Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Monday, February 3, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 305)

In this Sept. 12, 2010 file photo, political commentator Dick Morris speaks to the crowd during the "Gateway to November" rally hosted by the St. Louis Tea Party and Tea Party Patriots at the Gateway Arch in St. Louis. (Photo: AP)

In this Sept. 12, 2010 file photo, political commentator Dick Morris speaks to the crowd during the “Gateway to November” rally hosted by the St. Louis Tea Party and Tea Party Patriots at the Gateway Arch in St. Louis. (Photo: AP)

During a speech at the Metropolitan Republican Club in Manhattan to highlight his new book, Rogue Spooks: The Intelligence War on Donald Trump, political operative and commentator Dick Morris outlined the Deep State’s attempt to unseat duly elected President Donald Trump from power and the strategy Trump seems to be using to combat Obama operatives in our intelligence agencies.

According to Morris, upon gaining office in 2008, President Obama began a secret process to “weaponize” our intelligence capability in a bid to maintain power for the Left and weaken the Right’s hold on the American intelligence and defense establishment. Hundreds of personnel in the intelligence and military fields were fired in order to clear the way for Obama loyalists to implement the new agenda of using the military industrial complex to stay in power and promote a Marxist agenda rather than fight our enemies.

To the Deep State, Trump is seen as a disruptive figure who could end the power and privilege of those who shape American policy from a shadowy vantage point behind the scenes. Therefore the Deep State decided, upon being surprised by Trump’s election, to remove the irritant. Since none of the broadsides the Left used during the election worked, Trump’s enemies finally decided on a strategy of using a complete falsehood against him—collaboration with the Russians. Their goal was to employ mass disinformation and create such uncertainty among the American public that a special prosecutor would be empaneled. It worked.

The outcome we see today was created by Obama using illegal surveillance and unmasking against Trump campaign figures to plant ‘time bombs’ which went off once the Trump team was put in place, further eroding public perception. Hence the clearly planned accusations against Mike Flynn, Jeff Sessions, et cetera.

These disinformation and subterfuge techniques were honed by our intelligence services during the Cold War removing communist governments around the third world. According to Morris, Obama simply decided to use them against an American president. Morris also made the case that the techniques were also used against Kennedy, as well as Nixon.

However, there is a strategy which seems to be working for Trump as he fights the Obama Deep State—it’s called competence. Trump’s policies are working, quickly, to heal the economy and make America great again. According to Morris, a president with a 60% approval rating, simply cannot be impeached. There would be violence in the streets. He used this strategy effectively while working for Clinton during his impeachment proceedings.

Morris sees Trump’s recent statements on DACA and other explosive issues, as a way to increase the overall approval rating among Americans. Morris offered some advice on DACA—let them stay but don’t allow them to become citizens and bring in millions of chain migrants.

The speech was insightful and well received by the audience.

During a speech at the Metropolitan Republican

President Donald Trump, left, addresses the 72nd United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) at U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S., September 19, 2017, while former President Barack Obama, right, addresses the UNGA on September 28, 2015. (Photos: Reuters)

President Donald Trump on Tuesday delivered his first address to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly, laying out the tenets of principled realism and America First. It stood in stark contrast to the first UNGA address given by his predecessor Barack Obama, which critics said amounted to an apology for American power and a promise to scale it back.

Under Mr. Obama, American voters had little confidence the United States (US) would still be the top superpower at the end of the 21st century. Now, more voters think the U.S. will remain the most powerful nation under President Trump than they did under Mr. Obama, a new poll finds.

Further, belief in the idea of American exceptionalism is also significantly higher than just two years ago. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of likely voters say the U.S. is more exceptional than other nations, up from 57% measured in 2015.

In 2014, only 23% believed the U.S. would remain the world’s top superpower, which rose but to a still unimpressive 33% in March 2016. A new Rasmussen Reports national survey finds 40% of likely voters now think the U.S. will still be the world’s most powerful nation at the end of the century, including 40% of white voters, 39% of black voters and 43% of voters self-reporting as Hispanic or other.

Only 24% disagree, which is down significantly from the 48% measured 3 years ago, while 36% are not sure.

Unsurprisingly, 61% of those who strongly approve of the job President Trump is doing and 39% who at least somewhat approve say the U.S. will remain the world superpower. Even 42% of those who somewhat disapprove agree, as do 28% of those who strongly disapprove.

That also includes 56% of Republicans, 30% of Democrats and 35% of unaffiliated voters. Thirty-percent (30%) of Republicans, 39% of Democrats and 40% of unaffiliated voters say they are unsure.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on September 18-19, 2017 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Under President Trump, belief in American exceptionalism

Sen. Luther Strange speaks to supporters after forcing a runoff against former Chief Justice Roy Moore, Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2017, in Homewood, Ala., while former Alabama Chief Justice and U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore speaks to supporters Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2017, in Montgomery, Ala., after he forced a Senate primary runoff with Sen. Luther Strange to fill the U.S. Senate seat previously held by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. (Photos: AP)

Sen. Luther Strange speaks to supporters after forcing a runoff against former Chief Justice Roy Moore, Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2017, in Homewood, Ala., while former Alabama Chief Justice and U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore speaks to supporters Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2017, in Montgomery, Ala., after he forced a Senate primary runoff with Sen. Luther Strange to fill the U.S. Senate seat previously held by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. (Photos: AP)

President Donald Trump visited Huntsville on Friday to rally for Senator Luther Strange, who trails Judge Roy Moore in the Alabama Senate runoff. The eventual winner will go on to face Democrat Doug Jones, the Establishment favorite who beat Robert Kennedy, Jr., in the race to replace Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the U.S. Senate.

In the first round, Judge Moore received 38.9% of the vote, or 162,570 total votes, while Sen. Strange earned 32.8%, or 136,910 total votes.

As our county-by-county post-election analysis explained, it isn’t enough for Sen. Strange and President Trump to increase turnout in the second round of voting on Tuesday. They will have to change minds for the appointed incumbent to have a chance.

Let’s take a look at the map below to visualize the margins.

The PPD Big Data Poll taken during the second week in August found Judge Moore leading Sen. Strange by 9 points, 52% to 43%. While more than 8 in 10 Republican primary voters in Alabama had a favorable opinion of President Trump, roughly 70% said his endorsement wouldn’t make a difference.

A FOX10 News/Strategy Research Poll released just this week found a near-identical spread, with 54% saying they’ll vote for Judge Moore and 46% saying they’ll back Sen. Strange. While 20% of those polled said the president’s endorsement did make a difference, 80% said it did not.

Former Alabama Chief Justice and U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore speaks to supporters, Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2017, in Montgomery, Ala. Moore, who took losing stands for the public display of the Ten Commandments and against gay marriage, forced a Senate primary runoff with Sen. Luther Strange, an appointed incumbent backed by both President Donald Trump and heavy investment from establishment Republican forces. (Photo: AP)

Former Alabama Chief Justice and U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore speaks to supporters, Tuesday, Aug. 15, 2017, in Montgomery, Ala. Moore, who took losing stands for the public display of the Ten Commandments and against gay marriage, forced a Senate primary runoff with Sen. Luther Strange, an appointed incumbent backed by both President Donald Trump and heavy investment from establishment Republican forces. (Photo: AP)

UPDATE: An 0ptimus survey conducted from Friday to Saturday has the anti-establishment candidate at 55.4% and the Trump/McConnell-backed incumbent at 44.6%. A similiar 80% of those surveyed and 86% of GOP primary voters know President Trump endorsed Sen. Strange, but Judge Moore continues to maintain his lead.

Giving the frontrunner roughly half of the support that backed Rep. Mo Brooks and others, there are still an 24 additional counties in which Judge Moore could carry the majority in the two-way matchup, including several larger counties.

It’s no accident the president chose to visit Huntsville, which is located in Madison County. That’s Rep. Brook’s home base and it went his way with 50% of the vote juxtaposed to 27% for Sen. Strange and only 19% for Judge Moore.

Limestone County, the only other that voted for Rep. Brooks with 41%, was a stronger county for Judge Moore (30%) than it was for Sen. Strange (26%). The president’s endorsed candidate will likely need to carry Limestone, as well as run up larger margins in Hale, Sumter, Shelby and, the largest of them all, Jefferson.

All four counties went for Sen. Strange in the first round of voting, but will need to go his way by even larger margins to offset the rest of the state.

While President Trump is the last and best hope Sen. Strange has against Judge Moore, the data show it’s still a heavy lift.

While President Donald Trump is the last

President Donald Trump speaks at a rally for Luther Strange in Huntsville, Alabama on Friday, September 22, 2017.

President Donald Trump speaks at a rally for Luther Strange in Huntsville, Alabama on Friday, September 22, 2017.

President Donald Trump rallied for Senator Luther Strange in Huntsville, Alabama on Friday and sought to distance him from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Sen. Strange is running in the primary runoff Tuesday against Judge Roy Moore, and the winner will go on to face Democrat Doug Jones in December.

“He doesn’t even know Mitch McConnell, at all. He doesn’t kowtow or deal with anyone. Luther’s a tough cookie,” President Trump said. “We have to be loyal in life. There’s something called loyalty.”

In a rare moment for any president, he told voters exactly why he endorsed Sen. Strange over Judge Moore, who clearly is favored by his base. He told the crowd a behind-the-scenes story about how he had to woo lawmakers for their vote on a bill they promised to support during the campaign. When he called one legislator after another, they asked favors of the president in the form of dinner or meeting a friend etc.

But when it came to the calling Sen. Strange, he asked for nothing and vowed he would have his support.

And when the vote came, he gave it.

Last night, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin told the crowd at a rally for Roy Moore that a vote against Sen. Strange is not a vote against President Trump but rather one for the “people’s agenda,” which got the working-class businessman elected in the first place.

“We’re sending Trump someone who has our back — not Mitch McConnell’s,” Gov. Palin said. “Make no mistake: Big Luther is Mitch McConnell’s guy.”

The narrative has hurt Sen. Strange, who trails by roughly 9 points in the average of polls. It’s also untrue, at least according to President Trump.

“Since the first day he’s been in the Senate, he’s been a friend,” he said. “He’s been for us. He’s not a friend of Mitch McConnell.”

The race has pitted President Trump himself against Trumpland, which backs Judge Moore. Even Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson released a statement all but endorsing Judge Moore.

“Judge Moore is a fine man of proven character and integrity, who I have come to respect over the years. I was delighted to hear he is running for the U.S. Senate,” Secretary Carson said. “He is truly someone who reflects the Judeo-Christian values that were so important to the establishment of our country. It is these values that we must return to in order to make America great again. I wish him well and hope everyone will make sure they vote on Tuesday.”

The president said he would be in Alabama “campaigning like hell” for Judge Moore if he does defeat Sen. Strange next week. The winner of the race will serve out the rest of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ term, which ends in January 2021. The attorney general came up when President Trump, for the first time ever, responded to chants of “Lock Her Up” in reference to Hillary Clinton.

“You got to speak to Attorney General Sessions about that,” he said before praising him for his work on illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.

He slammed Republicans, particularly Arizona Senator John McCain, for the failure to keep their promise to repeal ObamaCare. He vowed to continue to push the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, comparing it to getting knocked down in a boxing match and getting back up.

“They finally have a president that will sign the legislation and they don’t have the guts to vote for it,” he said. “They got elected to repeal ObamaCare and they are doing a disservice to the people who elected them.”

“It’s like a boxing match. You get knock down, you get up.”

He ended with a plea to voters across the state to get out and vote.

“On Tuesday, vote for your family. Vote for your country. Vote for your victory,” President Trump said. “Vote for Luther Strange.”

President Donald Trump rallied for Senator Luther

The U.S. flag is displayed at Tesoro's Los Angeles oil refinery in Los Angeles, California. (Photo: Reuters)

The U.S. flag is displayed at Tesoro’s Los Angeles oil refinery in Los Angeles, California. (Photo: Reuters)ro

The Baker Hughes North American Rig Count rose for the week ending September 22 as a slight decline in the United States (US) was offset by gains in Canada. For the last 2 weeks, the U.S. has reported more rigs than Canada being added, though both had been adding consistently this year.

The U.S. rig count is down by 1 for the week at 935, but is still up 424 rigs from last year at this time. U.S. rigs classified as drilling for oil were down by 5 to 744, while those classified as gas rigs were up 4 to 190.

The Canadian count is up 8 rigs ovrrall to 220 and is now up 82 rigs from last year. Canadian rigs classified as oil are up 10 to 122, while gas rigs are down by 2 to 98.

The Baker Hughes North American Rig Count

Former FBI director James Comey, right, gets shouted down by protestors at Howard University, left, the historically all-black college.

Former FBI director James Comey, right, gets shouted down by protestors at Howard University, left, the historically all-black college.

Former FBI director James Comey was shouted down by angry protestors at Howard University as he attempted to deliver a convocation address. The protestors started shouted and chanting as soon as Mr. Comey took the podium at the historically black college in Washington, D.C.

They raised their right fists in the air, a gesture symbolic of “Black Power,” and shouted, “F— James Comey” and “No justice, no peace.” Protestors also shouted, “Get out James Comey, you’re not our homey.”

Mr. Comey was fired by President Donald Trump in May for his mishandling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein reviewed the case, which we now know he decided to throw months before interviewing Mrs. Clinton, and told Congress two weeks later that he stood by his recommendations.

Worth noting, another group of attendees shouted, “let him speak.”

At first, Mr. Comey was unable to speak as a result of the protests. Protestors broke out in song, singling “We shall not be moved” immediately after he began to speak. But after several minutes he tried again.

“Okay, thank you. I hope folks, I hope you’ll stay and listen to what I have to say,” he said. “I just listened to you for five minutes.”

Ironically, Mr. Comey was trying to give a message with a theme centering on listening to one another.

“The rest of the real world is a place where it’s hard sometimes to find people who will listen with an attitude that they might actually be convinced of something,” he said. “Instead what happens in most of the real world, and… in this auditorium, is that people don’t listen at all.”

He closed his speech by saying: “I look forward to adult conversation about what is right and what is true.”

VIDEO H/T: Howard University Television

[brid video=”165736″ player=”2077″ title=”Angry Protestors Shout Down Former FBI Director at Howard University”]

Former FBI director James Comey was shouted

President Donald J. Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos meet with parents and teachers at Saint Andrew Catholic School in Orlando, Florida, March 3, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

President Donald J. Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos meet with parents and teachers at Saint Andrew Catholic School in Orlando, Florida, March 3, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said the Trump Administration on Friday revoked and replaced Title IV, an Obama-era policy for investigating sexual assault on campus. It is being replaced with new interim instructions that permit universities to decide which standard of evidence to use when handling complaints and accusations.

Secretary DeVos said the administration agreed with critics that Title IV rules were unfairly skewed against the students accused of assault. Critics say it created “kangaroo courts” that rob accusers’ constitutional rights to due process and often destroys accusers’ lives without cause.

“This interim guidance will help schools as they work to combat sexual misconduct and will treat all students fairly,” Secretary DeVos said in a statement. “Schools must continue to confront these horrific crimes and behaviors head-on. There will be no more sweeping them under the rug. But the process also must be fair and impartial, giving everyone more confidence in its outcomes.”

The temporary guidance allows colleges the freedom to decide which standards of evidence they want to use when investigating complaints of sexual assault, which means the current abuses will not completely end. Under Obama’s instructions from 2011 and 2014, colleges were told to use “the preponderance of the evidence” standards, while Secretary DeVos permits colleges to choose between that lesser standard and “the clear and convincing evidence standard.”

Though the latter is harder to meet, it’s also the constitutional standard. The temporary guidance will be in place while the Education Department gathers comments and comes up with new rules.

“This will not halt the current abuses, but it’s a step in the right direction,” said William A. Jacobson, of Legal Insurrection. Convicting or punishing innocent people (usually men) or allowing the process to be abused for other motives, does not advance the real victims of sexual assault.”

[documentcloud url=”http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4059341-Education-Department-QA-Title-IX-DeVos.html”]

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said the Trump

China's President Xi Jinping and Finland's President Sauli Niinisto shake hands during the signing ceremony at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, Finland April 5, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

China’s President Xi Jinping and Finland’s President Sauli Niinisto shake hands during the signing ceremony at the Presidential Palace in Helsinki, Finland April 5, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

The world’s best welfare state arguably is Finland.

Yes, the burden of government spending is enormous and the tax system is stifling, but the nation gets extremely high scores for rule of law and human liberty. Moreover, it is one of the world’s most laissez-faire economies when looking at areas other than fiscal policy.

Indeed, depending on who is doing the measuring, Finland ranks either slightly above or slightly below the United States when grading overall policy.

Yet even the best welfare state faces a grim future because of demographic change. Simply stated, redistribution programs only work if there is a sufficiently large supply of new taxpayers to finance promised handouts.

And that supply is running dry in Finland. Bloomberg reports that policymakers in that nation are waking up to the fact that there won’t be enough future taxpayers to finance the country’s extravagant welfare state.

Demographics are a concern across the developed world, of course. But they are particularly problematic for countries with a generous welfare state, since they endanger its long-term survival. …the Aktia Bank chief economist said in a telephone interview in Helsinki. “We have a large public sector and the system needs taxpayers in the future.” …According to the OECD, Finland already has the lowest ratio of youths to the working-age population in the Nordics. …And it also has the highest rate of old-age dependency in the region. …The situation is only likely to get worse, according to OECD projections.

Here are a couple of charts showing dramatic demographic changes in Nordic nations. The first chart shows the ratio of children to working-age adults.

And the second charts shows the population of old people (i.e., those most likely to receive money from the government) compared to the number of working-age adults.

As you can see, the numbers are grim now (green bar) but will get far worse by the middle of the century (the red and black bars) because the small number of children today translates into a small number of working-age adults in the future.

To be blunt, these numbers suggest that it’s just a matter of time before the fiscal crisis in Southern Europe spreads to Scandinavia.

Heck, it’s going to spread everywhereWestern EuropeEastern EuropeAsia, the developing worldJapan and the United States.

Though it’s important to understand that demographic changes don’t necessarily trigger fiscal and economic problems. Hong Kong and Singapore have extremely low fertility rates, yet they don’t face big problems since they are not burdened by western-style welfare states.

Welfare State Graphic

By the way, the article also reveals that Finland’s government isn’t very effective at boosting birthrates, something that we already knew based on the failure of pro-natalist government schemes in nations such as Italy, Spain, Denmark, and Japan.

Though I’m amused that the reporter apparently thinks government handouts are a pro-parent policy and believes that more of the same will somehow have a positive effect.

Finland, a first-rate place in which to be a mother, has registered the lowest number of newborns in nearly 150 years. …the fertility rate should equal two per woman, Schauman says. It was projected at 1.57 in 2016, according to Statistics Finland. That’s a surprisingly low level, given the efforts made by the state to support parenthood. …Finland’s famous baby-boxes. Introduced in 1937, containers full of baby clothes and care products are delivered to expectant mothers, with the cardboard boxes doubling up as a makeshift cot. …Offering generous parental leave…doesn’t seem to be working either. …The government has been working with employers and trade unions to boost gender equality by making parental leave more flexible and the benefits system simpler.

Sigh, a bit of research would have shown that welfare states actually have a negative impact on fertility.

The bottom line is that entitlement reform is the only plausible way for Finland to solve this major economic threat.

Finalnd exemplifies how redistribution in a welfare

Senator Thom Tillis, R-N.C. , speaks to reporters.(Photo: Reuters)

Senator Thom Tillis, R-N.C. , speaks to reporters.(Photo: Reuters)

Earlier this year, I pointed out that Trump and Republicans could learn a valuable lesson from Maine Governor Paul LePage on how to win a government shutdown.

Today, let’s look at a lesson from North Carolina on how to design and implement pro-growth tax policy.

In a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Senator Thom Tillis, R-N.C., from the Tarheel State explained what happened when he helped enact a flat tax as Speaker of the State House.

In 2013, when I was speaker of the state House, North Carolina passed a serious tax-reform package. It was based on three simple principles: simplify the tax code, lower rates, and broaden the base. We replaced the progressive rate schedule for the personal income tax with a flat rate of 5.499%. That was a tax-rate cut for everyone, since the lowest bracket previously was 6%. We also increased the standard deduction for all tax filers and repealed the death tax. We lowered the 6.9% corporate income tax to 6% in 2014 and 5% in 2015. …North Carolina’s corporate tax fell to 3% in 2017 and is on track for 2.5% in 2019. We paid for this tax relief by expanding the tax base, closing loopholes, paring down spending, reducing the cost of entitlement programs, and eliminating “refundable” earned-income tax credits for people who pay no taxes.

Wow, good tax policy enabled by spending restraint. Exactly what I’ve been recommending for Washington.

Have these reforms generated good results?  The Senator says yes.

More than 350,000 jobs have been created, and the unemployment rate has been cut nearly in half. The state’s economy has jumped from one of the slowest growing in the country to one of the fastest growing.

What about tax revenue? Has the state government been starved of revenue?

Nope.

…a well-mobilized opposition on the left stoked fears that tax reform would cause shrinking state revenues and require massive budget cuts. This argument has been proved wrong. State revenue has increased each year since tax reform was enacted, and budget surpluses of more than $400 million are the new norm. North Carolina lawmakers have wisely used these surpluses to cut tax rates even further for families and businesses.

Senator Tillis didn’t have specific details on tax collections in his column. I got suspicious that he might be hiding some unflattering numbers, so I went to the Census Bureau’s database on state government finances. But it turns out the Senator is guilty of underselling his state’s reform. Tax revenue has actually grown faster in the Tarheel State, compared the average of all other states (many of which have imposed big tax hikes).

Another example of the Laffer Curve in action.

And here’s a chart from North Carolina’s Office of State Budget and Management. As you can see, revenues are rising rather than falling.

By the way, I’m guessing that the small drop in 2014 and the big increase in 2015 were caused by taxpayers delaying income to take advantage of the new, friendlier tax system. We saw the same thing in the early 1980s when some taxpayer deferred income because of the multi-year phase-in of the Reagan tax cuts.

But I’m digressing. Let’s get back to North Carolina.

Here’s what the Tax Foundation wrote earlier this year.

After the most dramatic improvement in the Index’s history—from 41st to 11th in one year—North Carolina has continued to improve its tax structure, and now imposes the lowest-rate corporate income tax in the country at 4 percent, down from 5 percent the previous year. This rate cut improves the state from 6th to 4th on the corporate income tax component, the second-best ranking (after Utah) for any state that imposes a major corporate tax. (Six states forego corporate income taxes, but four of them impose economically distortive gross receipts taxes in their stead.) An individual income tax reduction, from 5.75 to 5.499 percent, is scheduled for 2017. At 11th overall, North Carolina trails only Indiana and Utah among states which do not forego any of the major tax types.

And in a column for Forbes, Patrick Gleason was even more effusive.

…the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature enacted a new budget today that cuts the state’s personal and corporate income tax rates. Under this new budget, the state’s flat personal income tax rate will drop from 5.499 to 5.25% in January of 2019, and the corporate tax rate will fall from 3% to 2.5%, which represents a 16% reduction in one of the most harmful forms of taxation. …This new budget, which received bipartisan support from a three-fifths super-majority of state lawmakers, builds upon the Tar Heel State’s impressive record of pro-growth, rate-reducing tax reform. …It’s remarkable how much progress North Carolina has made in improving its business tax climate in recent years, going from having one of the worst businesses tax climates in the country (ranked 44th), to one of the best today (now 11th best according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation).

Most importantly, state lawmakers put the brakes on spending, thus making the tax reforms more political and economically durable and successful.

Since they began cutting taxes in 2013, North Carolina legislators have kept annual increases in state spending below the rate of population growth and inflation. As a result, at the same time North Carolina taxpayers have been allowed to keep billions more of their hard-earned income, the state has experienced repeated budget surpluses. As they did in 2015, North Carolina legislators are once again returning surplus dollars back to taxpayers with the personal and corporate income tax rate cuts included in the state’s new budget.

Last but not least, I can’t resist sharing this 2016 editorial from the Charlotte Observer. If nothing else, the headline is an amusing reminder that journalists have a hard time understanding that higher tax rates don’t necessarily mean more revenue and that lower tax rates don’t automatically lead to less revenue.

A curious trend you might have noticed of late: North Carolina’s leaders keep cutting taxes, yet the state keeps taking in more money. We saw it happen last year, when the state found itself with a $400 million surplus, despite big cuts in personal and corporate tax rates. …Now comes word that in the first six months of the 2016 budget year (July to December), the state has taken in $588 million more than it did in the same period the previous year. …the overall surge in tax receipts certainly shouldn’t go unnoticed, especially since most of the increased collections for the 2016 cycle so far come from higher individual income tax receipts. They’re up $489 million, 10 percent above the same period of the prior year.

Though the opinion writers in Charlotte shouldn’t feel too bad. Their counterparts at the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have made the same mistake. As did a Connecticut TV station.

When North Carolina passed a flat tax

U.S. President Donald Trump, right, and the President of the European Council Donald Tusk meet in Brussels on May 25, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

U.S. President Donald Trump, right, and the President of the European Council Donald Tusk meet in Brussels on May 25, 2017. (Photo: Reuters)

I argued last year that leftists should be nice to rich people because upper-income taxpayers finance the vast majority of the American welfare state, according to government data.

Needless to say, my comment about being “nice” was somewhat sarcastic. But I was making a serious point about the United States having a very “progressive” fiscal system. The top-20 percent basically pay for government and those in the bottom half are net recipients of that involuntary largesse.

I also pointed out a huge difference between the United States and Europe. Governments on the other side of the Atlantic impose much higher burdens on lower-income and middle-class taxpayers.

Here’s some of what I wrote.

…the big difference between the United States and Europe is not taxes on the rich. We both impose similar tax burden on high-income taxpayers, though Europeans are more likely to collect revenue from the rich with higher income tax rates and the U.S. gets a greater share of revenue from upper-income taxpayers with double taxation on interest, dividends, and capital gains (we also have a very punitive corporate tax system, though it doesn’t collect that much revenue). The real difference between America and Europe is that America has a far lower tax burden on lower- and middle-income taxpayers. Tax rates in Europe, particularly the top rate, tend to take effect at much lower levels of income. European governments all levy onerous value-added taxes that raise costs for all consumers. Payroll tax burdens in many European nations are significantly higher than in the United States.

So do this mean European politician don’t like ordinary people?

I could make a snarky comment about the attitudes of the political elite, but I’ll resist that temptation and instead point out that taxes in Europe are much higher for the simple reason that government is much bigger and that means some segment of the population has to surrender more of its income.

But here’s the $64,000 question that we want to investigate today: Why are European governments pillaging lower-income and middle-class taxpayers instead of going after the “evil rich” and “greedy corporations”?

Part of the answer is that there aren’t enough rich people to finance big government. But the most important factor is the Laffer Curve. Politicians can impose higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers and companies, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into higher revenue. Simply stated, well-to-do taxpayers have considerable ability to earn less income and/or report less income when tax burdens increase, and they do the opposite when tax burdens decrease.

That’s true in the United States, and it’s true in European countries such as SwedenFranceRussiaDenmark, and the United Kingdom.

So even if politicians want to fleece upper-income taxpayers, that’s not a successful method of generating a lot of revenue.

Which is why a shift from a medium-sized welfare state (such as what exists in the United States) to a large-sized welfare state (common in Europe) means huge tax increases on ordinary taxpayers.

I’ve made this point before, but now I have some additional evidence thanks to a new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The Paris-based bureaucracy is probably my least-favorite international organization because of its advocacy for statism, but it collects and publishes lots of useful statistics about fiscal policy in the industrialized world.

And here are three charts from the new study that tell a very persuasive story (and a depressing story for ordinary taxpayers).

First, we can see how the average tax burden has increased substantially over the past 50 years.

And who is paying all that additional money to politicians?

As you can see from this second chart, income tax revenues have become a less-important source of revenue over time while social insurance taxes (mostly paid by lower-income and middle-class taxpayers) have become a more-important source of revenue.

The third chart shows the evolution of the value-added tax burden. This levy takes a big bite out of the paychecks of ordinary people and the rate keeps climbing over time. Even if we looked just at European governments that are part of the OECD, the numbers are even more depressing.

Now let’s put this data in context.

The United States now has a medium-sized welfare state financed mostly by upper-income taxpayers.

But because of dramatic demographic changes, we are doomed to have a large-sized welfare state. At least that’s what will happen if we don’t reform entitlement programs.

And if we leave policy on auto-pilot and there’s a substantial increase in the burden of government spending, it’s simply a matter of time before politicians figure out new ways of taking more money from lower-income and middle-class taxpayers.

Yes, they may also impose higher rates on “rich” taxpayers, but that will be mostly for symbolic purposes since those levies won’t generate substantial revenue.

Last but not least, don’t forget that European fiscal burdens will mean anemic European economic performance.

Data show European countries impose much higher

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial