Author: Redactor

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Got Jobs?

New jobs come from entrepreneurial insight into new ways of profitably producing goods; they are paid for with investments. After a bust, old ratios of prices and wages cease to work, requiring time for entrepreneurs to refigure. But capitalism’s basic scenario — savings, investment, productivity gains, trades — still applies.

Some folks prefer to short-​circuit all this, simply robbing Peter to create a job for Paul.

They’re known as politicians.

President Obama proposes spending an additional $447 billion to create jobs, even though our economy is already gummed up with debilitating debt. The Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell argues that taking money from the economy’s right pocket (taxes) and putting it in the left pocket (spending) doesn’t create economic growth or long-​term employment, but, for those who happen “to be sitting in the left pocket … [i.e.], a state or local politician that’s getting money from the so-​called stimulus,” they think “it’s a good thing.”

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D‑Illinois) says that the “only way out” of our current mess is to offer every one of the 15 million unemployed Americans a $40,000-a-year job … with the federal government.

Most Republican presidential candidates pitch their (quite mythical) job-​creating skills, too.

The Republican presidential candidate banned by the national news media — no, not Ron Paul, the other one, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson — put it best. “The fact is,” he said at the only debate he was allowed to appear in, “I can unequivocally say that I did not create a single job while I was governor.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture media and media people political challengers

The Interposeurs

Media people interpose themselves between current events and the news audience. They consider it their job to sort out “the issues” before news consumers even start thinking.

This is the source of media power.

Recent investigations into current media coverage of the GOP presidential race shows that the basic media bias may not be pro-​liberal/​anti-​conservative, but, more generally, anti-​libertarian. Ron Paul’s candidacy, though receiving an amazing amount of support from enthusiastic fans and generous donors (Rep. Paul has quite a kitty going into the campaign), has garnered (according to a recent Pew Research Center study) little news coverage to match his popular success: Less, even, than Santorum.

But is ideological bias at the root of the problem? After all, each candidate has a personality, and personality is obviously a big factor in show biz success. And politics, it has been said, is show biz for homely people. No wonder political coverage looks more like junior high and high school tribalism than a truly mature enterprise.

According to the irreverent H.L. Mencken, journalists like to play messiah. Thinking they can “save the day” every day, they tend to favor those politicians who treat the eternal rescue mission of government policy with a cheaply salable scenario. Paul, in identifying government more often as a problem than a solution, horns in on the public rescue biz.

Maybe this helps explain why “Ron Paul did markedly better in the blogosphere than in the press.” And why journalistic coverage swings more extremely than does blogosphere coverage.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets tax policy

An Embarrassment of Riches

Have you heard the terrible, awful news?

Over roughly the last three decades, specifically from 1979 to 2007, Americans across all segments of the economy — from the poorest to the richest — have seen their incomes rise.

It just doesn’t get any worse, eh?

If you haven’t committed hara-​kiri, here are the cold, hard facts from the Congressional Budget Office report:

  • The poorest fifth of the population, on average, saw their inflation-​adjusted incomes increase 18 percent.
  • The 60 percent of Americans in the middle earned nearly 40 percent more, after taxes.
  • Those of us from the 80th percentile to the 99th had income gains of 65 percent.
  • Incomes for the top one percent of earners were up a whopping 275 percent.

One might think that universally higher incomes are a good thing, but that depends on how you look at it.

“If you think of America’s total income as one giant pie,” an ABC World News Tonight report explained, “the richest one percent have seen the size of their piece double over the last 30 years. And everyone else has seen their piece get smaller.”

Well, I’m really hoping that we won’t start thinking of all our incomes as “one giant pie.”

What about this 99 percent versus 1 percent warfare?

That’s media slant. Most Americans don’t begrudge someone good fortune, and affirmatively admire those who grow wealthy in return for smarts and hard work.

But they do oppose bailouts.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets insider corruption too much government video

Saving “Capitalism”

Excellent testimony by Prof. Russ Roberts of George Mason University about the government bailout of the financial sector. Naming Bush, Obama and Congress, Prof. Roberts charges: “You’ve helped risk-​takers continue to expect that the rules that apply to the rest of us don’t apply to people with the right connections. You’ve saved the system, but it’s a system not worth saving. It’s not capitalism; it is crony capitalism.”

Let’s keep this common sense in mind.

Categories
tax policy

Fair Share Laid Bare

President Barack Obama says “it’s only right that we ask everyone to pay their fair share in taxes.”

Rich folks must be wondering when their refund checks will start arriving in their mailboxes.

The current income tax is progressive, requiring those making more to pay a higher rate. Thus, those earning a million dollars pay, on average, 29 percent of their income to Uncle Sam, while those taking home $50,000 to $75,000 a year pay an average of 15 percent. This progressivity can be seen in wide angle, too: Figuring credits and exemptions, 47 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax at all. Meanwhile, the top ten percent in income pay 73 percent of all income taxes collected.

And Obama’s idea of taxing “the rich” would only make it more unfair.

But, wait, what about billionaire Warren Buffett? Doesn’t he pay a lower percentage of his income in taxes than does his secretary?

Most of Buffett’s income comes off his investments, not in salary. That’s capital gains, taxed at 15 percent. Obama decries it, but doesn’t propose any specific increase in capital gains taxes. Why? He doesn’t want the stock market to crater. As he put it two years ago, “The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession.”

So, when President Obama says the rich should pay their fare share, what does he mean? Simple: “If you’re not rich, vote for me.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets ideological culture

Occupy X Percent

By all accounts I’ve read, the 99 percenters in the “Occupy X” (fill in the “X” with your nearest protest city) movement seem obsessed with income inequality.

I, too, am concerned with the very rich — the bailouts of the very rich. I was against bailouts from the start. The moral hazard of a bailout mentality is extremely dangerous, inimical to a free society.

But that doesn’t make me a 99 percenter.

Why? Well, protestors on the streets believe — well, 49 percent of them believe — that the bailouts were necessary!

How odd. They distrust the rich. They want to tax the rich more. And yet, when the rich fail, they think it vital to “help the rich out.” Is this a result of simply believing in “helping people out in times of trouble”? Or do 49 percent of 99 percenters believe that the wealth of the well-​to-​do is so vital to the economy that their status as wealthy folks must be guaranteed?

I think it’s probably the latter. Leaning left, 99 percenters are committed to government “management” of the economy. And that includes bailing out unsuccessful rich folks as well as the unsuccessful poor and middle-​class folks.

Were they really against inequality, wouldn’t they be happy now that the wealthy have taken a hit, and income inequality has been reduced? At least to a small, Schadenfreude extent?

Apparently, government being in control is the real bedrock issue. For X percent, anyway — X representing a shockingly high number of protestors.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.