Harris and Democrats. He has continually pushed MMT (Modern Monetary Theory), which states that government should spend as much money as it wants to spend and then simply print more money since money is just fiat anyway. Maybe that is what Harris plans to do – just print more money to cover her increased spending. And then what happens when you pump more money into the economy? Just look at Venezuela. Incredibly high inflation. MMT has never worked anywhere. Never.

If Harris issues more debt to cover her increased spending, then what happens to interest rates? They increase to attract more bond purchasers. And when interest rates increase, then what happens to housing costs, credit card payments and rents? They all increase as well.

The only ways to reduce inflation for average working Americans is to cut government spending to the traditional 18% of GDP and to increase oil production so that oil supply increases while energy prices decrease. And that is the Trump plan, not the Harris plan.

Harris is economically stupid. A lawyer. A prosecutor by her own words. A government employee for her entire career with no actual private-sector business experience. And her economic plan now proves that fact.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Kamala Harris’ Campaign Scrambles to Fix VP Pick’s Biography After He Lies About Military Record, But It’s Too Late

Voters Won’t Fall for Tim Walz’s Folksy Façade

CNN Caught in Deceptive Editing to Bash Trump and Musk [Video]

The Harris Economic Plan

August 19, 2024/in Budget and Finance, Economy, Elections, Policy, Politics, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Michael Charles Master

Well, on Friday, August 16, Que Mala Harris laid out her economic plan: price controls, $25,000 to first time new citizen home buyers, credits for children, and legislation against price gouging. Those are all band aids to problems of higher prices, but do not include even one fix for the root causes of higher prices.

Instead of paying new home buyers $25,000, why doesn’t the government just reduce down payments by 5 or 10% on home purchases that are under $300,000? That effectively reduces the need for cash from the buyer by around $25,000 and does not cost the government or tax payers anything. It could be done immediately without the need for legislation. And would not potentially be unconstitutional as the the Harris plan could be.

So why not lower down payments now? Because that would not get Harris any additional votes. It stops another Democrat give-a-way for votes. So of course Harris and the deep state will not do it, especially not now, for the same reason why they haven’t done it in the last 3 1/2 years… no political gain.

Harris compared prices now to the prices prior to COVID and shared how many food prices and other prices are up more than 40 and 50% since prior to COVID. Why prior to COVID? Because prices were actually much less after COVID when Biden/Harris took control and have increased even more than 40% since Biden/Harris took control.

Even with her comparison to prices before COVID, prices are up for food, housing, energy, and clothing more than 40% since Biden/Harris took control by her own admission.

Price gouging is not a cause of higher prices. That is just more class warfare by Democrats. The CPI has tracked exactly to PPI with a 90 day lag to PPI for the last 3 years. If price gouging was a problem, then CPI would be much higher than PPI.

So what are the root causes of price increases? What did Harris propose to fix those root causes? Nothing.

Why? Because government is the root cause. This Democrat run government caused the inflation with government spending that increased from a norm of 18% of GDP to this current record high of 25% of GDP (40% increase) and by limiting oil production which drove up oil prices and prices for every product that oil influences including costs for basic transportation to ship products.

OK, questions: How much will these programs of Harris cost? She doesn’t know. Many experts say trillions of dollars. And where does that money come from? tax payers. you and me. or more government debt. And what does that debt cause? more inflation.

None of these types of programs worked to lower inflation when Jimmy Carter was president. Rationing and price controls just caused product shortages when Nixon was president. None of these types of programs work. They exacerbate the problem by causing product shortages just like in Russia and China. They have not worked in socialist countries. Did Harris study any of that?

Robert Riech is an economic advisor to Harris and Democrats. He has continually pushed MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) which states that government should spend as much money as it wants to spend and then simply print more money since money is just fiat anyway. Maybe that is what Harris plans to do… just print more money to cover her increased spending. And then what happens when you pump more money into the economy? Just look at Venezuela. Incredibly more inflation. MMT has never worked anywhere. Never.

The only ways to reduce inflation for average working Americans is to cut government spending to the traditional 18% of GDP and to increase oil production so that oil supply = demand. And that is the Trump plan, not the Harris plan.

Harris is economically stupid. A lawyer. A prosecutor by her own words. A government employee for her entire career with no actual private sector business experience. And her economic plan now proves it.

As a side note: in her address, Harris referred to “price gouging” as “price gaging.” Evidently, she was just reading from a teleprompter and read it incorrectly. She made no attempt to correct her words. That is just more evidence that she has no idea about what she is talking about. None. She just says what her handlers tell her to say.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Price Controls Headline Harris Economic Agenda

Liberal Washington Post editorial board has scathing take on Harris’ economic plan: ‘Populist gimmicks’

‘Squandered The Moment’: Washington Post Editorial Board Blasts Kamala Harris’s Economic Rollout As ‘Disappointment’

Opinion: The times demand serious economic ideas. Harris supplies gimmicks.

See the difference in Pennsylvania?

Vance Says Harris ‘Controlling’ Inflation Response Is Like Giving ‘Epstein Control Over Human Trafficking Policy’

August 19, 2024/in Budget and Finance, Economy, Elections, Featured, Hot Topics, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Social Issues, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Caller

While appearing on “Fox News Sunday” Republican Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance equated Vice President Kamala Harris “controlling” the inflation response to giving deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein “control” over human trafficking policy.

Since Harris became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, the party has seen a significant polling shift in her favor against former President Donald Trump. While some Republicans have questioned Trump’s campaign messaging, Vance argued Americans won’t “buy” Harris as a “fresh start,” dismissing her proposals as “more of the same” failed policies.

“First of all, the polls tend to radically overstate Democrats. We certainly saw that during the polling of summer of 2020 and summer of 2016 and of course, a lot of those polls were wrong when it came to Election Day. The second thing I’ll say, Shannon, is what we’ve certainly seen is that Kamala Harris got a bit of a sugar high a couple of weeks ago. But what we’ve actually seen from our own internal data, Shannon, is that Kamala Harris has already leveled off,” Vance said.

Vance claimed that Harris’ campaign insiders are allegedly “worried” about her ties to President Joe Biden’s administration, as voters have consistently voiced their disapproval of Biden’s job performance.

WATCH:

“If you talk to insiders in the Kamala Harris campaign, they’re very worried about where they are because the American people just don’t buy the idea that Kamala Harris, who has been vice president for three and a half years is somehow going to tackle the inflation crisis in a way tomorrow that she hasn’t for the past 1,300 days,” Vance continued.

“Giving Kamala Harris control over inflation policy, Shannon, it’s like giving Jeffrey Epstein control over human trafficking policy. The American people are much smarter than that. They don’t buy the idea that Kamala Harris represents a fresh start,” Vance said. “She is more of the same. It is doubling down on the failed policies of the Harris administration, to give Kamala Harris a promotion rather than to fire her, which is what I think most Americans are going to do on November.”

After unveiling her economic plans in a North Carolina speech, Harris faced significant pushback from pundits who criticized proposals like a federal ban on “corporate price gouging” in food and grocery stores as unrealistic. Despite not giving interviews or publishing a full policy platform on her website as of Sunday, Harris is currently leading Trump in the polls.

In the latest ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll, Harris holds a six-point lead over Trump, with 51% support from likely voters compared to Trump’s 45%. Among registered voters, Harris’ lead narrows as she sits at 49%, with Trump still at 45%, data shows.

Despite Harris’ national lead, the polling data shows voters still don’t trust the vice president on key issues like the economy, inflation and immigration, according to the ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll. Trump leads Harris by nine points on who voters trust more to handle the economy and inflation alike, as well as ten points on handling the U.S.-Mexico border, data shows.

AUTHOR

Hailey Gomez

General assignment reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Price Controls Headline Harris Economic Agenda

‘She Had Control Over A Lot Of Our Border Policy’: Vance Spars With ABC Host Over Harris’ Role On Illegal Immigration

‘People Don’t Want This Anymore!’: Donna Brazile Shouts Down Reince Priebus Over Trump’s Record

Protestors Flood Streets Of Downtown Chicago On Eve Of DNC

Cash-Strapped California Inches Closer To Handing Taxpayer Home Loans To Illegal Migrants

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

COMMUNISM: Kamala’s Marxist-Style ‘Price Control’ Plan

August 18, 2024/in Budget and Finance, Economy, Elections, Hot Topics, News, Policy, Politics, Social Issues, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Geller Report

“Every socialist experiment in human history has started with caps on food and it has resulted in bread lines like you can see in the image behind me…This is a mistake. It is anti-American.” — David Friedberg on Kamala Harris Grocery ‘Price Gouging’ plan.

Kamala Harris wants to impose Communist-style price controls. federal ;price fixing, to crackdown on inflation. When that happens, your grocery store shelves will be empty within months. The Democrats want to impose Communism in the United States. We know what happens when you institute these communist programs – we saw this tried in many communist countries — Venezuela, Argentina, the Soviet Union.

Inflation and the resultant higher prices for all is a direct consequence of runaway government spending. Period.

“Inflation Is created by government and by no one else.” Milton Friedman, preeminent American economist, advisor, academic and Nobel prize winner.

“Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.” “There has never in history been an inflation that was not accompanied by an extremely rapid increase in the quantity of money.”

Kamala Revives the “Gouging” Myth

The Harris campaign’s price control idea is pandering, not serious policy.

By: Allison Shrgaer, City Journal, Aug 15 2024

Early in the pandemic, a local merchant I know in New York, an immigrant who owns a small stationary store, worked tirelessly to obtain the goods his customers all then believed were needed—masks, hand sanitizer, and so on. He paid a markup for these goods, not to mention the time it cost him to secure them, and naturally passed the higher prices on to his customers. But given the emergency, he faced a price limit on what he could sell the masks for, with steep fines if he didn’t comply. He fought these mandates in court and nearly lost his business.

This is the world that could await us if Vice President Kamala Harris has her way. So far, the Harris/Tim Walz economic policy platform is a bit of a mystery. Will it reflect her left-wing campaign of 2019, which featured Medicare for all and a ban on fracking, or something more moderate? Voters will get some idea on Friday, when Harris reveals the centerpiece of her economic policy: price controls. Her campaign announced that she would pursue a federal ban on “corporate price-gouging in the food and grocery industries.”

This is the wrong solution to a nonexistent problem. Food prices have steadily fallen over time as a share of income. The exception was the pandemic, where the cost of food eaten at home rose 20 percent. This was caused not by grocers’ price gouging but by shortages and elevated demand from excessive fiscal policy. The natural market response to less supply and more demand is to raise prices. Doing so eliminates shortages and keeps markets functioning.

Inflation on food at home now stands near zero. People are frustrated, though, because prices are significantly higher than they used to be; short of mandating wage cuts for everyone involved in the food chain, there is no way to bring prices back to 2019 levels. The Harris/Walz plan also entails raising the federal minimum wage to some unknown level, which will increase labor costs for grocery stores and undermine any effort to lower prices.

Gouging is often hard to define, let alone spot in the wild. It could be argued that the proposed policy is harmless because food price inflation is low now, anyway. But as in the example of the immigrant merchant, having an anti-gouging law on the books invites regulatory abuse. Targeting big companies, as the Harris plan seems designed to do, is not harmless, either. Food prices as a share of income fell as the food industry consolidated and took advantage of economies of scale. Limiting food companies’ ability to set prices in response to market conditions will only curb their growth and willingness to operate in less populated areas—further increasing the prices that many consumers pay. We can expect fewer goods available during the next event that increases demand or reduces supply. Good luck finding food during the next hurricane.

Economists mostly agree that price controls don’t work, succeeding only in creating shortages and making inflation worse. Price controls reduce merchants’ incentive to secure more goods that they must sell at a loss. The Harris proposal is a clear signal that we can expect her campaign to push economic policies even more populist and left-leaning than those of the Biden administration.

Not listening to economists has become a trend of late. This may be because many bad economic policies already enjoy support among voters. It’s easy to blame faceless corporations or landlords who set the prices that we pay without considering their costs and incentives. And both parties want to get elected, after all. But the job of public officials isn’t to pander—it’s to lead, explain hard tradeoffs that are often necessary, and pursue the most sensible policies that, however incrementally, might make people’s lives better. Instead, we get more policies that will make us all poorer.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Price Controls Headline Harris Economic Agenda

Liberal Washington Post editorial board has scathing take on Harris’ economic plan: ‘Populist gimmicks’

POSTS ON X: