Michael Tanner and Michael Cannon are working nonstop to derail government-run health care, but they better figure out how to work more than 24 hours per day, because if they fail, it is very likely that politicians will then look for a new revenue source to finance all the new spending that inevitably will follow. Unfortunately, that means a value-added tax (VAT) will be high on the list. Indeed, the VAT recently has been discussed by powerful political figures and key Obama allies such as the Co-Chairman of his transition team and the Speaker of the House.
The VAT would be great news for the political insiders and beltway elite. A brand new source of revenue would mean more money for them to spend and a new set of loopholes to swap for campaign cash and lobbying fees. But as I explain in this new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, the evidence from Europe unambiguously suggests that a VAT will dramatically increase the burden of government. That's good for Washington, but bad for America.
Even if the politicians are unsuccessful in their campaign to take over the health care system, there will be a VAT fight at some point in the next few years. This will be a Armageddon moment for proponents of limited government. Defeating a VAT is not a sufficient condition for controlling the size of government, but it surely is a necessary condition.
Matt Yglesias has a post up looking at the PISA scores, and he seems to imply that for-profit schooling has been tried and found wanting in Sweden and the U.S.:
The big difference is that many Swedish charters are run by for-profit firms. We’ve had some experiments with that in the U.S. and it hasn’t worked very well. Nobody’s really found a great way of making consistent profits running K-12 schools in America.
Of course even he notes that Sweden’s schools are highly regulated by the state.
And in the U.S., the difficulty of succeeding in for-profit education just might have something to do with that government monopoly on k-12 education and the $560 billion or so in tax revenues that fund it. Maybe.
An earlier post revealed that higher tax rates in Maryland were backfiring, leading to less revenue from upper-income taxpayers. It seems New York politicians are running into a similar problem. According to an AP report, the state's 100 richest taxpayers have paid $1 billion less than expected following a big tax hike. The story notes that several rich people have left the state, and all three examples are about people who have redomiciled in Florida, which has no state income tax. For more background information on why higher taxes on the rich do not necessarily raise revenue, see this three-part Laffer Curve video series (here, here, and here):
Early data from New York show the higher tax rates for the wealthy have yielded lower-than-expected state wealth.
...[New York Governor David] Paterson said last week that revenues from the income tax increases and other taxes enacted in April are running about 20 percent less than anticipated.
...So far this year, half of about $1 billion in expected revenue from New York's 100 richest taxpayers is missing.
...State officials say they don't know how much of the missing revenue is because any wealthy New Yorkers simply left. But at least two high-profile defectors have sounded off on the tax changes: Buffalo Sabres owner Tom Golisano, the billionaire who ran for governor three times and who was paying $13,000 a day in New York income taxes, and radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh.
...Donald Trump told Fox News earlier this year that several of his millionaire friends were talking about leaving the state over the latest taxes.
That's my favorite placard from the Washington tea party protests on Saturday. No Child Left a Dime underlines perhaps the central concern of the protesters -- the ongoing massive fiscal irresponsibility in Washington by both parties.
We've got deficits of more more than $1 trillion for years to come. Federal debt will approach World War Two levels within a decade. Even so, the Democrats are trying to ram through a $1 trillion health care expansion, and the head of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, is defending against any cuts to Medicare, the program that is the single biggest threat to taxpayers. People are marching not just because Obama and the Democrats are scaring their pants off, but because most Republicans in positions of power are spendthrifts as well.
The chart illustrates that no child will be left a dime because the government will have it all. This is the CBO's "alternative fiscal scenario," which essentially means the business-as-usual scenario if Congress doesn't cut anything in coming years.
Note that the most rapidly growing box, the white box, is the program that Michael Steele doesn't want to touch. The program is expected to grow by 6.3 percent of GDP by 2050. In today's money, 6.3 percent of GDP is about $900 billion a year in added spending. So it's like Steele doesn't see anything wrong with tomorrow's young families forking over an additional $900 billion a year in taxes on this one program, or about $7,700 a year for every American household.
It's worse than that. The biggest box on the chart by 2050 is interest on the government debt, and by far the biggest contributor to the growth in interest is Medicare. So including interest, Michael Steele's (ridiculous) Medicare position is sort of like supporting a more than $10,000 tax hike on every young family for this one program.
Come on Republicans, you can do better than that. How about starting simply by proposing some of CBO's modest and commonsense Medicare reforms like raising deductibles?
(By the way, interest costs rise in coming years because of an excess of spending, not a shortage of revenues. Under this CBO scenario, all current tax cuts are extended, and yet federal revenues still rise as a share of GDP over time above the historical norm of recent decades).
Some well-known bloggers are being terrible bullies, beating up on private schools.
Felix Salmon kicks things off by hoping the government tightens the definition of a “charitable” organization and begins taxing private schools who don’t “do a bit more to earn it.” Matt Yglesias agrees that private schools are mooching deadbeats and ups the ante, calling them actively harmful as well. Finally, Conor Clarke at The Atlantic agrees, but makes the other two look like panty-waists by proposing the government radically narrow what is considered a charity in the first place.
Yglesias even has the temerity to indict private schools for the failure of NYC public schools:
And as best one can tell, their main impact on the common weal is negative, drawing parents with resources and social capital out of the public school system and contributing to its neglect. You’d have to believe that New York City’s public schools would be both better funded and free of this kind of nonsense if a larger portion of the city’s elite were sending their kids to them.
Really? Would we have to believe what Yglesias says? No, it’s not “the best one can tell.” According to the evidence, Yglesias' breezy, offhand accusation is demonstrably wrong. Increased competition from private schools actually improves public school performance.
And the more kids who leave public to go private, the more money the schools have for the kids who remain.
What ingrates. They complain about the lost tax revenue while dismissing out of hand the billions of dollars that parents and donors spend every year to educate children outside the government system. They dismiss the fact that these parents and donors are saving taxpayers in the neighborhood of $60 Billion a year based on current-dollar public school spending and the number of kids in private schools.
Finally, if this is all about rich people getting a free ride, why aren’t these guys screaming about means-testing public schools? Why shouldn’t we charge rich parents tuition to attend public schools? If a charitable deduction for private schools is so bad, why isn’t a free public education even worse?
Speaking to Bloomberg News, President Obama explicitly embraces a central tenet of supply-side economics, which is the common-sense observation that a growing economy generates additional tax revenue. That's the good news. The bad news is that almost all of the policies being advocated by the White House expand the burden of government, thus making it more likely that the economy will experience subpar growth. This, of course, will give the politicians in Washington more excuses to further raise tax rates:
President Barack Obama said he is “confident” that he won’t have to raise taxes on most Americans to close the budget deficit as long as the economy picks up steam. “One of the biggest variables in this whole thing is economic growth,” the president said in an interview with Bloomberg News at the White House. “If we are growing at a robust rate, then we can pay for the government that we need without having to raise taxes.”
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) is very upset that the Obama administration has rejected the California state government's request for a bailout. She tells the Washington Post:
This matters for the U.S., not just for California. I can't speak for the president, but when you've got the 8th biggest economy in the world sitting as one of your 50 states, it's hard to see how the country recovers if that state does not.
First, presumably Lofgren knows that the federal government is projecting a deficit of $1.8 trillion for the current fiscal year -- so where is this emergency aid for California to come from?
But perhaps even more importantly, Lofgren seems to confuse the state of California with the State of California. That is, she confuses the people and the businesses of California with the state government. There's no clear and direct relationship between the two. The state government is currently running a large deficit and is warning of a "fiscal meltdown." Of course, as it continued to issue claims of fiscal meltdown and painful cuts over the past many years, California has continued to spend. The state has nearly tripled spending since 1990 (doubled in per capita terms). It went on a spending binge during the dotcom boom and never adjusted to the lower revenues after the bust. During the Schwarzenegger years the state has increased spending twice as fast as inflation and population growth. What were they thinking?
But a bailout for the government won't necessarily help the recovery of the state's economy. In fact, by increasing taxes and/or borrowing, it would likely weaken the national economy. And by encouraging continued irresponsible spending by the state government, it would just be an enabler of destructive policies that suck money out of the productive sector of California's economy. We all want the California economy to recover. But that's not the same thing as giving more money to the California government.