If you get into the weeds of tax policy and had a contest for parts of the internal revenue code that are "boring but important," depreciation would be at the top of the list. After all, how many people want to learn about America's Byzantine system that imposes a discriminatory tax penalty on new investment? Yes, it's a self-destructive policy that imposes a lot of economic damage, but even I'll admit it's not a riveting topic (though I tried to link it to popular culture by using ABBA as an example).
In second place would be a policy called "deferral," which deals with a part of the law that allows companies to delay an extra layer of tax that the IRS imposes on income that is earned - and already subject to tax - in other countries. It is "boring but important" because it has major implications on the ability of American-domiciled firms to compete for market share overseas.
Here's a video that explains the issue, though feel free to skip it and continue reading if you already are familiar with how the law works.
The simple way to think of this eye-glazing topic is that "deferral" is a good policy that partially mitigates the impact of a bad policy known as "worldwide taxation."Read the rest of this post »
Hillary Clinton declares on the campaign trail, “Donald Trump simply doesn’t have the temperament to be president and commander in chief of the United States.” Thankfully, he isn't going to be -- not because of his standing in the polls, but because there is no such position as "commander in chief of the United States."
This is a constitutional republic, and we don’t have a commander in chief. According to Article II of the Constitution, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”
That’s an important distinction, and it’s disturbing that any candidate for the presidency would miss it. Hillary Clinton may want to be commander in chief of the whole country, of you and me, and to direct us and our economic activities the way the president directs the officers and soldiers of the armed forces. But if so, she needs to propose an amendment to the Constitution -- an amendment that would effectively make the rest of the Constitution irrelevant, since it was designed as a Constitution for a limited government of a free people.
Much as they might both wish it, neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton is going to be my commander.
Hillary Clinton will be introducing a plan today that would enable students from families eventually making up to $125,000 not to have to pay tuition at in-state colleges or universities. This is a jump in college subsidization from her previously announced plan, which focused on debt-free tuition, and more in line with what Bernie Sanders has proposed. Presumably, it is going to be paid for by the federal government offering states more money for higher education in exchange for states saying they'll increase their own spending, to a point of making tuition largely free.
We've been over how costly "free" college really is--massive overconsumption, credential inflation, big opportunity costs for taxpayers, etc.--which you can read about here and here. I won't rehash it all now. But the political calculus hasn't changed: People like getting things for free, especially when the ultimate costs are hidden. And the more people who think they'll benefit--the estimate is 8 out of 10 for Ms. Clinton's new proposal--the better.
At just about the same time FBI Director James Comey was discussing how “extremely careless” Hillary Clinton was with classified information during her time as Secretary of State, the president of the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union, was tweeting this:
And doing this:
All of this, by the way, took place at the NEA’s national convention.
Now, is there anything wrong with a union endorsing and campaigning for a presidential candidate? Heck no! But there is a huge problem when teachers, as a condition of working at government schools, are required to furnish funds for those unions.
I know the response: The “agency fees” teachers in many states are compelled to supply only cover collective bargaining, which is not political. Of course, such bargaining is absolutely political—negotiating with government entities is inherently political—and somtimes coming in at 65 percent or more of full dues, a lot of agency fee money is almost certainly going to more than just collective bargaining and administrative stuff. And money is fungible. Dollars that free payers supply for collective bargaining ultimately frees up other bucks for, I don’t know, maybe straight-out politicking!
Sadly, as you probably know, the U.S. Supreme Court tied up on this 4-4 earlier this year, maintaining a lower court ruling that agency fees are not a violation of constitutional speech and association rights. But just because the Supreme Court stumbled doesn’t mean the political branches of government can’t act to end forced union funding. And from I saw on Twitter yesterday, justice requires that compelled support of unions end.
Where did Hillary Clinton's campaign get the "I'm with her" slogan that Donald Trump criticized last week? I saw this in the Washington Post:
Ida Woldemichael, a designer who came up with "I'm with Her" for the Clinton campaign,...is a graphic designer who worked for the Clinton Foundation before joining the campaign about a year ago.
Listening to Hillary Clinton put her big-government ideology before the needs of veterans (see below video) brings to mind an email exchange I had recently with a correspondent who had questions about privatizing Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Health Administration.
The video is an interview with Libertarian presidential and vice presidential candidates Gary Johnson and Bill Weld into which MSNBC interjected a telephone interview with Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Clinton protests (starting at 4:20) that Congress should not privatize the VHA, while Bill Weld, a former two-term Republican governor of Massachusetts, gives one of the best explanations I've seen of why it should (10:00).
The email exchange follows the video.
Earlier this week Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post published a column titled (in the print edition) "Stonewaller, shape-shifter, liar." I won't keep you in suspense: it was about Donald Trump. But apparently I wasn't the only reader to have the reaction, Wouldn't that title apply to more than one candidate this year? And some of the readers made their view known to Marcus. So today she tries valiantly to explain why Hillary Clinton isn't -- really, quite, so much -- guilty of the same offenses.
Sure, she stonewalls and keeps secrets. But in many cases, she eventually comes clean. Like, you know, with her private-server emails and her Benghazi correspondence.
And yes, she's flipped 100 percent from her previously firm positions on same-sex marriage (against, then for) and the Pacific region free-trade agreement (for, then against). Yet, Marcus writes, "voters, agree or disagree, can have reasonable confidence about Clinton’s basic worldview and where she stands on issues." Really? Just where does she stand on trade? For TPP or against it? For a trade agreement with Europe or against it? Unless Marcus is psychic, she'd surely have to admit that Clinton stands firmly with her finger to the wind. (Admittedly, that might be better than Trump's adamant support for protectionism.)
And then there's, well, the lying. Marcus cites two fact-checkers who conclude that there isn't sufficient evidence to prove that Clinton lied about the Benghazi attack. Not beyond a reasonable doubt, anyway. Marcus even praises Clinton's wildly inaccurate and repeated statements about coming under sniper fire:
Clinton’s handling of another “lie” is instructive. At several points during the 2008 campaign, Clinton described “landing under sniper fire” in Bosnia in 1996; video debunked that account. But confronted with conflicting evidence, Clinton acknowledged that she “misspoke.” Has Trump ever backed down from his bevy of demonstrably false statements?
Sorry, counselor, this is not "misspeaking." It would be misspeaking if she said she came under fire in 1998, when it was really 1996. We might even credit her with misspeaking if she said it happened in Bosnia when it really happened in Kabul; she's traveled a lot. But in this case, she made a claim about her own experience, and repeated it many times over several years with great detail (as a video with 7 million views illustrates), that was completely at odds with the facts. It's not a stumble. It's more like the false claim of Joe Biden that he came from a long line of coal miners, or the false claim of Sen. Richard Blumenthal throughout his political career that he served in Vietnam, or indeed the false claim of historian Joseph Ellis that he too served in Vietnam. In every case these claims served to make the teller seem more experienced and even heroic than he or she actually was -- helpful in building a political persona, but absolutely false.
And that doesn't even get us to statements at odds with known facts on such points as whether she was "dead broke" upon leaving the White House, why she was named Hillary, whether her grandparents were immigrants, and whether she tried to enroll in the Marines or how and why she voted for the war in Iraq.
My low regard for Donald Trump is pretty well known. But I don't see how any honest assessment can dismiss the low levels of honesty that Hillary (and Bill) Clinton have displayed for 25 years now. Which might explain why exactly 64 percent of voters consider both Clinton and Trump not to be "honest and trustworthy." And given the high levels of unpopularity of both major-party nominees, you have to wonder if voters are going to be looking around for plausible alternative candidates.