No U.S. data on financial/social impact of refugee resettlement on communities

/in , , , , , , /by

And, I think the refugee industry wants to keep it that way! (Think about the enormous stonewalling going on in St. Cloud for instance!).

How many times over the years have I struggled to try to answer your questions about how much all of this is costing state and federal taxpayers? Now, I have a better understanding of why the facts are so elusive thanks to some researchers who sound like they do want to resettle refugees, but want answers too!

Caren Jean Frost and her fellow researchers are clearly not right-wingers. They are on to something, but will Trump’s Office of Refugee Resettlement listen?

Opinion from The Salt Lake Tribune:

Before you read know that “service providers” is the polite word for resettlement “contractors.”

Resettling refugees has become harder to justify, but not for the reasons you may expect. Lost in the passionate rhetoric of lobbyists, politicians and humanitarian agencies are statistics and evidence.

Appeals to forestall resettlement efforts speak to fears of terrorists infiltrating refugee flows, notwithstanding evidence that suggests otherwise. Advocates of resettlement reference duty, morality and hospitality, but don’t provide compelling evidence to justify the financial and social strains resettlement places on host communities.

Proponents on both sides struggle to support their reasoning with evidence, and this is the real issue. The absence of consistent data collection and measurement by service providers and government agencies has impaired policy makers’ ability to craft effective policy. Furthermore, resettlement data is full of holes and redundancies because service delivery agencies do not coordinate their data collection efforts. Additionally, service providers are unable to answer basic questions about the effectiveness of their programs and current resettlement trends because their data are not structured in an analyzable format.

Standardizing refugee resettlement data collection could revolutionize the resettlement process. It would facilitate analysis, enabling service providers and those interested in refugee statistics to more easily understand what is happening in real time. This information would also enable service providers to better serve refugee communities and educate policymakers on current trends, potential issues and policy gaps.

[….]

CCSLogo

Without meaningful data standards, agencies and organizations may struggle to evaluate their work and share information. Because funding is typically tied to defined performance or outcome measures, evaluation is a crucial element of program design. The absence of data standards makes evaluation problematic and makes comparisons across programs nearly impossible. The University of Utah’s Center for Research on Migration and Refugee Integration’s recently attempted to evaluate Catholic Community Services’ refugee case management program but was stymied before it even began because the case data were not collected in an analysis-friendly format; moreover, it is impossible to track refugee outcomes as individuals pass from one agency’s stewardship to another’s. Service providers and policymakers across the country face similar challenges.

[…..]

Data standardization can only happen if the United States’ Office of Refugee Resettlement takes the lead on this issue.Access to federal funding is already conditional on reporting to the office. The simple solution is this: tie federal funds to data standardization and formatting.

So why isn’t it being done?—surely reform doesn’t require the lazy lunks in Congress. ORR can require this before it throws more of your money at the US Refugee contractors. So why aren’t they doing it? I think I have a guess!

Muslim convicted of $1 million in food stamp fraud — Will he be deported?

/in , , /by

Longtime readers know that I’ve had a side interest in food stamp fraud, specifically trafficking in food stamps.  This kind of fraud doesn’t involve purchasing unapproved items with food stamps as you might think, but it’s about selling ones benefits for 50 cents on the dollar.

It works like this: customer comes in with benefits, buys some small item, but the cashier rings up a larger amount.  Customer walks out with half the cash that was rung up. Clerk submits full amount to government for repayment.

It is called trafficking, and the fraud is huge at mom and pop convenience stores nationwide.

You can see my many previous posts on the topic by clicking here.  The vast majority of cases involve immigrant owners/managers of small stores like this one in Maine.

What is different in this Maine case is that the store is a Halal grocery store which says to me that it is very likely that the majority of people participating in the owner’s fraud are people who prefer Halal food.

Screenshot (1192)

Ali Ratib Daham

Learn more about the case against Ali Ratib Daham here.

And, by the way, there have been cases where customers are arrested and also found guilty of taking part in the scheme to defraud the US taxpayer, will there be some here?

From WGME (Hat tip: Frank) $1 MILLION fraud!

PORTLAND (WGME) – A man accused of running a welfare scam out of a Portland halal grocery is pleading guilty.

The market sells meat permissible under Muslim law.

According to federal court documents, Ali Ratib Daham is pleading guilty to federal food stamp and other welfare fraud.

He is also admitting to money laundering and theft from the state’s MaineCare program.

Daham is agreeing to a jail sentence of at least 33 months and will pay more than $1 million in restitution to the government.

In exchange, prosecutors are agreeing to drop dozens of other charges in the case.

The plea deal will be considered in federal district court Tuesday. The guilty plea could cause him to be deported.

They never deport these people, and tell me how is he going to repay $1 million when I’ll bet the money was moved abroad a long time ago.

Here is the pitch I’ve made innumerable times: If you are looking for something to do, start a blog on immigrant welfare fraud.  You will have news to post daily and it would be a great service to our country, especially since any real investigative reporters are few and far between.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

5 Terrorists Are Still in Pretrial Hearings for the 9/11 Attacks. Here’s Why It’s Taking So Long.

Somali arrested in Australia on terror charges; planned to shoot New Year’s Eve revelers say police

Michigan: Do we see a new trick by the US State Department to keep information from citizens?

Pope Francis arrives in Burma, will he use the ‘R’-word—Rohingya?

Heritage Foundation finds over 100 missing comments late today; most very critical of refugee program

Minnesotan does some homework on refugee employment issue; comes to unexpected conclusion

Declining population? Polish government says “breed like rabbits!”

In Charts, How These 7 Taxpayers’ Bills Would Change If Tax Reform Were Enacted

/in , , , , /by

How will you fare if the GOP tax plan is enacted?

Well, on net, most Americans will see a significant tax cut under the proposed plans from Republican lawmakers, including virtually all lower- and middle-income workers and a majority of upper-income earners.

Both the House and Senate versions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would, on average, provide immediate tax cuts across all income groups, according to analysis from Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation.

This analysis does not, however, show how those tax cuts would vary based on factors such as total income, type of income, number of children, and itemized deductions.

While the plans lack a pro-growth cut to the top marginal tax rate (the Senate plan slightly lowers the top rate, but the House keeps the top rate and adds a higher bubble rate), both bills achieve significant reductions in business tax rates. This will help make America more competitive with the rest of the world, and will result in more and better jobs as well as higher incomes for all Americans.

To get a better idea of how some workers, families, and small businesses would fare under the proposed tax reform, The Heritage Foundation has estimated the tax bills of a range of taxpayers under current tax law, the House’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the Senate’s modified mark of that bill.

Tom Wong: Single teacher with median earnings of $50,000 per year. Under the current tax code, Tom pays $5,474 each year in federal income taxes. His tax bill would decline by $914, or 17 percent, (to $4,560) under the House’s plan and by $1,104, or 20 percent, (to $4,370) under the Senate’s plan.

These tax cuts come primarily from a higher standard deduction of $12,000 and from lower marginal tax rates. Currently, Tom’s marginal tax rate is 25 percent. But under both the House and Senate plans, his tax rate would become 12 percent.

John and Sarah Jones: Married couple with three children, homeowners, and $75,000 in annual income. John is a sales representative and earns an average of $55,000 a year. Sarah is a registered nurse. After having children, Sarah cut back to part-time work and she earns $20,000 a year. Under the current tax code, John and Sarah pay $1,753 each year in federal income taxes.

But under the House’s tax plan, their tax bill would decline by $1,033, or 59 percent, (to $720). Under the Senate’s plan, their bill would be reduced by $2,014, or 115 percent, (to $0, plus a refundable credit of $261).

Even though John and Sarah would have more taxable income under the proposed plans (as a result of not being able to deduct all of their state and local taxes and not being able to claim personal exemptions), they would still receive a tax cut because they would face lower marginal tax rates and receive larger child tax credits.

Their current marginal tax rate would decline from 15 percent to 12 percent under both the House and Senate plans. Their current child tax credits of $1,000 each would increase to $1,600 each under the House plan and $2,000 each under the Senate plan. The House plan would also provide $600 in family credits to John and Sarah.

The numbers listed in the above example for John and Sarah’s current tax payments assumes John and Sarah own a home and live in a state with average tax levels. Under the current tax code, if they did not own a home but instead rented, their federal tax bill would be higher ($2,375 instead of their current $1,753 tax bill).

This would mean that their subsequent tax cuts—as renters—would be larger: $1,655, or 70 percent, under the House plan and $2,636, or 111 percent, under the Senate plan. The House plan would partially eliminate and the Senate plan would fully eliminate an inequity in the current tax code that provides bigger tax breaks to homeowners, wealthy individuals, and people who live in high-tax states.

If the John and Sarah rent, their new tax bills would remain the same under both the House and Senate plans (because the larger standard deduction would mean they would not itemize regardless of whether they owned a home or rented).

Peter and Paige Smith: Married couple with two children, homeowners, $1.5 million annual income. Peter works for a technology startup company and Paige is an accountant. Although Peter’s income fluctuates significantly from year-to-year, this was a big year for his company and he received a very large bonus, bringing his total earnings to $1.4 million. Paige’s stable income of $100,000 provided their family the financial stability they needed for Peter to take a risk and follow his dreams.

Under the current tax code, Pater and Paige pay $439,275 in federal income taxes. Their tax bill would increase by $87,993, or 20 percent, (to $527,268) under the House plan and would remain relatively the same, decreasing by just $1,313, or 0.3 percent, (to $437,962) under the Senate plan.

Peter and Paige’s taxable income would increase under both the House and Senate plans because they would lose some or all of their state and local tax deductions. Their total exemptions and child tax credits would remain the same—at zero—as their income is too high to claim any exemptions or credits under the current code or the proposed plans.

Under the current tax code, Peter and Paige face a top marginal tax rate of 42.5 percent (39.6 percent, plus the 2.9 percent Obamacare surtax). Under the House plan, their top rate would rise to 48.5 percent (39.6 percent, plus the 6 percent “bubble” tax, plus the 2.9 percent Obamacare tax), and under the Senate plan, it would fall to 41.4 percent (38.5 percent, plus the 2.9 percent Obamacare tax).

Those marginal tax rates do not include Social Security’s 12.4 percent payroll tax, which can lead to extremely high combined marginal tax rates for second earners that are part of a high-income family like Peter and Paige. Because Paige makes less than Social Security current taxable maximum income of $127,200, her combined federal income and payroll tax rate is 54.9 percent under current law and would be 60.8 percent under the House plan and 53.8 percent under the Senate plan.

Although Peter and Paige would have the most taxable income under the Senate plan, the Senate plan’s lower top marginal tax rate does the most to remove the tax penalty on work and investment. The more Peter and Paige work and invest, the more jobs and income growth they help create across all income groups.  Peter and Paige would also benefit under the Senate plan’s lower marginal tax rates in the bottom brackets.

The above example assumes Peter and Paige live in a state with average taxes. Currently, however, their federal tax bill could be tens of thousands of dollars higher or lower, depending on whether they live in a state with higher- or lower-than-average taxes for them to write off. This is not the case under the proposed House and Senate tax plans, because the Senate plan fully eliminates the state and local tax deduction and the House plan eliminates all but a $10,000 property tax deduction (and at their income level, they would likely claim that full amount in any state).

Jose and Marie Fernandez: Married couple with two children, owners of JM Blinds and Shades LLC, homeowners, $250,000 annual income. Jose owns and manages JM Blinds and Shades manufacturing company. Marie primarily stays home with their young children, but she also helps out significantly with the business when needed. Under the current tax code, Jose and Marie pay $35,588, which is their alternative minimum tax (AMT) amount.

The AMT is a separate tax system, created back in 1982 to make sure that millionaires paid their “fair share” in taxes. However, because the AMT was not indexed for inflation until 30 years after it was enacted, it now hits a significant number of middle- to upper-income Americans with a higher tax bill than they would otherwise pay. That’s because under the current tax code, taxpayers pay the larger of what they owe under the regular income tax system and the AMT.

Both the House and Senate plans eliminate the AMT. Under the House plan, Jose and Marie’s federal tax bill would increase by $799, or 2.3 percent, (to $36,387) and under the Senate plan, their federal tax bill would decrease by $9,325, or 26 percent, (to $26,263).

Jose and Marie’s marginal income tax rates would vary significantly under the different tax plans. Their current marginal tax rate of 35 percent would decline to 30 percent under the House plan and 19.8 percent under the Senate plan.

Under the House tax plan, Jose and Marie would face a good deal more complexity. As a small business, they would face the top rate of 25 percent, but only on 30 percent of their income. The other 70 percent (counted as wages) would be taxed at the regular income tax rates (which range from 12 percent to 46.5 percent). At their current income level, that top rate would also be 25 percent. However, on top of that, Jose and Marie would face an additional 5 percent tax due to the phaseout of their child tax credits.

Under current law, Jose and Marie make too much to claim the $1,000 per child tax credits. Under the House plan, they would be able to claim $1,100 of each $1,600 child tax credit, and under the Senate plan, they would receive the full $2,000 credit per child.

Also, because Jose and Marie make $250,000, their next dollar of income would be subject to the 2.9 percent Obamacare tax under both the current and proposed tax plans. That would bring their marginal tax rate on any additional income to 37.9 percent under the current tax code, 32.9 percent under the House plan, and 22.7 percent under the Senate plan.

The above examples seek to show how some common taxpayers—including some wealthy individuals who are less common—would fare under the proposed tax reforms. Actual individuals’, families’, and businesses’ tax bills could vary significantly.

On net, however, most taxpayers—particularly lower- and middle-income taxpayers and businesses—will pay less in total taxes. Even more important than total taxes paid, however, is marginal tax rates. That’s because a lot of decisions are made at the margin.

For example, a worker is far more likely to work an additional hour if it counts as overtime and provides the equivalent of 1.5 hours’ worth of pay. And an individual is more likely to make a $1,000 contribution to his retirement savings account if that savings goes tax-free and means he can put all $1,000 away, instead of first having to pay between $100 and $400 in taxes on the savings.

Lower marginal tax rates are a big driver of economic growth, and the lower the rates, the higher the growth. Under the House bill, lower- and middle-income earners and businesses face lower marginal tax rates, but some high-income earners face higher marginal tax rates. The Senate proposal reduces the top marginal tax rate for an overwhelming majority of taxpayers, with the largest reductions occurring for businesses and for lower- and middle-income Americans.

While the proposed tax reforms do not achieve 100 percent of the potential pro-growth impacts that they could, they go a long way in helping to jump-start America’s struggling economy and put it on a pathway toward higher long-term growth.

Portrait of Rachel Greszler

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:

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

BankThink: Mortgage deduction helps housing lobby, but not homeowner

/in , , , /by

The battle lines are drawn between those seeking to protect the mortgage interest deduction (MID) and a legislative effort to greatly reduce the use of the MID. Hopefully, this is a battle that taxpayers will win over the housing lobby — the loudest supporter of keeping the deduction intact.

The housing lobby’s effectiveness is measured by its success at garnering subsidies. But the proposed House bill, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, would be a shot across the industry’s bow. The stage is now set for a crucial debate between two competing visions: the House plan — which would disincentivize the MID by raising the standard deduction and capping loans qualifying for the MID at $500,000 — and Senate tax reform legislation that effectively would leave the deduction intact.

From the perspective of taxpayer cost and federal budgeting, it’s no contest which plan is better. Since 1994, the cost of the MID, the separate real estate tax deduction (also downsized in the House plan), and other single-family tax subsidies has totaled over $2.5 trillion and in fiscal year 2017 were estimated to cost $141 billion. This does not include the many hundreds of billions in subsidies over the same period provided to or by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Administration, Ginnie Mae and others, and the $6.7 trillion in taxpayer mortgage debt guaranteed by these same agencies.

What did the U.S. taxpayer get for this massive level of rent-seeking? First, the U.S. homeownership rate today is 63.9% — statistically no different than the average rate of 64.3% since 1964 (excluding the bubble years). Second, these policies directly caused the 2008 financial crisis — a catastrophe for the U.S. and world economies.

True to their past positions, both NAR and the NAHB are opposing the House tax reform plan, favoring the Senate version. NAR had previously released a study it commissioned that found that a doubling of the standard deduction, elimination of the state and local tax deduction, and lower marginal tax rates would cause home prices to fall by 10.2%. On the other side are supporters of tax reform and lower marginal rates. Gary Cohn, President Trump’s head of the National Economic Council, stated in September: “People don’t buy homes because of the mortgage deduction.”

Before getting to the merits of these positions, it is worth noting the “man bites dog” nature of NAR’s admission that the MID drives home prices up higher than they otherwise would be. While this certainly explains the NAR’s past and current support for the MID, it is a damning admission for a group that purports to promote homeownership and “affordable housing.”

In terms of the merits, federal subsidies for homeownership like the MID get capitalized into higher prices, encourage the taking out of more debt, promote the buying of larger, more expensive homes, and price homes out of reach of lower-income buyers. Recent research at the Federal Reserve confirmed these points and found “when house prices are allowed to adjust in response to the elimination of mortgage interest deductions, the homeownership rate actually increases.”

One could end the argument here. However, this would leave NAR’s claim about a 10.2% price reduction unaddressed. First, a common sense reading of “a fall in home prices” is that prices would actually drop from current levels. This conflates a drop in price level and a slowing of the rate of increase. High-end home prices in 16 large metropolitan areas were up about 5% in July compared to a year earlier. A slowing of the rate of increase for high-end homes to the inflation level of 2% would, over three years, result in high-end home prices ending up about 10% lower than they otherwise would have been, but without an actual drop in prices.

Why is a slowing in the rate of increase, not an outright drop, the likely result? According to NAR, existing home sales have been in a seller’s market for 61 straight months and there are no signs of this abating anytime soon. A seller’s market is commonplace even at the higher price end of the home market. This includes San Francisco, where homes selling for more than $4.6 million have less than 2.5 months inventory along with similar conditions for the highest price points for metro areas such as Seattle and Los Angeles. Areas like Boston, Denver, New York City and Washington D.C. have a seller’s market except for price points in excess of $1.5 million to $2 million.

Jerry Howard, chief executive of the homebuilder association, told The Wall Street Journal that the House legislation is “a bad bill for housing.” In reality, it’s a good bill for American taxpayers and homebuyers.

Democrats in Meltdown Mode as Obamacare Individual Mandate Moves Toward Extinction

/in , , , , , /by

Democrats, of course, oppose the tax cuts moving through Congress. They believe government knows how to spend your money better than you do.

But what has really got their goat is eliminating the Obamacare tax—known as the individual mandate—that Americans have to pay to the IRS for simply choosing not to buy health insurance. This has thrown them into a tailspin of despair.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said eliminating the individual mandate would amount to the “destruction of the Affordable Care Act.” She said it would create no less than a “life-or-death struggle for millions of American families.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the floor Thursday that “[t]he number of middle-class families who would lose money from this bill may be even higher now considering the 10 percent increase in premiums that will occur as a result of the Republican plan to repeal the individual mandate.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., was asked by Anderson Cooper on CNN about cutting the individual mandate. “It’s a bad idea,” replied the former Democratic presidential candidate. “This is going to throw 13 million Americans off the health insurance they currently have.”

No doubt the talking points that flew around Democratic offices on Capitol Hill were written to scare people into thinking the tax cut forces people off all health care. But it’s a big stretch to state that as fact.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that repealing the individual mandate would decrease the number of people with health insurance by 4 million in 2019 and 13 million in 2027. It also predicted average premiums in the individual market would increase by about 10 percent per year.

However, the Congressional Budget Office was extremely careful to explain the inexact science of its analysis. A whole section of the report is titled “Uncertainty Surrounding the Estimates.” To put it simply, economists can’t predict human behavior.

I don’t even know what health insurance I will pick to get the best bang for my buck in 2019. How would bureaucrats in D.C. know?

Nevertheless, Democrats grabbed that report and ran with it, trying to put on a horror movie through the halls of Congress.

Pelosi threatened that as the bill moves toward final passage in the Senate and a reconciled bill through both chambers, “outside mobilization” will be activated to stop it. She said the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to include repeal of the individual mandate “really electrified, energized the base even further … .”

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., tweeted on Tuesday: “RED ALERT: Senate GOP just added provision to their tax plan that would gut ACA & kick 13M ppl off insurance.”

(Yes, Franken tweets blatant falsehoods when he’s not groping women.)

Schumer took to Twitter to put the blame on the White House: “.@POTUS’s absurd idea to repeal the individual mandate as a part of the #GOPTaxPlan would boot 13M ppl from the health insurance rolls and cause premiums to skyrocket – all to pay for an even bigger tax cut for the very rich, those who pay the top rate. What a toxic idea!”

President Donald Trump, however, is quite enthusiastic about taking a big whack at Obamacare through the tax bill. Reportedly, Trump encouraged Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., to get repeal into the committee bill text. This is what also infuriated the Democrats.

You can’t help but smile that Republicans are now using a 2015 ruling by the Supreme Court—which let the individual mandate stay in law, with the rationale that it was a tax and not a fine—as a way to ultimately kill the key provision that keeps Obamacare on life support.

Since the mandate is now considered a tax, its repeal will fit perfectly into the GOP tax reform plan.

Last week, a reporter asked White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders if the individual mandate repeal is a priority for the president. “That’s something the president obviously would love to see happen,” she responded.

The Obamacare mandate tax was always more of a “nanny tax” than a way to raise government funding. Democrats included it in the law in order to force the young and healthy to buy into the government-run health exchanges so as to offset the high cost of the old and very sick.

But the tax has ended up hitting lower-income and working-class families the hardest because it is much cheaper to pay the tax than to buy insurance on the Obamacare exchanges and pay the absurdly high insurance premiums and deductibles.

The hardest thing to do in Washington is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. If the Obamacare tax can be repealed in the final bill that lands on Trump’s desk, Americans will get back a key individual liberty—the right to choose whether or not to buy government health insurance.

This would be the perfect early Christmas gift for hard-working families. Democrats should think twice before standing in the way of it.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Emily Miller

Emily Miller

Emily Miller is an award-winning journalist and the author of the book “Emily Gets Her Gun” about gun control policies. 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

VIDEO: Alex Epstein — Harvard Business School Fireside Chat

/in , , , , , /by

A few weeks ago I was joined by my favorite energy economist, Michael Lynch, for a fireside chat hosted by Harvard Business School. It was a great discussion and the audience asked a lot of thoughtful questions. You can now view the video of that event:

Mr. Epstein Goes to Washington

I’ll be in DC the week of November 27 to share my approach to reframing the energy debate with some high-level officials. It looks like I’ll be speaking to the Congressional Coal Caucus on Wednesday, November 29. On November 30, I’ll be speaking at the Crossroads IV: Energy and Climate Policy Summit in Washington, D.C. The event is presented by the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Heritage Foundation and includes some of the world’s leading scientists, policy makers, entrepreneurs, and energy experts. I will be speaking on the moral case for fossil fuels. The event is nearly sold out, but there will be a waiting list. You can find more information at https://www.crossroads-summit.com.

ALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.

  1. Hire me to speak at your next event.
  2. Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications. Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.
  3. Hold a Constructive Conversation workshop.

For the last two years I have been testing and refining an approach to one-on-one conversations that anybody can use. I call it the Constructive Conversation Formula. If you have between 5-20 people who interact frequently with stakeholders and want custom guidance on how to win hearts and minds, just reply to this email and put “Workshop” in the subject line.

Senate Tax Force Aims for Obamacare

/in , , , , , /by

“I don’t know if I can live on my income or not,” comic strip writer Bob Thaves joked. “The government won’t let me try it.” But Republicans might, if their twin tax plans can survive the twists and turns of a House and Senate debate. A good House plan got even better, thanks to House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas), who heeded conservatives’ concerns and honed the language on the Johnson Amendment, adoption tax credit, and marriage penalties. After some thoughtful revisions, his bill, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is headed to the floor as early as tomorrow.If there’s trouble ahead, House leaders are confident it won’t be on their side of the Capitol. “It’s probably the most unified we’ve been in a while,” Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) told reporters about Thursday’s vote. “We all have our issues, and we know the Senate is going to do something different. But I think everyone is very focused, and we know we need to get this thing done.”

Collins was right about the Senate doing something different. Late yesterday, Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) announced that Republicans were tweaking their bill to take on an old foe: the Obamacare individual mandate. In a major departure from their first draft (and the House plan), GOP leaders decided this was the perfect time to attack the IRS’s punishment for Americans who refuse to buy insurance. In doing so, Hatch argued, “We not only ease the financial burdens already associated with the mandate, but also generate additional revenue to provide more tax relief to [middle-class] individuals.” The benefits are two-fold: taxpayers aren’t fined for making a personal decision about health care, and the Senate has more money to offset other tax reforms.

That’s key for Republicans, who unlike the House, are working under much stricter budget rules. Under the reconciliation process (which lets them pass the bill with a simple majority instead of the regular 60), GOP leaders have to find a way to “pay for” their plan, and zapping the individual mandate would free up about $338 billion over the next 10 years. Senator Hatch knows that if fewer people are forced to buy insurance, then fewer people will be applying for federal subsidies to pay for it. That saves GOP leaders a lot of money, which it’s decided to use for an even better causes: like the child tax credit.

Thanks to the persistence of Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the modified Senate bill doubles the child tax credit to $2,000 from the initial $1,650. FRC, along with other conservatives, had been pushing for this increase for months. Now, that work is paying off. “Good news for working families,” Rubio tweeted. “The Senate #TaxCut bill now has #ChildTaxCredit at 2K. We are making progress.” Hopefully, the GOP finds a way to make the change permanent, since the text, as it’s currently written under reconciliation rules, would expire in 2025.

The Left’s pro-abortion crowd has gone hysterical over an education tax deduction, the ability of expectant parents’ to contribute to their future children’s education. The Left insists that this is some radical new way of undermining abortion, which is interesting since it has nothing to do with it. Yet still, NARAL calls it “dangerous” to let families save for college early. Affirming this language, claims Ilyse Hogue would “lay the foundation for ‘personhood,’ the idea that life begins at conception thus granting a fetus in utero legal rights.” But guess what? That foundation was already laid in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which, Hogue may be interested to know, uses the same terminology.

As most people know, the real debate on these provisions will be in three weeks or so, when the two chambers conference together and hash out their differences. Until then, Americans will watch and wait — hoping, as we all do, that Republicans can finally offer families some much-needed relief from Uncle Sam.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

Also in the November 15 Washington Update:

U.S. Strayed by USAID

Bible Speeches Make the Week Strong

Taxpayers Get a Win Over Sports Stadium Cronies

/in , , , , , /by

As the Houston Astros enjoy their World Series victory, taxpayers across the country have a reason of their own to celebrate this week.

Buried in the tax reform bill is a provision that fixes an egregious loophole that sends billions in tax preferences to private sports stadium construction.

The current tax code allows billion-dollar sports franchises—such as the (soon-to-be) Las Vegas Raiders—to use tax-exempt municipal bonds to build their stadiums.

Whereas interest generated by corporate bonds is taxable by the federal government, municipal bond interest is tax-exempt, allowing municipal bonds to command comparatively lower interest rates.

Tax-exempt municipal bonds are generally reserved for public-use infrastructure projects, such as roads, schools, and water systems. But due to a loophole in the tax code, sports franchises have been able to prolifically exploit this tax preference to construct their private stadiums.

Since 2000, at least 36 stadiums have been financed with tax-exempt bonds, amounting to a total tax subsidy of $3.2 billion due to lower financing costs.

Worse still, the foregone federal revenues from this carve-out are even greater—amounting to $3.7 billion. This is because the subsidy is inefficient, allowing high-income earners to capture some of the benefits.

While proponents of this tax break claim that sports stadiums create jobs and economic growth, studies detailing subsidies for sports stadiums repeatedly show no effect or even a drag on economic growth in the overall metropolitan area in which the stadium was constructed.

Building on a bipartisan effort to eliminate this handout to special interests, congressional leaders took the admirable step of eliminating the option of tax-exempt financing for any sports stadium in section 3604 of the tax reform bill.

While the provision eliminates just one of the many crony features of the current tax code, ending the tax preference for sports stadiums is a clear win for all federal taxpayers, regardless of which team they support.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Michael Sargent

Michael Sargent

Michael Sargent is a policy analyst for transportation and infrastructure 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

City’s Illegal Alien Defense Fund Gives $17,500 to Terrorist Front Group

/in , , , , , , /by

Ohio’s capital city has launched a defense fund for illegal immigrants facing deportation and thousands of taxpayer dollars will go to the local chapter of a terrorist front group that promotes itself as a Muslim civil rights organization. The pot of cash is known as Columbus Families Together Fund and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a national organization that serves as the U.S. front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, will be among the recipients.

CAIR was founded in 1994 by three Middle Eastern extremists (Omar Ahmad, Nihad Awad, and Rafeeq Jaber) who ran the American propaganda wing of Hamas, known then as the Islamic Association for Palestine. In 2008 CAIR was a co-conspirator in a federal terror-finance case involving the Hamas front group Holy Land Foundation. Read more in a Judicial Watch special report that focuses on Muslim charities. Top FBI counter terrorism chiefs have described CAIR as an entity that not only promotes terrorism, but also finances it. One group has dedicated itself to documenting CAIR’s extensive terrorist ties which include a top official sentenced to 20 years in prison for participating in a network of militant jihadists, another convicted of bank fraud for financing a major terrorist group, a board member who was a co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a fundraiser identified by the U.S. Treasury Department for financing Al Qaeda.

Allocating public funds to assist illegal aliens with their legal problems is bad enough, but giving some of the cash to a group like CAIR is like pouring salt on the wound. The effort started when Donald Trump got elected president. Columbus City Councilwoman Elizabeth Brown vowed to help illegal immigrants fight deportation and posted this on her social media account on January 30: “In Columbus, we stand with immigrants! This morning I announced Council’s commitment to a legal defense fund to support our refugees and immigrants as they face an onslaught of new hurdles to keep their families together. I’m excited to get to work. Who wants to help?”

Last week the Columbus City Council made it official, establishing the new legal defense fund with a $185,000 infusion to help provide legal services to the area’s illegal aliens and their families. The money will go to various nonprofits that will also “educate detained immigrants on their rights under immigration law,” according to a local newspaper report. A nonprofit called Advocates for Basic Legal Equality Inc. will get the largest chunk of city money, the article reveals, but other groups will also benefit. Priority will go to Columbus-area illegal aliens facing deportation in Cleveland Immigration Court and preference will be given to cases involving children. CAIR will receive $17,500 to provide “legal services that help keep families together in the central Ohio immigrant and refugee communities.” This includes “know your rights” education sessions in Columbus that will cover encounters with federal immigration agents. Brown, the councilwoman behind the effort said “we’re sending a signal here tonight. We value our immigrants. We welcome you. We know that the demonization of immigrants throws them into the shadows and makes a class of silent victims. We won’t allow it.”

City leaders feel an obligation to protect immigrant and refugee families in Central Ohio from the financial and emotional devastation that results from aggressive immigration enforcement, according to a document describing the Columbus Families Together Fund. “The wellbeing of our immigrant communities is intertwined with the city’s overall wellbeing,” the document states. “Ultimately, Columbus is a safer, more just, and more economically vibrant city for everyone when we address the needs of all our residents.” It also says that, because an intact family is one determining factor in economic self-sufficiency and long-term child success, the city will also pay for additional services that help keep immigrant and refugee families together.

Columbus is not alone in allocating public funds to help those in the country illegally after the Trump administration announced a harder line on immigration enforcement. Last year two major U.S. cities that have long offered illegal aliens sanctuary allocated millions of dollars to help them avoid deportation. A few days after the Chicago City Council approved a $1.3 million legal defense fund to assist illegal aliens facing deportation, official in Los Angeles unveiled a similar program with a $10 million infusion.

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may donate to Judicial Watch by clicking here.

Realtors and Homebuilders Put Profits Over Middle Class

/in , , , , , , /by

By Peter J. Wallison & Edward J. Pinto

Two powerful lobbying groups that advertise themselves as helping Americans buy homes have announced that they will oppose the Republican tax plan. Their reason? Because it will lower housing costs. Seldom have any denizens of “the Swamp” shown their true colors quite so flagrantly.

For years, the National Association of Realtors and the National Association of Home Builders were strong supporters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-backed mortgage companies, because (they argued) the government subsidies these firms received would create affordable housing for the middle class. That was their stated reason. The real rationale, as they have now made clear, is that Fannie and Freddie’s policies drove up housing prices, thereby increasing their members’ profits.

When the Republican tax plan made them choose between helping the middle class to buy homes and reducing their members’ profits, they chose profits. Doubling the standard IRS deduction while reducing or eliminating deductions for state and local taxes would discourage would-be homebuyers from purchasing more expensive homes. Since both the Realtors and the builders earn more from selling bigger homes amid rising prices, they simply oppose any tax plan that does not help inflate housing costs.

Their analysis is instructive. If large numbers of taxpayers use the new—and much higher—standard deduction in the Republican plan, they will not be eligible to use the mortgage interest deduction in calculating offsets to the cost of the home. This will induce them to be more cautious in what they spend. A bigger and more costly home will not necessarily mean a bigger tax deduction. Accordingly, the Realtors and homebuilders would suffer a reduction in profits.

The same thing is true for the state and local tax deduction, which applies to local property taxes. If this deduction is reduced, homebuyers will not take into account the “savings” they would receive from deducting large state and local taxes on a bigger home. This will also reduce their spending on the home, and this too will mean less profit for the Realtors and homebuilders.

The financial crisis in 2008 was the result of government housing policies—strongly backed by both the Realtors and homebuilders—that encouraged and sometimes even demanded reductions in underwriting standards so that more Americans with modest incomes could buy homes. The result was a massive housing boom, which drove up prices for first-time homebuyers. By 2007, housing was unaffordable for people of modest means, no matter how concessionary the mortgage terms. The crash in housing values that followed caused many Americans—who bought houses at inflated prices they couldn’t afford—to lose their homes.

The Realtors and homebuilders, however, did wonderfully well in the booming market before 2007, profiting from the unprecedented rise in housing prices. They want this market back, and since government housing policies haven’t changed since the financial crisis—the crisis was blamed on the banks rather than housing policies—they are on the way to getting what they want. If you want to know what crony capitalism looks like, this is it.

Among other things, Fannie, Freddie (and the Federal Housing Administration) are still doing what they did before the crisis: keeping down payments low—often at 3 percent or less—so that buyers can buy bigger and more expensive homes by borrowing more. Once again, home prices are booming. This puts buyers in danger of eventual foreclosure because of a loss of a job, divorce or illness. But by the time that happens, Realtors and homebuilders have been fully paid. If this keeps up, another housing bust, and possibly another financial crisis, cannot be avoided.

The Realtors and homebuilders are afraid that the GOP tax plan will have the effect of stabilizing housing prices. Although this would be an obvious benefit for young homebuyers trying to purchase their first—or second—homes, it’s wholly undesirable for the builders and real estate agents. All of which raises one central question, which should be in the minds of all Americans—including members of Congress—when they consider the coming tax debate: Whose side are these people on?

RELATED ARTICLES: 

GOP’s tax bill cancels $23 billion in credits claimed by illegal immigrants – Washington Times

GOP Tax Plan Would Revitalize US Economy, Give Significant Tax Relief

Why Democrats Are Obsessed With Wealth Inequality

Trump’s Economic Adviser Explains How You Benefit From Tax Reform

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Real Clear Politics.  Peter J. Wallison is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Edward J. Pinto is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

House GOP Unveils Details of Tax Reform Bill

/in , , , , , , /by

The details of the Republican tax reform plan released Thursday mostly reflect the goals laid out by President Donald Trump, including cutting the corporate tax rate and keeping a sharper focus on middle-class tax cuts, meaning an extra $1,182 per year for a median-income family.

The tax plan would keep the income tax rate for the wealthiest earners at the 39.6 percent rate. Trump and Republicans in Congress initially talked about reducing the number of tax brackets from the current seven down to three, but more recently talked of a fourth bracket for the wealthy.

As expected, the plan would cut the U.S. corporate tax rate, the highest in the industrialized world, from 35 percent to 20 percent.

“With this plan, we are getting rid of loopholes for special interest and we are making things simple,” House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said Thursday in a press conference. “ … This is our chance to ensure that American families don’t just get by, they get ahead in this country.”

The plan released Thursday by House Republicans caps the amount people can write off in state taxes at $10,000. Many conservatives contend the write-off encourages high-tax states to continue to hike taxes and forces low-tax states to subsidize them.

For a small business on Main Street, the tax reform bill means savings of about $3,000 per year, while the typical median-income family of four earning $59,000 annually will see a tax cut of $1,182, noted Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which writes tax laws.

“That’s your money,” Brady said. “You earned it and you deserve to keep it.”

Further, the plan will not affect retirement plans, even though some talk had surfaced about a cap on tax savings from 401(k) plans.

The tax plan also reportedly caps the mortgage deduction rate at $500,000, a drop from $1 million.

Tax reform leads Trump’s legislative agenda, and was made considerably easier after the Senate and House passed a budget resolution last month, meaning the tax reform proposal could be approved without a supermajority in the Senate. Trump hopes to attract some support from moderate Democrats to sign the bill before the end of the year.

In a statement, Trump said:

My tax reform priorities have been the same since Day One: bringing tax cuts for hardworking, middle-income Americans; eliminating unfair loopholes and deductions; and slashing business taxes so employers can create jobs, raise wages, and dominate their competition around the world. …

The special interests will distort the facts, the lobbyists will try to save their special deals, and some in the media will unfairly report on our efforts. But my administration will work tirelessly to make good on our promise to the working people who built our nation and deliver historic tax cuts and reforms—the rocket fuel our economy needs to soar higher than ever before.

Other elements of the plan released by the House have been talked about for months.

The first $12,000 of income for individuals would be tax-free under the plan, up from $6,350. For couples, the first $24,000 of income will be tax-free.

Trump’s daughter and presidential adviser, Ivanka Trump, has championed a child tax credit increase, which would increase from $1,000 to $1,600.

The plan calls for repealing the alternative minimum tax, which requires many taxpayers to calculate their tax liability more than once. The tax was initially intended to prevent abuse by the very wealthy, but ended up affecting millions of middle-class tax filers.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said the tax reform bill could be the most important legislation members will vote on, considering tax reform hasn’t happened since 1986.

The plan was also unveiled on the seventh anniversary of the Republicans retaking the House of Representatives in 2010, McCarthy added.

“This plan will bring money sitting overseas back to America,” McCarthy said. “This is about tax cuts. This is about America first. This is about the future.”

Portrait of Fred Lucas

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:

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

Trump Is Quietly Deregulating All the Things

/in , , , /by

And the media is staying silent.

Brittany Hunter

by  Brittany Hunter

Most people alive in America today have probably never had the experience of sending a telegram. There are a host of reasons for this, the main one being that the telegram stopped being fashionable decades ago as burgeoning technology replaced its use in the modern world. The very last Western Union telegram was sent 11 years ago.

Over a decade too late, the FCC has finally decided to end burdensome regulations that stifled telegraph technology. As Reuters reported:

AT&T Inc, originally known as the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, in 2013 lamented the FCC’s failure to formally stop enforcing some telegraph rules.

‘Regulations have a tendency to persist long after they outlived any usefulness and it takes real focus and effort to ultimately remove them from the books even when everyone agrees that it is the common sense thing to do,’ the company said.”

Regulations are far easier to create than they are to dismantle. As Milton Friedman said, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” Yet lately, there has been an undeniable trend of repealing these types of regulations, the likes of which America hasn’t seen since the Reagan Administration. And in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, this current regulatory rollback is due largely to President Donald Trump.

Setting a New Record

Ronald Reagan left many legacies during his duration in the White House. And while many were less than praiseworthy—the War on Drugs springs to mind—he did accomplish some deregulation.

In fact, during the Reagan presidency, both the Federal Register and federal regulations decreased by more than one-third. And as impressive as this record surely was, it’s already been broken by Donald Trump.

Upon taking office, Donald Trump signed an executive order telling federal agencies that they must cut two existing regulations for each new regulation proposed. Contained within this executive order was the demand that each federal agency create a task force with the explicit purpose of finding regulations worth slashing. This act was intended to help the newly sworn-in president reach his promise of cutting 70 percent of all federal regulations.

While the talk of regulatory cuts is typical red meat rhetoric, the left was obviously less than pleased with this executive order. A coalition of left-leaning organizations even joined together in February and sued Trump on the grounds that his executive order would potentially “block or force the repeal of regulations needed to protect health, safety, and the environment, across a broad range of topics – from automobile safety, to occupational health, to air pollution, to endangered species.” But the lawsuit did not scare Trump away from his objective.

When Obama had been in office as long as Trump currently has, regulations were 28 percent higher. But since taking office, Trump has repealed hundreds of these regulations.

And when it comes to regulations in general, the score speaks for itself. During the same point of time of their respective presidencies, Obama’s regulatory tally was at 1,737 while Trump’s is 1,241. And while Reagan’s own regulatory cuts were admirable, they still don’t compare with Trump’s if you judge them by the same timeframe.

Earlier this October, Trump announced his plans to further cut taxes along with red tape that negatively impacts both businesses and consumers. According to CEI, the current level of federal regulatory burdens have amounted to nearly $2 trillion. And while business owners may pay the initial costs, it will inevitably trickle down to the consumer. When overhead costs are raised on entrepreneurs, that cost must must be made up for somewhere. And as CEI also estimates, these hidden costs can account for about $15,000 per household in any given year.

As the 2017 fiscal year came to a close this month, the White House also released its initiative to cut more red tape to jumpstart the economy. Obviously, the “do nothing” method is a far cry from Obama’s overbearing regulatory intervention.

However, while this rhetoric is pleasing to much of the American public, which is fed up after almost a decade of a stagnating economy, Congress has yet to act on any substantial reform in either the House or the Senate.

Still, the White House has continued its efforts to encourage regulatory relief by pushing for three specific reform efforts, listed by CEI’s Clyde Wayne Crews as follows:

  1. Trump’s January executive order requiring agencies to eliminate at least two rules for every new regulation adopted, and that they ensure net new regulatory costs of zero;
  2. A sweeping  Reorganization Executive Order that requires the Office of Management and Budget to submit a plan aimed at streamlining and reducing the size of the administrative state generally. This plan will set the tone for Trump’s budget proposal next year.
  3. A memorandum from the new Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) administrator Neomi Rao directing agencies, for the first time as far as I can tell, to propose an overall incremental regulatory cost allowance for the agency in the new edition of their “Unified Agenda” on regulations. This report will appear in the fall. Prior editions, since the 1980s, would label rules as “economically significant,” but never has there been such a “regulatory budget.” Rao says, “OMB expects that each agency will propose a net reduction in total incremental regulatory costs for FY 2018.”

But what is, perhaps most interesting is how silent the media has been. Usually, the media doesn’t miss an opportunity to criticize the president, making it all the more strange that these massive regulation rollbacks have managed to slip under the radar.

The Importance of Economic Liberty

Without economic liberty there can be no general freedom.

Just as it is important to give credit where credit is due, it is also important to acknowledge that excelling in one area does not negate one’s terrible behavior in another. The appointment of Jeff Sessions by itself is enough of a reason to be wary of Trump. Especially given Sessions’ obsession with reigniting the drug war in a time when public opinion is overwhelmingly trending in the opposite direction. Though in many capacities this makes one of Trump’s weak points similar to Reagan’s.

And the Sessions issue is just one of many. Diplomacy also appears to be one of Trump’s weak points. Taunting a world leader who is threatening to use nuclear arms against your country may not be the wisest idea, but that hasn’t stopped Trump from referring to Kim Jong Un as “Rocket Man” at the height of tensions. And in general, President Trump’s hawkish foreign policy has made a mockery of candidate Trump’s non-interventionist rhetoric.

But increasing economic freedom is no small feat. If there is any doubt of this, just look how long it took to deregulate the telegraph industry. Without economic liberty there can be no general freedom, which is precisely why Trump’s pushback against the regulatory state is so important.

Our modern economy has no doubt been burdened by regulations that have held back the market and prevented others from even entering the workforce. So as hard as Trump is to stomach most of the time, these regulatory scale-backs are cause for celebration.

Brittany Hunter

Brittany Hunter

Brittany Hunter is an associate editor at FEE. Brittany studied political science at Utah Valley University with a minor in Constitutional studies.

Will Highways Become Obsolete?

/in , , , /by

Technology’s rapidly changing landscape will transform the way we travel in the next decade, much less the next half century. Sure as the sun rises, private innovators like Elon Musk will ensure outmoded travel will be obsolete in the near term. So, toll roads and the long arm of government attempting to manage our morning commute through toll ‘managed’ lanes won’t be necessary.

blue_logo
By Terri Hall

New modes of transport could replace the need for cars, sooner rather than later.

You’d think it’s counterproductive for Elon Musk to support something that could eliminate the need for his own Tesla self-driving cars, but innovators tend to be on the cutting edge of new technologies and Hyperloop One is certainly worth watching.

Hyperloop is a new form of transportation that propels a pod (whether people or cargo) through a tube across an elevated track using magnetic levitation technology. The company claims it could take a passenger from Houston to Dallas in under 30 minutes — at airline speeds of 620 MPH without turbulence or drag — at a fraction of the cost. At least that’s how it’s being promoted.

That beats high speed rail systems, including the one being planned by Japan-based Texas Central Railway, whose speeds top out at 205 MPH. The advantage of a Hyperloop type of system over the traditional high speed rail is it would not require the massive taking of rural land, eliminating the ‘eminent domain for private gain’ problem, since it’s elevated and could potentially be built within existing highway real estate. Nor would a Hyperloop create the noise problems of high speed trains because it’s inside a tube without air drag.

Hyperloop One has announced the ten teams for its Global Challenge representing the U.S., UK, Mexico, India, and Canada along with winning routes it chose from a field of hundreds of applicants to move forward with prototypes and feasibility studies, with one route set for Dallas-Laredo-Houston.

The company conducted its first successful test in July 2017, and it will continue to test the technology for longer distances and at greater and greater speeds. It plans to have a system fully operational by 2020. The company has already raised $160 million for the task.

While Hyperloop technology could transform the future of transportation, it still has many of the challenges of traditional highspeed rail. How do you get passengers from the outskirts of urban centers to their final destinations inside city centers? So far, Uber and rideshare companies have solved the door-to-door problem just fine without the fancy-dancy, hi-tech Hyperloop track. But to some extent, ridesharing contributes to the road congestion. Hyperloop would bypass it.

The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has already entered into an agreement with AECOM to explore Hyperloop’s feasibility to help address the state’s mobility issues. The open question remains, who’s going to pay for such a system? Will it be entirely private funding? Aren’t the Colorado taxpayers footing at least part of the bill by entering into a public-private partnership (P3), a controversial contracting method often considered corporate welfare?

Ready for the Jetsons?

Uber announced its plans to use Dallas as its test market for a new flying car.

Your read that right. It’s called Uber Elevate and it would create a fleet of cars that can do vertical takeoff and landing or VTOLs. One of the reasons the company chose Dallas as its testing ground is its high concentration of aviators, with Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, and Bell Helicopter based there.

Jeff Holden, Uber’s Chief Product Officer says it expects to begin testing as early as 2020. While many skeptics quickly emerged with the obvious concerns about commuters encountering the same potential for congestion while in the air along with safety concerns for those who have no experience in flying, the meteoric rise of drone users demonstrates the capacity for such new flying technologies to find a niche, if not a mass market in the future.

Out with the Old, In with the New

With the White House and state highway departments scurrying to enter into long-term P3 contracts for toll roads, it’s seems so yesterday when taking the vast possibilities of new technology and travel innovations into consideration. Just a few years ago, driverless cars were all the rage and many thought that would take driving into the 21st century — and it will, with the potential to use platooning vehicles and driver-to-driver communications to eliminate much of today’s urban congestion. While new technologies like the Hyperloop and flying cars seemed like outlandish futuristic pipe dreams even a decade ago, real companies and real investors are putting up serious cash to make the unthinkable a reality to help solve the endless scourge of road congestion.

So, note to policy makers. Before you rush into 50-99-year sweetheart deals with private, mostly foreign toll operators using today’s limited old school data and thinking, buyer beware.

Technology’s rapidly changing landscape will transform the way we travel in the next decade, much less the next half century. Sure as the sun rises, private innovators like Elon Musk will ensure outmoded travel will be obsolete in the near term. So, toll roads and the long arm of government attempting to manage our morning commute through toll ‘managed’ lanes won’t be necessary.

Bureaucrats need not apply.

TERRI HALL

Terri Hall is the founder of Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom (TURF), which defends against eminent domain abuse and promotes non-toll transportation solutions. She’s a home school mother of ten turned citizen activist. Ms. Hall is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis of the Conservative-Online-Journalism Center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Pulls the Plug on Private Toll Roads, Center…

A Track Record of Toll Road Failures at Taxpayers …

Trump Floats Gas Tax Increase After Cold Reception…

Former Clinton HUD Secretary Calls for More Tolls …

Texas’ first foreign-owned toll road handed …