Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Tuesday, March 4, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 813)
Politics

export-import bank

Conservatives almost won the Export-Import Bank fight last year, but now K Street and Wall Street aren’t taking any chances. (Photo: AFP)

Washington, DC – After nearly succeeding in their efforts to allow funding for the scandal-laden Export-Import Bank to expire, the Club for Growth is refocusing its efforts. The pro-economic freedom and growth activist group is launching “#50 Reasons to End the Export-Import Bank,” a new phase in its campaign to block congressional funding and reauthorization.

According to a Club email sent to PPD, each weekday the @Club4Growth Twitter account with tweet a new reason why funding for the Ex-Im Bank should expire when the bank’s authorization ends on June 30, 2015.

“Congress must end the Export-Import Bank,” said Club for Growth President David McIntosh. “Nearly 99 percent of the U.S. businesses that export goods do so without any help from Ex-Im, and it’s a federal agency that is rife with corruption.”

Late last year, allies in the Chamber of Commerce, K Street and on Wall Street rallied to ensure conservatives in Congress didn’t slam the revolving door that has become the Ex-Im Bank shut. However, despite the Club’s repeated warnings that the bank was a “slush fund for corporate welfare,” the extent of the bank’s criminal activity is just now becoming public.

Former Ex-Im Bank loan officer Johnny Gutierrez was charged with bribery last week for accepting cash bribes 19 different times during a period stemming from 2006 to 2013. Further, new testimony from Mark Thorum, the assistant inspector general for inspections and evaluations at the Ex-Im Bank, and Kimberly Gianopoulos, the director of international affairs and trade at the Government Accountability Office, revealed 31 instances of alleged fraud by employees at the bank are currently under investigation.

Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, released a joint statement along with Chairmen Jeb Hensarling (House Financial Services Committee), Jason Chaffetz (Oversight and Government Reform) and Bill Huizenga (Financial Services Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade), which makes clear the future of the culturally and systemically corrupt institution is very much in doubt.

“On the heels of news that Johnny Gutierrez was indicted for bribery, it is alarming to hear that even more indictments of fraud related to Ex-Im Bank activities are expected,” the joint statement stated. “While this is disturbing enough, the fact that we learned of this only at the end of nearly three hours of testimony, is further evidence of the Bank’s continued and brazen efforts to avoid transparency and accountability. With the Bank’s charter expiring this summer, this adds to the already long list of significant concerns we have over its future viability.”

READ ALSO: GOP: Ending Export-Import Bank Corporate Welfare Should Be No-Brainer

The Export-Import Bank, which was established in 1934 by Franklin D. Roosevelt, supposedly exists to “facilitate exports and imports and the exchange of commodities between the United States and other Nations.” Proponents of the Ex-Im Bank argue that the loans, which are funded by money borrowed from the U.S. Treasury, are necessary to gain a competitive advantage in the global economy.

However, as PPD has repeated investigated and reported, the Ex-Im Bank perpetuates corporate welfare, corruption and crime at the expense of the taxpayers. Last summer, big business Democrats led by New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is widely expected to take over for the soon-to-be retired Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, began kicking up lobbying and legislative efforts to save their crony cash cow.

Proponents of and lobbyists for Ex-Im began handing squishy Republican lawmakers in swing districts friendly reminders in the form of index cards highlighting which companies in their districts received funds from the bank. The card even identified how many people were employed as a result of the bank’s crony deals, an effective lobbying trick that came directly from corporations such as Boeing Co. (NYSE:BA) and General Electric Co. (NYSE:GE), as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

“I’m sure the handful of big corporations which benefit from Ex-Im can compete just fine without government handouts. With 10 weeks until Ex-Im’s reauthorization deadline, the Club wants to make sure Members of Congress and the public know why it should be left to die after June 30th,” McIntosh added. “Typically, there are top 10 lists, but Ex-Im’s corporate handouts are so bad that we have the top 50 reasons to end it. ”

Unlike other sacred cows in Washington D.C., some don’t see Sens. Schumer and Elizabeth Warren, an alleged populist darling of the left who supported reauthorization, going to bat for the bank.

“In the grand scheme of things, the Export-Import Bank isn’t the worst government program or the one that most needs to be abolished,” CATO economist and PPD contributor Dan Mitchell noted. Even though Mitchell and other budget hawks acknowledge entitlement programs are a far greater threat to America’s long-term fiscal stability than the Ex-Im Bank, “with Medicaid serving as a particularly sobering example,” he admits achieving significant cuts to the third rail of American politics would be extremely difficult.

“But here’s the deal,” Mitchell added. “In the case of the Export-Import Bank, though, victory is possible. Authorization for this odious form of corporate welfare automatically sunsets later this year.”

Whether the Ex-Im Bank is reauthorized or not will more than like have consequences on the new Republican majority and their inevitable 2016 nominee, because unlike entitlement spending that requires approval from the House, the Senate, and a signature from President Obama, the Ex-Im Bank is doable.

“In other words, so long as either the House or the Senate say no, taxpayers win,” Mitchell added. “This is why getting rid of the Export-Import Bank is a real test of whether Republicans are serious about shrinking the size and scope of government.”

Indeed, if the GOP cannot deliver on a “no-brainer” such as the corrupt, crony Ex-Im Bank, their voting base will no doubt wonder if they can deliver on any promise, at all.

With DOJ gearing up to issue 30-plus

Polls

chris-christie-nh

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie speaks at the First in the Nation Republican Leadership Summit April 17, 2015 in Nashua, New Hampshire. (PHOTO: DARREN MCCOLLESTER, GETTY IMAGES)

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is trying to make a political comeback by unveiling an ambitious and risky plan to reform Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

“Washington refuses to acknowledge that we have a crisis on our hands,” the two-term governor said last week at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College. “We need to force them to acknowledge the crisis and fix it.”

The former early GOP frontrunner, who has suffered in the polls since suffering from a series of controversies, repeated his plan this weekend when roughly a dozen of hopefuls descended on Nashua, New Hampshire.

“There are ways that we can put our fiscal house in order in this country, and we need to, and everybody who’s considering running for president of the United States should have to answer to you,” Christie said.

While tackling the so-called “third rail” of American politics has been something strategists in both parties have long-advocated candidates avoid, recent polls suggest the government may just be on to something.

Even though voters are almost evenly divided over Christie’s proposal to reduce or eliminate Social Security payouts to wealthier Americans, according to a new Rasmussen survey. Only 44 percent say they believe those benefits will be there for them when they need them, while 53 percent are not confident.

Not surprisingly, the survey found a significant generation gap, with seniors overwhelmingly saying they are confident that they will receive their benefits. Just 22 percent of voters under 40 agree, presenting an enormous opportunity for any candidate who is able to propose what voters see as a viable plan.

Polling also finds a broad consensus for voter approval on any changes made to entitlements.

That might help to explain the “Tell it Like it Is” signs that accompanied Christie wherever he went this weekend. A solid 65 percent of likely voters don’t believe there is enough money to fund the promises politicians have made to them, despite believing it is important for the government to keep those promises.

In fact, the overwhelming majority who express concern over Christie’s plan say the reason is that they worry that those who earn less might lose their benefits, as well.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is trying

Policy

death-tax-protest

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, is a lead co-sponsor of the legislation by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., the Death Tax Repeal Act of 2015.

Who benefits most from the death tax? There are two obvious answers. First, politicians presumably benefit since they get more money to spend.

Yes, it’s true that the tax discourages capital formation and may actually lose revenue in the long run, but politicians aren’t exactly famous for thinking past the next election cycle.

Second, there are some statists who are motivated by envy and resentment. These are the folks who make class-warfare arguments about the death tax being necessary to prevent the “rich” from accumulating more wealth, even though evidence shows large family fortunes dissipate over time.

Both of those answers are correct, but they don’t fully explain why this pernicious levy still exists.

Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner has a must-read piece for the American Enterprise Institute. He reveals the groups that actually are spending time and money to defend this odious version of double taxation.

…about two-thirds of Americans tell pollsters that they oppose the death tax. …But some segments of the population feel differently — most notably, the estate-planning industry. A survey by an industry magazine in 2011 found that 63 percent of estate-planning attorneys opposed repeal of the estate tax. That’s fitting. The death tax forces people to engage in complex and expensive estate planning. Lobbying disclosure forms show that the insurance industry is lobbying on the issue these days. The Association for Advanced Life Underwriting, which represents companies that sell estate-planning products, lobbied on the issue last year, as it has for years. Last decade, AALU funded a group called the Coalition for America’s Priorities, which attacked estate tax repeal as a tax break for Paris Hilton. …When the estate tax was last before Congress, the life insurance industry revved up the troops, spending $10 million a month on lobbying in the first half of 2010. In that stretch, only three industries spent more, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

I concur with Tim.

Indeed, I remember giving a speech back in the 1990s to a group of estate-planning professionals. In my youthful naiveté, I expected that these folks would very much appreciate my arguments against the death tax.

Instead, the reception was somewhat frosty.

Though not nearly as hostile, I must confess, as the treatment I got when speaking about the flat tax to a group of tax lobbyists for big corporations.

In both cases, I was surprised because I mistakenly assumed that my audiences actually cared about the best interests of their clients or employers.

In reality, they cared about what made them rich instead (economists and other social scientists call this the principal-agent problem).

But I’m digressing. Let’s look at more of Tim’s article. He cites the Clintons to make a key point about rich people being able to avoid the tax so long as they cough up enough money to the estate-planning industry.

Those same techniques, however, often are not available to farmers, small business owners, and others who are victimized by the levy.

The Clintons may be stupid-rich, but they aren’t stupid — they’re using estate-planning techniques to avoid the estate tax. Bloomberg News reported in 2014 that the Clinton family home has been divided, for tax purposes, into two shares, and those shares have been placed in a special trust that will shield Chelsea from having to pay the estate tax on the full value of the home when she inherits it. Also, the Clintons have created a life insurance trust — a common tool wealthy people use to provide liquidity for heirs to pay the estate tax. The Clintons’ games, and the estate-planning industry’s interest in the tax, highlights how the tax fails at its stated aims of preventing the inheritance of wealth and privilege. Instead, the estate tax forces the wealthy to play games in order to pass on their wealth. These games don’t add anything to the economy, they just enrich the estate-planning industry. Those whose wealth is tied up in a small or medium-sized business, on the other hand, aren’t always capable of playing the estate planning games. They’re the victims.

The bottom line is that the tax should be abolished for reasons of growth.

But it also should be repealed because it’s unfair to newly successful entrepreneurs, investors, and business owners, all of whom generally lack access to the clever tax-planning tools of those with established wealth.

And it should be repealed simply because it would be morally satisfying to reduce the income of those who benefit from – and lobby for – bad government policy.

P.S. The U.S. death tax is more punitive than the ones imposed by even France and Venezuela.

P.P.S. It’s particularly hypocritical for the Clintons to support the death tax on others while taking steps to make sure it doesn’t apply to them.

P.P.P.S. In a truly repugnant development, there are efforts in the U.K. to apply the death tax while people are still alive.

P.P.P.P.S. On a more positive note, a gay “adoption” in Pennsylvania helped one couple reduce exposure to that state’s death tax.

P.P.P.P.P.S. If you live in New Jersey, by contrast, the best choice is to move before you die.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Who benefits most from the death tax?

Politics

martin-dempsey-debbie-lee

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, left, and Debbie Lee, right, the mother of the first Navy SEAL to be killed in Ramadi, Iraq in Aug. 2006.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin Dempsey drew sharp criticism from the mother of the first Navy SEAL killed in Ramadi, Iraq in August 2006. In an April 16 report by Stars And Stripes, America’s top military officer responded to reports that Ramadi was all but lost to the Islamic State (ISIS) by saying it was “not symbolic in any way,” and of secondary importance juxtaposed to protecting the Beiji oil refinery.

“The city itself it’s not symbolic in any way,” he said at the Pentagon Thursday. “It’s not been declared part of [Islamic State’s] ‘caliphate’ on one hand or central to the future of Iraq… I would much rather that Ramadi not fall, but it won’t be the end of a campaign if it does.”

On Thursday, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said Islamic State was attacking Ramadi strictly for propaganda, hoping to demonstrate that it’s still fighting force on the move after recently losing the battle for Tikrit, which was funded and won by Iran-backed Shiite militias. But, Gen. Dempsey’s comments gave more than an impression that oil fields were more important than Islamic State gains in the city, not to mention the fact Shiite militias responsible for the death of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq are a lesser evil.

“Once the Iraqis have full control of Beiji they will control all of their oil infrastructure both north and south and deny ISIL the ability to generate revenue through oil,” Dempsey said, using an acronym to refer to Islamic State. “So Beiji is a more strategic target and that’s why the focus right now is in fact on Beiji.”

In an open letter, Debbie Lee responded to his remarks today.

I am shaking and tears are flowing down my cheeks as I watch the news and listen to the insensitive, pain inflicting comments made by you in regards to the fall of Ramadi.

‘The city itself is not symbolic in any way.’ Oh really? Are you willing to meet with me and with the families who have lost a son, daughter, husband, wife, father, mother, aunt, uncle, grandson, or teammate?

My son Marc Lee was the first Navy SEAL who sacrificed his life in Ramadi Iraq Aug 2, 2006. His blood is still in that soil and forever will be. Remember that was when so many of our loved ones were taken from us. You said that ‘it’s not been declared part of the caliphate on one hand or central to the future of Iraq.’ My son and many others gave their future in Ramadi. Ramadi mattered to them. Many military analysts say that as goes Ramadi so goes Iraq.

What about the troops who sacrificed their limbs and whose lives will never be the same. Our brave warriors who left a piece of themselves in Ramadi. What about the troops who struggle with PTS/TBI who watched their teammates breath their last or carried their wounded bodies to be medevac’d out of Ramadi.

I’ve traveled to Ramadi and visited Camp Marc Lee in 2007. I brought back soil from that city where Marc breathed his last. I interviewed Iraqi General Anwer in 2010 when I returned. I asked him, ‘If you could say one thing to the American people what would you tell them?’ He paused and with deep emotion said, ‘We will tell our children, our grandchildren, for generations to come we will tell them what Americans have done. There is American blood poured out on our soil.’ It seems the Iraqis understand the importance more than you do sir.

You sir owe an apology to the families whose loved ones blood was shed in Ramadi. Ramadi matters to us and is very symbolic to us. You need to apologize to our troops whose bodies were blown to pieces from IEDs and bullet holes leaving parts and pieces behind, Ramadi matters to them. You need to apologize to our troops who endured the extreme temperatures and battled the terrorists in some of the worst battlefields in Iraq, Ramadi matters to them. They carry vivid memories of the battles and the teammates whose future is gone, Ramadi matters to them.

You and this administration have minimized that Ramadi could fall, now you are minimizing that it is falling, but you Sir WILL NOT minimize the sacrifice my son Marc Lee made or any of our brave warriors!

Awaiting an Apology

Debbie Lee

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment made by PPD.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Politics, Video

Fox-News-Sunday-Panel-4-19-15

This week on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, Jackie Kucinich, Karl Rove and Juan Williams discuss the latest on the 2016 presidential race, and more.

This week on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, Jackie Kucinich, Karl Rove and Juan Williams discuss the news cycle for the week ended April 18.

The FOX News Sunday panel also discussed the Senate confirmation of Loretta Lynch, who President Obama nominated to replace Attorney General Eric Holder. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush raised some eyebrows last week when he said that the Republican-controlled Senate should confirm Lynch, despite several other GOP senators, including two declared presidential candidates, having serious concerns about Lynch.

“I think that Presidents have the right to pick their team,” Bush told a crowd of roughly 100 voters. “The longer it takes to confirm her, the longer Eric Holder stays as Attorney General. Look at it that way.”

Last week, a man flying a gyrocopter landed on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol to raise awareness to and protest the direction the nation is headed in. Despite giving an interview with the Tampa Bay Times telegraphing his plan, security officials were still taken completely off guard. The FOX News Sunday panel discusses the security lapses and which agency is to blame.

This week on FOX News Sunday panel,

Video, World

isis-beheads-ethiopian-christians

This undated image made from a video released by Islamic State militants, Sunday, April 19, 2015, appears to show the killing of a group of captured Ethiopian Christians in Libya. (Photo: Video)

CAIRO (AP) — A video (below) released by the Islamic State group appears to show the killing of two different groups of captured Ethiopian Christians in Libya.

The 29-minute video released online Sunday stars a masked man wielding a gun and saying with a North American accent that Christians must convert to Islam or pay a special tax as prescribed by the Quran. The video then alternates between images of captives held by a subsidiary of the Islamic State in eastern Libya called Barka Province and another group held by a subsidiary in the Southern Province Fazzan.

“The Muslim blood that was shed under the hands of your religion is not cheap,” the masked militant says. “In fact, theirs is the purest blood because there is a nation behind them that inherits revenge. And we swear by Allah, the one who disgraced you at their hands will not have safety. Even in your dreams.”

It mirrored a video released in February showing militants beheading 21 captured Egyptian Christians on a Libyan beach, which was met immediately by Egyptian airstrikes on the group’s positions in Libya. The captives in the south are shot in the back of their heads en masse shortly before ISIS beheads the captives in the east on a beach.

PPD was not able to independently confirm the captives in the video were in fact Ethip, but video bore the official logo of the IS media arm Al-Furqan and resembled previous videos released by the extremist group.

The latest video comes a day after Afghanistan’s president blamed the Islamic State for a suicide attack in his country that killed at least 35 people and underscores the chaos that has followed in Libya since its 2011 civil war. U.S. President Barack Obama deposed the dictator Muammar Qaddafi, who was killed after being beaten in the street by an angry mob, something likely Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton literally joked about in a recent interview.

“We came. We saw. He died,” Hillary said before letting out her classic Clinton laugh.

[brid video=”7241″ player=”1929″ width=”630″ height=”354″]

WARNING GRAPHIC -- The Islamic State (ISIS)

Politics

marco-rubio-announcement-speech

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s presidential announcement at the Miami Freedom Tower on April 13, 2015.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, announced on April 13 that he will not run for reelection in the U.S. Senate and instead will run for president in 2016. However, first Rubio will have to secure the Republican nomination in a growing and deep GOP bench.

Here are a list of names representing Rubio’s most influential political advisors and operatives who will help him get there. These early staffing moves from various candidates will all be introduced to PPD’s viewers and subscribers in PPD’s new series, Team 2016: Players, Pollsters And Pockets Behind The Campaign.

• Terry Sullivan, a top South Carolina political advisor and operative, will be Rubio’s campaign manager. Sullivan’s resume includes former operative and adviser to former Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., as well as Rubio’s allegedly long-shot 2010 Senate campaign. In 2011, he began to serve as deputy chief of staff to the freshman senator and, most recently, headed up Rubio’s leadership PAC, Reclaim America. In the Palmetto State, his business partner was Warren Tompkins, who is now running the pro-Rubio super PAC.

• Rich Beeson, a known Republican operative and former political director for the Republican National Committee (RNC), will be Rubio’s deputy campaign manager. Beeson founded a voter contact firm and served as political director for then-GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012.

• Alex Conant, formerly Rubio’s Senate press secretary, will move up to the role of communications director, though he has not made himself very available to PPD. He, too, has previous presidential election experience on his resume, though it was for a campaign that barely got off the ground. Conant worked on former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s failed and short-lived 2012 campaign. But he does have a record of success in a state that will have the first say in the GOP nomination process and, ultimately, will become a swing state in 2016. GOP power-players we spoke to told us Conant was a invaluable asset to Sen. Joni Ernst in her successful 2014 race in Iowa against Rep. Bruce Braley. To be sure, Braley, a deeply flawed candidate only PPD’s election projection model identified as an underdog early on, shoulders a good deal of the blame for losing the Democratic-leaning seat to the GOP in 2014. However, Conant was building relationships for Ernst that straddled the conservative and moderate wing in the first-in-the-nation Hawkeye State, which will no doubt become applicable to Rubio in the Iowa Caucuses.

• Brooke Sammon, Rubio’s current press secretary in his Senate office, is staying in Washington, for now. But these are just the early staffing moves, and it would come as no surprise if Rubio decided to tap his skills and transition Sammon to the campaign.

Watch As Marco Rubio Announces President Bid (FULL SPEECH)

• Jessica Ennis, another Romney campaign veteran, was brought in to be Rubio’s political director. She left her role as the regional political director at the RNC to serve as deputy director of operations for Mitt Romney.

• Jim Merrill will be Rubio’s go-to man in the first-in-the-nation primary state of New Hampshire. He was in charge of Romney’s successful 2012 Granite State operation, which he perfected after his unsuccessful 2008 bid. Merrill is well-known and is equally well-respected in New Hampshire Republican circles. He is a senior adviser to Rubio’s PAC and is not only the right man to lead Rubio’s New Hampshire team, but his entire Northeastern GOP quarters.

• Alberto Martinez, Sen. Rubio’s current chief of the staff, isn’t yet officially on the team but is widely expected to join the campaign. Martinez has been one of the senator’s most influential voices and is known for being a very protective gatekeeper. Martinez rose in Florida politics alongside Rubio, serving as communications director for the Republican-controlled statehouse while Rubio held the speakership in the Sunshine State statehouse. Whether the role is official or unofficial, Martinez will have an important one.

• Todd Harris, Heath Thompson and Malorie Thompson are all GOP political operatives who worked closely together on Rubio’s 2010 Senate campaign. The three, along with another colleague not currently in the campaign, formed the consulting group Something Else Strategies shortly after that election. Harris worked for a number of high-profile Republican campaigns, including John McCain, Jeb Bush and Ernst. Heath Thompson, who orchestratted George W. Bush’s South Carolina victory in 2000, also worked for Rudy Giuliani, R-N.Y., and DeMint. Interestingly, Malorie Thompson, who got married to Thompson after Rubio’s 2010 race, kicked off her career working for Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Rubio’s friend and mentor. She has worked for several committees and on various Senate and gubernatorial campaigns.

There are several other names that are worth mentioning, in large part because they are either gearing up to officially join the campaign or play an important supportive role. Alex Burgos, another one of Rubio’s main gatekeepers, serves as his communications director in the Senate, which is basically the same job he had during the 2010 campaign. Burgos is a liaison to the Spanish-speaking media, who will ultimately convey the senator’s message to a very important constituency. For now, he is staying in the Senate.

The same is true of Todd Reid, who currently serves as Rubio’s state director and, according to sources, will stay in that position. However, he is undoubtedly considered to be part of the inner circle and even helped plan his presidential announcement at the Miami Freedom Tower.

Meanwhile, every campaign needs a pollster, and that’s where Whit Ayres comes in. Though the PPD Pollster Scorecard has not yet rated Ayres on accuracy, he is a highly-sought Republican public opinion consultant in the Beltway.

On the money end, Anna Rogers, who previously served as finance director at the Karl Rove’s super PAC, American Crossroads, is set to be Rubio’s finance director. Dorinda Moss will be Rubio’s top finance consultant.

Conservative Solutions PAC will be headed up by Terry Sullivan’s former Palmetto State business partner, Warren Tompkins. It is a smart and logical choice to tap the veteran South Carolina strategist who has a resume that includes a litany of presidential candidates, including George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

Jon Lerner will be a media consultant and pollster for Conservative Solutions PAC, while Jon Graham, a Republican fundraiser, will oversee the fundraising for the PAC. Jeff Sadosky, who has also worked for George W. Bush (as well as John McCain and Rob Portman), is in charge of the PAC’s communications. Rubio has several big donors who have either indicated or pledged support for his White House bid, including Wayne Berman, a major Republican fundraiser and senior adviser at the Blackstone Group, and Miami auto tycoon Norman Braman.

Rubio has already begun to compete with his fellow-Floridian, Gov. Jeb Bush for big city donor money. He was the featured guest at Republican donor Paul Singer’s place in New York a few weeks ago, which was attended by influential Republican foreign policy hawks. According to sources who attended the dinner, “people who walked out of the room were totally in love” with the Cuban-American senator, a clear sign the New York Jewish Republican donor class will support his personal campaign with big figures. Another possible are several members of the Fanjul family, who made a fortune in sugar. Along with Braman, the Fanjul family is a perfect example of the competition that will take place between Rubio and Bush.

While Sen. Rubio was the third Republican to announce his will seek the GOP nomination and the presidency, he is the first to be featured on PPD’s Team 2016: Players, Pollsters And Pockets Behind The Campaign series, which will feature Sen. Rand Paul next, followed shortly by Hillary Clinton.

In this edition of Team 2016: Players,

Policy

tax policy

A young couple during tax season tries to navigate an over-complicated tax code. (Photo: Shutterstock)

I’ve sometimes asserted, only half-jokingly, that statists believe all of our income belongs to the government and that we should be grateful if we’re allowed to keep any slice of what we earn.

This is, at least in part, the mentality behind the “tax expenditure” concept, which creates a false equivalence between spending programs and provisions of the tax code that allow people to keep greater amounts of their own income.

Here’s how I characterized this moral blindness when criticizing a Washington Postcolumnist back in 2013.

Hiatt presumably thinks that the government’s decision not to impose double taxation is somehow akin to a giveaway. But that only makes sense if you assume that government has a preemptive claim to all private income. …Hiatt wants us the think that there’s no moral, ethical, or economic difference between giving person A $5,000 of other people’s money and person B being allowed to keep $5,000 of his or her own money.

Today, I have a particularly absurd real-world illustration of this statist mindset.

Two writers for the Wonkblog section of the Washington Post recently wrote an article entitled, “The rich get government handouts just like the poor. Here are 10 of them.”

Did their list of 10 “handouts” include the Export-Import Bank, which lines the pockets of big corporations? Nope.

Did it include agriculture subsidies, which provide unearned goodies for big agribusiness firms? Nope.

Did it the TARP bailout, which shielded Wall Street fatcats from capitalism? Nope.

And how about subsidized terrorism insurance, ethanol goodies, and green energy subsidies? Nope, nope, and nope.

Or the handouts in ObamaCare for major pharmaceutical companies and big insurance companies? Nope and nope.

Instead, every single “handout” that the rich “get” from government is nothing more than a provision of the tax code that lets people keep more of their own money.

I’m not joking. Here’s the list, followed by my two cents.

1. The mortgage interest deduction for big houses and second homes.

As I’ve previously explained, I don’t think the tax code should be tilted in favor of residential real estate. But a handout is when the government takes money from Person A and gives it to Person B.

2. The yacht tax deduction.

There actually isn’t a yacht tax deduction, but if you can live in something, it can be eligible for a mortgage interest deduction. I don’t think that’s wise tax policy, but it’s not an example of government taking from Person A and giving to Person B.

3. Rental property.

The authors appear to be upset that people running a business get to subtract costs from gross income when calculating net income. But that’s exactly how businesses are supposed to be taxed. And even if one thought, for some odd reason, that gross income was the right tax base, this still isn’t an example of government taking from Person A to give to Person B.

4. Fancy business meals.

As just noted, businesses should be taxed on profits rather than gross receipts. Well, profits are the difference between total income and total costs, including the cost of business-related meals. And even if one thinks that folks in business are lying and mischaracterizing personal meals, they’re not spending other people’s money. No funds are being taken from Person A and being given to Person B.

5. The capital gains tax rate.

In a good tax system, there’s no double taxation of income that is saved and invested, so the capital gains tax should be abolished. As such, the “preferential” rate in the current system is more accurately characterized as a mitigation of a penalty. But even if one believes that saving and investment should be double taxed, a lower capital gains tax rate doesn’t take money from Person A to give to Person B.

6. The estate tax.

The death tax is triple taxation, so it also should be abolished. Regardless, letting a family hold onto its own money is not the same as taking from Person A to give to Person B.

7. Gambling loss deductions.

The government taxes gamblers on their net winnings (if any), which is the proper approach. And even if the government gave a deduction for net losses (which isn’t the case), this wouldn’t be an example of taking from Person A and giving to Person B.

8. The Social Security earnings limit.

The Social Security system is supposed to be social insurance, and one of the implications of this approach is that there’s a limit on the benefits one can receive and the payments one has to make. As such, it’s silly to assert that the “wage base cap” is somehow improper. But even if one believed in turning Social Security into a pure redistribution scheme, the existing earnings limit simply means a cap on what the government takes. There’s no coerced handout from Person A to Person B.

9. Retirement plans.

The bad news is that we have pervasive double taxation in the internal revenue code. The good news is that some forms of retirement savings, such as IRAs and 401(k)s, are protected from double taxation. That protection does not require any money being taken from Person A and given to Person B.

10. Tax prep.

I’m not a fan of companies like H&R Block that benefit from an unfair and convoluted tax code. Under a simple and fair system like the flat tax, they would go out of business. But a deduction for tax preparation costs simply allows a taxpayer to keep more of his or her income. There’s no handout from Person A to Person B.

In case you didn’t notice, there’s a strong moral component to my argument. The leftists think you’re getting a handout if you get to keep more of your own money.

I think that’s absurd.

And it’s also economically illiterate when applied to provisions of the tax code that make sense, such as companies getting to subtract expenses when calculating taxable income.

Or individuals not being subjected to double taxation.

P.S. Here’s some pro-Second Amendment humor, which cleverly uses the left’s “undocumented” terminology for illegal aliens and applies it in a much better fashion.

And if you like pro-gun humor, you can find lots of good links by clicking here.

P.P.S. Since I mentioned immigration, here’s a fascinating graphic that shows immigration trends over the past two centuries.

There’s no policy lesson of philosophical point. I just think this graphic is very informative and well designed.

But if you want my two cents, I like immigration but want to make sure we attract people who want to work and assimilate rather than scroungers (and worse) who want welfare and handouts.

CATO economist Dan Mitchell discusses how statists

Politics, Video

[brid video=”7751″ player=”1929″ title=”Clinton & Rubio Rollouts The McLaughlin Group 41715″]
This week on McLaughlin Group, Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift, Mortimer Zuckerman and Tom Rogan discuss the rollouts of Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio, as well as the latest in current events. The panel weighs in on the entire 2016 GOP field, and the Congressional actions on the Iran deal.

This week on McLaughlin Group, Pat Buchanan,

Politics

va-secretary-robert-mcdonald

Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald answers lawmakers’ questions regarding the VA scandal on Capitol Hill.

A damning report released by the Office of Inspector General elevated the VA scandal, revealing fraud, waste, and corruption on a scale greater than previously reported. It’s been nearly a year since reports in April 2014 suggested veterans may have died waiting for appointments at the Phoenix VA facility, the IG report found that wait times for thousands had been electronically manipulated by VA staff.

Roughly 1,700 vets were put on a secret list to cover up their long waits, and 18 of those on the secret ledger died before getting their appointments. The internal probe found that more than 31,000 veteran inquiries at the Philadelphia Regional VA call center went unanswered for more than 312 days, despite the five-day requirement. Claim dates were manipulated to hide delays, 22,000 pieces of returned mail went ignored and some 16,600 documents involving patient records dating back to 2011 were never scanned into the system.

It gets worse, much worse.

“This report is as bleak as it gets, full of systemic malfeasance and deliberate data manipulation,” Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, said in a statement. “The Philadelphia VA Regional Office is in crisis, brought on by years of mismanagement and encouraged by VA’s longstanding refusal to hold employees accountable.”

In response to the Philadelphia IG report, the VA said the findings “reflect conditions a year ago.” They claim reforms were already underway during the IG’s investigation, beginning with a new director Diana Rubens, who was brought in in July 2014.

“This is not a new thing, this is a last-year thing,” said Allison Hickey, the VA’s official in charge of benefits.

But the IG clearly disagrees, noting the report reflects complaints made by veterans as recently as last month. Interviews with whistleblowers show a culture of retaliation at the VA to punish employees who bring the VA scandals to the public eye, leading the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to sponsor a bill protecting whistleblowers.

The VA’s top accountability officials says she does not want to see the bill become law, naturally.

“We will, whenever the evidence shows retaliation is engaged in, hold them accountable,” said Meghan Flanz, the director of the VA’s Accountability Review.

The IG report not only found that veterans’ disability claims had been mishandled and manipulated to show shorter wait times, but also that the results of the ratings and claims are “unreliable.”

“We confirmed that one supervisor from the VARO’s Quality Review Team inappropriately altered the results of individual quality reviews,” the report stated. “VARO management within the VSC was aware of the situation, but did nothing to stop the actions. As a result, these actions may have compromised the accuracy of claims processed and the reported accuracy rates are considered unreliable.”

Further, when veterans appealed the claim decisions, which the IG deemed “inaccurate” and “unreliable,” the VARO staff, those responsible for decided and reviewing claims and appeals, simply did not file the Notice of Agreement.

“We confirmed that VARO staff did not process Notices of Disagreement within 7 days as required by policy,” the report found.

VA Secretary Robert McDonald, who took over for Eric Shinseki after he resigned during last spring’s VA scandal, has attempted to impliment reforms. However, without the power to fire corrupt and inefficient administrators, real progress is not likely. Senate Democrats killed a bill in 2014 that would’ve given the secretary the power to do so.

This week lawmakers on Capitol Hill also grilled VA officials on reports that the construction of a new VA facility in Denver, which has been in the works for years, has cost a whopping $1.7 billion, thus far, and is still not completed. Officials have run out of money to pay for it.

A damning report released by the Office

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

Subscribe