How long can tax cuts last, if Congress keeps up the spending? "Every American who just received a tax cut should be a newly minted deficit hawk," writes Adam Michel. "Without serious spending reforms, your taxes will go back up."
What is often forgotten in the abstract world of budget math is that Washington's fiscal policy matters to the bottom line of every American. When the IRS takes less of your money, you have more to spend, plow back into your business, or put toward your child's education or your retirement plan.
The economic benefits of the tax cuts are readily apparent. Unemployment is sustained at a 17-year low, and wages are rising faster than they have since 2009. Indeed, hundreds of businesses have announced raises, bonuses, and new investments directly benefiting millions of Americans.
Don't count on the good times lasting forever. When legislators are unwilling to address out-of-control spending, they quickly look for new sources of revenue.
Congress and the president are repeating the mistakes of history. Portions of both the Reagan tax cuts in the early 1980s and the Bush tax cuts in the early 2000s were ultimately reversed.
[Adam Michel, "Congress Piles Up Massive Debt, Putting Tax Cuts at Risk," The Daily Signal, March 22]
We talkin' 'bout process. A bloated spending bill, writes Peter Suderman, is what happens when legislators think the process doesn't matter.
Republican leadership sometimes pays lip service to process concerns. When Paul Ryan became Speaker of the House in 2015, he promised to be less controlling and more transparent than his predecessor, John Boehner. Under his speakership, the House would be "more open, more inclusive, more deliberative, more participatory," he said. "We're not going to bottle up the process so much and predetermine the outcome of everything around here."
Instead, Ryan has run the most closed and centralized House in history, as Politico reported last year. The story is similar in the Senate. When the government shut down briefly in February, it was because McConnell denied Sen. Rand Paul an up or down vote on an amendment that would draw attention to the way the deal broke the federal spending caps put in place under the Obama administration.
Lawmakers in the House have been repeatedly and systematically denied the opportunity to offer amendments to legislation. Legislation is simply presented for up or down vote, with little time to read, process, or debate.
The centralization of power in Congress not a problem that is limited to Republicans. When Harry Reid was majority leader, the Senate ran on a notoriously closed process, one that McConnell promised would change. But Republican leadership holds the power now, and has the responsibility to make changes.
Even many rank and file GOP lawmakers recognize that there's a problem. "I have complete respect for our leadership, but when they foist this on us with less than 36 hours, I think it's very irresponsible," Ted Budd (R–N.C.), said about the omnibus. "Shame, shame. A pox on both Houses—and parties. $1.3 trillion. Busts budget caps. 2200 pages, with just hours to try to read it," tweeted Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.).
[Peter Suderman, "The New Omnibus Is Terrible Because Congress Is Broken," Reason, March 22]
Breaking down polarization on campus. Random roommate assignment, write James Piereson and Naomi Shaefer Riley, is just one small way colleges can open students minds to different points of view:
For incoming freshmen at Duke next fall, it will be the luck of the draw. The university's administration just announced that roommate assignments for first-year students will be made at random, as they once were. It's a move that other colleges should follow.
In recent years, new students at Duke and other schools have used social media to seek out people with whom they think they'll be "compatible" and request them as roommates. In an environment where young people are already politically and culturally polarized—and increasingly trained to believe that anyone who disagrees with them is an enemy—this policy has, predictably, insulated students from those who are different.
In a letter, Larry Moneta, the school's vice president for student affairs, and Steve Nowicki, dean and vice provost for undergraduate education, sought to reassure students about the new policy: "You'll be fine … better in fact! … We believe that you'll enjoy the opportunity to meet someone you've not previously known and will have a great opportunity to explore your roommate's history, culture and interests."
[James Piereson and Naomi Shaefer Riley, "Opening Minds on Campus," City Journal, March 23]
Shipping protectionism backfires. The Jones Act, writes Thomas Grennes, is increasing the danger of cargo voyages:
The Jones Act of 1920 requires, among other things, that cargo voyages between two American ports must use American-built ships. As the United States has lost its comparative advantage in ship-building, US ships have become more expensive, and the average age of ships in the Jones Act–eligible fleet has risen relative to the average age of foreign-flag ships. Older ships are less safe, and reforming the Jones Act is the key to increasing safety in US shipping. […]
A group at Southampton Solent University conducted a comprehensive study of ship accidents taking place in the last 15 years and concluded, "The evidence confirms the hypothesis that most ship accidents can be linked with older vessels. . . ." The average age of vessels lost was consistently above 20 years, and the average age of lost ships increased steadily over the sample period. […] US-flag ships are older than those of the world fleet, and the Jones Act contributes to the extraordinary aging of the US fleet. The average age of ships in the US fleet (33 years) is greater than the average age of ships in the foreign-flag fleet (13 years).
[Thomas Grennes, "Sacrificing Safety Is an Unintended Consequence of the Jones Act," The Mercatus Center, March 21]
Progress is real. A new Congressional Budget Office report, writes James Pethokoukis, debunks the argument that today's middle class is less well off now than the middle class of 40 years ago:
Lots of cool data in there, but let's focus on the broad middle class, the 21st to 80th income percentiles. How has it been doing since 1980?
One way is to look at "income before transfers and taxes" — or roughly market incomes plus social insurance benefits such as Social Security and Medicare — which was up 28%. So not zero, but not blazing fast growth. But, again, not zero or even close
Another approach is to look at "income after transfers and taxes" — market income plus social insurance benefits plus means-tested transfers (Medicaid, food stamps) minus federal taxes — which was up considerably more, 42%. Even more not zero! More impressive still: Incomes for the bottom fifth are up nearly 70%.
[James Pethokoukis, "Is the American middle class really no better off today than in 1979? Not according to the CBO." American Enterprise Institute, March 20]
-
Comments
Post a Comment