By Scott Lincicome, The Atlantic, Aug. 23, 2024- Last week in North Carolina, Kamala Harris called for a new federal law to ban “price gouging on food.” Such a law might be popular, but it would have, at best, no impact on grocery prices and might even make the problem worse. That’s especially unfortunate because it distracts from all the federal policy changes that actually could reduce food prices.
The evidence that price gouging was responsible for the post-pandemic spike in food prices is somewhere between thin and nonexistent. A recent report from the New York Federal Reserve found that retail food inflation was mainly driven by “much higher food commodity prices and large increases in wages for grocery store workers,” while profits at grocers and food manufacturers “haven’t been important.” ....
... Even if excessive corporate profits had been the cause of higher food costs, a price-gouging ban would do nothing to relieve Americans’ current burdens for the simple reason that food prices long ago stopped rising. .... In reality, the grocery business has always had notoriously thin profit margins. ... the industry’s average net profit margins were just 1.18 percent in January 2024—ranking 80th of the 96 industries surveyed and lower than the margins the food industry recorded in all but one of the past six years .... As economics textbooks and centuries of experience teach us, limiting the amount that companies can charge is more likely to reduce supply by discouraging investment and production: a recipe for both shortages and higher, not lower, prices in the long term. ...
In addition to tariffs, regulatory protectionism—against imported products such as tuna, catfish, and biofuel inputs—causes more consumer pain for little health, safety, or environmental gain. ... Propping up the domestic food sector is a long-standing American tradition. (read it all)
By Jon Styf | The Center Square, Aug 16, 2024 -Beacon Center has filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the Association of Christian Schools International, to fight a new U.S. Department of Labor overtime rule that would require anyone making less than $58,000 per year as an hourly, non-exempt employee.
The previous rule had that threshold at $35,568. The new rule is scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1 and includes a stipulation to increase the salary threshold every three years.
The increase came in two parts, with an increase to a threshold of $43,888 on July 1 and the increase to $58,000 on Jan. 1. Several challenges were reportedly filed before the July 1 implementation across the country as well, according to Employment Law Watch from attorneys Reed Smith LLP.
"This new rule is not only unlawful but will also have many unintended consequences,” Beacon Vice President of Legal Affairs Wen Fa said in a statement. “It threatens the livelihoods of small business owners and employees alike. Our client represents thousands of schools in the United States, and this rule will hinder their mission to provide a quality education to the students they serve."
The new rule would require 4.3 million salaried workers to be reclassified nationwide and become eligible for overtime.
The ACSI is a non-profit that has 2,500 member schools nationwide and 97 in Tennessee, where Beacon Center is based.
The ACSI schools say they are heavily impacted as the rule change will happen in the middle of the school year and financial year.
"The timing of this new rule couldn't be worse,” Fa said. “Many schools have already budgeted for the upcoming school year and are ill-equipped to deal with the 2024 rule's drastic changes. We look forward to standing with organizations and businesses in Tennessee and across the country challenging this unfair and blatantly illegal rule."
The Beacon Center lawsuit argues the new rule is similar to a 2016 overtime rule that was thrown out because its increase of the salary-level threshold made “overtime status depend predominately on a minimum salary level, thereby supplanting an analysis of an employee’s job duties.”
It also argues that the automatic threshold increase every three years violates the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice and comment requirement. In the past, threshold increases have gone through a public notice period that allows for objections.
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, published July 31, 2024 -Earlier today, former President Donald Trump suggested eliminating the partial income taxation of Social Security benefits, which currently helps fund the Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust funds. Without a replacement source of revenue, we estimate repealing taxation of benefits for seniors would:
Increase deficits by $1.6 trillion to $1.8 trillion through 2035
Increase Social Security’s 75-year shortfall by 25 percent – or 0.9percent of payroll
Nearly triple the Medicare HI 75-year shortfall, increasing it by 0.6 percent of payroll
Advance the insolvency date of Social Security’s retirement trust fund by over one year
Advance the insolvency date of the Medicare HI trust fund by six years
US Budget Watch 2024 is a project of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget designed to educate the public on the fiscal impact of presidential candidates’ proposals and platforms. Throughout the election, we will issue policy explainers, fact checks, budget scores, and other analyses. We do not support or oppose any candidate for public office.
In a post on Truth Social today, President Trump declared that “SENIORS SHOULD NOT PAY TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY!”
President Trump is likely referring to the fact that some Social Security benefits are currently taxed as ordinary income and have been since 1984.
Under current law, seniors that earn less than $25,000 per year ($32,000 for married couples) of “combined income” – that is adjusted gross income plus certain adjustments and half of their Social Security benefits – pay no taxes on Social Security retirement benefits. Above that amount, 50 percent of Social Security benefits are subject to income tax, with the revenue going toward the Social Security retirement trust fund. For seniors earning combined income above $34,000 per year ($44,000 for married couples), an additional 35 percent of benefits are taxable, with this revenue going toward the Medicare HI trust fund.
Although taxation of benefits has been a relatively modest source of revenue over the past 40 years, revenue collection is growing over time because Social Security benefits are getting larger and the thresholds for exempting benefits from taxation are not indexed to inflation. This year, for example, taxation of benefits is projected to raise about $94 billion.
Based on data from the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, we estimate that eliminating taxation of Social Security benefits for seniors would cut taxes and thus reduce revenues by about $1.8 trillion between Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 and 2035. This includes $1.05 trillion less in revenue collection for Social Security and $750 billion less revenue for Medicare. Based on data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the total reduction in revenue would be $1.6 trillion, with $950 billion less revenue for Social Security and $650 billion less for Medicare. In these estimates, we assume benefits for non-seniors – including those benefiting from the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program – continue to be taxed.
Effects of Ending Taxation of Social Security Benefits
Ten-Year Revenue Impact (CBO)
Ten-Year Revenue Impact (Trustees)
Effect on 75-Year Actuarial Balance
New Insolvency Date
Social Security Revenue
-$950 billion
-$1.05 trillion
-0.9% of payroll
2032 (-1 year)
Medicare HI Revenue
-$650 billion
-$750 billion
-0.6% of payroll
2030 (-6 years)
Total
-$1.6 trillion
-$1.8 trillion
N/A*
N/A
Note: Ten-year budget window is from FY 2026 through FY 2035. *Percentages of payroll are relative to the Social Security and Medicare tax bases, and thus are not additive. Sources: CRFB estimates based on Congressional Budget Office, Social Security Trustees, and Medicare Trustees data.
This revenue reduction would grow over the long run, significantly widening Social Security’s and Medicare’s 75-year actuarial imbalances. Based on Trustees’ data, we estimate the Social Security Old-Age and Survivors’ Insurance (OASI) trust fund imbalance would grow by roughly 25 percent – or about 0.9 percent of payroll – from 3.6 percent of taxable payroll to 4.5 percent. Meanwhile, the Medicare HI trust fund imbalance would nearly triple – increasing by 0.6 percent of payroll – from 0.35 percent of payroll to nearly 1.0 percent. This assumes the lost revenue isn’t replaced with revenue from other sources.
As a result of these changes, Social Security’s retirement trust fund would become insolvent more than one year earlier – in early 2032 instead of late 2033. Medicare’s insolvency date would advance by six years – from 2036 to 2030.
Upon insolvency, the law requires spending to be cut to match revenue. The 21 percent cut to Social Security benefits projected under current law would expand to 25 percent under this proposal. After-tax benefits would not meaningfully change – though reductions would be larger for lower income seniors and smaller for higher income seniors.
Importantly, consequences would differ if taxation of benefits were replaced with another source of revenue or offset with changes to benefits.
Washinton Post: Why Democrats are so quiet about climate change right now. ...If they call for curbing fossil fuel production to fight global warming, they risk alienating voters in Pennsylvania, a pivotal swing state where natural gas powers the economy. But if they tout record U.S. oil production that has helped lower energy costs, they risk angering young voters, a crucial constituency for Democrats.
Transcript: Good evening. I bring greetings from the great state of Georgia. So let's get the hard part out of the way. I am a Republican.
But tonight I stand here as an American, an American that cares more about the future of this country than the future of Donald Trump. My journey started to this podium years ago when
I realized Donald Trump was willing to lie, cheat and steal to try to overturn the 2020 election.
I realized Trump was a direct threat to democracy and his actions disqualified him from ever, ever, ever stepping foot into the oval office again. ... So I'm going to focus my attention on the millions of Republicans and independents that are at home that are sick and tired of making excuses for Donald Trump. If Republicans are being intellectually honest with ourselves, our party is not civil or conservative, it's chaotic and crazy. And the only thing left to do is dump Trump.
These days, our party acts more like a cult, a cult worshiping a felon thug.
Look, you don't have to agree with every policy position of Kamala Harris. I don't, ... Let me be clear to my Republican friends at home watching. If you vote for Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris in 2024 you're not a democrat,you're a patriot.
In our family, my wife Brooke and I are raising three boys and we have a family motto and it says doing the right thing will never be the wrong thing.
During the just the lowest of lows when we had armed officers outside our house, protecting us from
other republicans (Donald Trump had targeted us.) my son came downstairs and he handed me this coaster that I'd given him years before at a father. .. And he said, hey, dad doing the right thing will never be the wrong thing. ...(read more)
Transcript: Good evening. I have a confession to make. I'm a lifelong Republican. So I feel a little out of place tonight, but I feel more at home here than in today's Republican party.
The grand old party has been kidnapped by extremists and devolved into a cult. Trump doesn't know the first thing about public service. Like a child. He acts purely out of self-interest.(Read more)
by Abigail Devereaux, Independent Institute, Aug.16, 2024- Doctor shortages are becoming endemic in Kansas, including an estimated 50 percent fewer primary care physicians than needed, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The American Immigration Council says that unique health care worker job postings increased by 20.8 percent in the state between 2017 and 2021, although the population increased by less than 1 percent over the same period.
Kansas isn’t alone. Most states in the country are experiencing similar shortages. ... Requiring foreign doctors to both pass the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam and endure a second residency isn’t necessary to ensure quality and patient safety. After passing the test, foreign doctors could be issued a temporary license under the supervision of a state-licensed doctor for one to two years before applying for an unrestricted license
Tennessee requires two years of employment in a hospital with a residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, though international medical graduates can work as physicians instead of residents. Its new rule came into effect on July 1 and has had significant ripple effects. ... Kansas and other states facing doctor shortages should follow Tennessee and remove the requirement that foreign doctors repeat their residencies, instead allowing them to apply for unrestricted licenses. (read more)
by WH Bernstein, reposted from Facebook, 8/22/2024- On my mind: Tax cuts.
An eminent friend and sensible man has asked me about Trump's tax cuts and wouldn't they pay for themselves or something.
Not all tax cuts are created equal. The beauty of Reagan's philosophy was that he actually understood how this worked. If you cut the tax on, say, alcohol, manufacturers will tend to cut prices or use the extra money to upgrade equipment, improve salaries etc. But the amount of extra economic activity generated will not make up for the loss of revenue to the government. Similarly, if you increase the childcare credit, which both Harris and JD Vance are proposing, people will have a little more money but their extra spending will not offset the revenue loss.
Tax cuts work when the tax is on some kind of production. Thus, capital gains tax cuts produce more revenue (and have done so every time) because the lower rates encourage people to sell existing assets and reinvest the money in other places. Even Obama understood this (see video in comments). Similarly, cuts in marginal tax rates encourage people to work extra, because they get to keep more of the income from that extra work.
Imagine an architect charging $100,000 for a commission that can do 14 jobs a year. If on the last two jobs he's only going to make $40,000 because his marginal tax rate is 60% then he'll likely just skip it. Lower the marginal rate to 40% and might do those jobs. And the construction, blueprints, transportation, etc. etc. that his work generates will mean more money being made in the economy which means more tax revenue.
Cutting something like Social Security taxes encourages no one to work or produce more. "Putting money in people's hands" is the fallacious argument made, but we have lots of experience with this and the actual outcome is no more economic activity results.
The Trumpistas have forgotten (willfully in some cases) this distinction. Turmp's proposals to reduce some taxes are as idiotic as what the Democrats propose, mere pandering to groups he hopes will vote for him.
Bill Bernstein, formerly of Nashville where he was owner of Eastside Gun Shop, now lives in Brunswick, Georgia. He is a scholar with a BA degree from Vanderbilt University and degrees in Classics from Corpus Christi College, Oxford, UNC-Chapel Hill, and University of Pennsylvania.
by Rod Williams, August 21, 2024 - If you thought the Jewish space lasers causing California wildfires was a weird conspiracy theory, or that the theory that Kamala Harris' crowds were really AI generated images was kind of nuts, well, Kamala Harris has topped that. If you thought blaming American crime and inflation and housing shortages on illegal immigrants was demagoguery, well Kamala Harris has topped that.
Kamala Harris believes that high food prices are based on price gouging. To believe that you must believe that thousands upon thousands of people across the world are colluding in a massive conspiracy to set prices. This would really be a big conspiracy- more complex than the fake moon landing or the 9-11 as an inside job.
If she believes wage and price controls can fix this non-existent problem, then maybe Donald Trump is on to something when he says she is not a smart person. I don't think she is really that dumb. I think she is a demagogue responding to a pubic that wants scapegoats and simple answers.
Kevin Williamson writing in The Dispatch explained it like this:
Why doesn’t a Big Mac cost $500? Why doesn’t a pack of socks at Walmart cost $500? “Well, nobody would pay that!” comes the usual answer. Au contraire mon frère! People will pay $500 for a hamburger—and some people will pay $5,000 for a hamburger. And $500 for a six-pack of socks? Pantherella does a brisk business in socks at that price point. “Oh, but those are super-high-end luxury goods!” you may retort. Of course—and in most of the world, for most of human history, paying somebody else to cook you a meal was a 1-percenter luxury good, too. But the luxury goods are interesting for the same reason the bargain-basement goods are interesting: because in a robust marketplace, you have lots of buyers and lots of sellers, and lots of products at lots of price points. So you can buy your tailored silk socks for $80 a pair or buy 300 on Amazon for 22 cents a pair. There are a lot of car buyers and car sellers in the United States, and a lot of good options at different price points.
The food market is, as you might expect, a big one: There are a lot of different places to buy groceries in the United States, from big corporate behemoths such as Walmart and Amazon (which owns Whole Foods Markets) to the major national chains such as Kroger (which is, among other things, the largest sushi seller in the country, as well as the owner of Southern California’s beloved Ralphs, no apostrophe), to more regional concerns such as Meijer (“Meijer’s” if you are from Michigan) or Piggly Wiggly (which is a real thing in the South!). There are also locally owned independent shops, and insufferably twee people such as the Williamsons may sometimes get up on a Saturday morning and go down to the local farmer’s market and buy bacon from a guy who was personally acquainted with the pig. Behind those consumer-facing retail outlets is a large and complex network of distributors—national and regional—warehouses, trucking and logistics operations, and, upstream of them, producers ranging from domestic farmers and ranchers to Israelis who sell us olive oil to Mexican lettuce farmers and Thai fruit-juice producers. We grow more than $700 million worth of tomatoes in the United States and import another $2.5 billion worth. We import seafood from India, potatoes from Canada, and meat from Australia (and New Zealand, and Mexico, and Italy, Canada, and Chile—we love the stuff). Millions upon millions of people and firms, billions of transactions, scores of countries—and, somehow, Kamala Harris imagines a shadowy figure behind it all, pulling the strings.
If you believe that food prices are high because of price gouging, I don't want to hear you try to tell me that Marjorie Taylor Green is an idiot.
By Jonah Goldberg, The Dispatch, Aug. 16, 2024- ... Kamala Harris thinks she knows more about poultry farming than poultry farmers.
It’s a little more complicated than that, but not much. She has a “plan” to make sure that the price of eggs or chicken breasts won’t be “too high.” She won’t make the call herself, but she’ll have a team of experts decide when prices are so high they amount to “gouging.”
So, if a breakout of avian flu decimates the chicken population, or an all-egg diet fad takes off, or if the costs of chicken feed go up for some reason, the Harris Brain Trust will decide if the higher prices that result are warranted. That sounds really hard. Fortunately, they have a really easy way of cutting through all the data: The price of eggs or chicken tenders at the Kroger. That’s it.
She also thinks she’s smarter and more knowledgeable than dairy farmers, soup makers, coffee and wheat growers, and countless other producers. (read more)
By Catherine Rampell, The Washington Post, August 15, 2024 - Price gouging is the focus of Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic agenda, her presidential campaign says. She’ll crack down on “excessive prices” and “excessive corporate profits,” particularly for groceries.
So what level counts as “excessive,” you might ask? TBD, but Harris will ban it.
That’s the thing about price gouging: As has been said of hardcore pornography, you know it when you see it.
It’s not hard to figure out where this proposal came from. Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter. ...
It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would. (read more)
by MEGAN PODSIEDLIK, reposted from The Pamphleteer, Aug. 19, 2024- Since taking office, General Skrmetti has set out to protect women’s sports. This Friday, his office took a victory lap after the Supreme Court denied the Biden admin’s request to partially reinstate its new Title IX rule. Over the past three years, multiple states, including Tennessee, have filed suits opposing the DOE’s redefinition of “sex” to include “gender identity.” While the cases are pending, the highest court agreed that the new guidelines should be put on pause, but not without dissent. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson disagreed in part with the court’s decision, stating that provisions unrelated to sexual discrimination should be put into effect.
“I am grateful that the Supreme Court of the United States agreed that no part of the Biden administration’s Title IX rule should go into effect while the case proceeds,” Skrmetti said in a press release. “This is a win for student privacy, free speech, and the rule of law.”
by Rod Williams, August 19, 2024- Retired federal appeals court Judge J. Michael Luttig, a prominent conservative legal scholar put on the bench by President George H.W. Bush, is endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president, arguing that in this election that policy difference between the two candidates must take a back seat to the threat posed to American democracy and the rule of law by former President Donald Trump. That represents my view exactly.
Luttig was instrumental in persuading former Vice President Mike Pence to defy Trump and certify the 2020 presidential election. In a series of tweets drafted at the request of Pence’s attorney, Luttig spelled out in stark terms the legal rationale for Pence to reject the former president’s attempt to overturn Joe Biden’s victory (link).
Below is the full statement of Judge Luttig. It is lengthy but worth reading. The highlighting is mine.
Endorsement of Vice President of the United States Kamala Harris
Almost four years ago now, on January 6, 2021, a stake was driven through the heart of America’s Democracy, and on that day American Democracy was left teetering on a knife’s edge. On that day, the prescribed day for choosing the American president, there was not a peaceful transfer of power in the United States of America — for the first time in the almost 250 years since the Founding of the Nation.
As a consequence of the former president’s continued denial of that appalling day, and his defiance of America’s Democracy to this day almost four years later, millions of Americans still believe that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” from the former president, despite the fact that he lost that election fair and square in what has been proven over and over to have been the freest, fairest, and most accurate election in American history.
Because of the former president’s continued, knowingly false claims that he won the 2020 election, millions of Americans no longer have faith and confidence in our national elections, and many never will again. Because of the former president’s knowingly false claims, many Americans — especially young Americans, tragically — have even begun to question whether constitutional democracy is the best form of self-government for America.
The 2020 presidential election of course was not “stolen” from the former president and he knows that. It was the former president who attempted to steal the 2020 presidential election from the American People, not they from him. To attempt to steal an election in the United States of America is to attempt to steal America’s Democracy.
For the former president to continue to persist in the knowingly false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him is a profound affront to American Democracy and to the Constitution of the United States — an affront without any precedent in all of American history.
In his utterly inexplicable obsession to this very day to deny, attempt to justify, even to glorify January 6, and to bludgeon Americans into believing that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him when he knows it was not, the former president has corrupted America’s Democracy. Yet, to this day — to this day still — not only does the former president, and now the Republican Party of which he is again the standard bearer, continue to falsely claim that the former president won the 2020 election. He and his Party defiantly refuse even to pledge that they will honor and respect the vote and the will of the American People in the upcoming presidential election. In this defiant refusal, the Republican candidate for the presidency and the Republican Party have literally taken America political hostage, threatening the Nation with the specter of another January 6, 2021 on January 6, 2025, if the former president again loses his campaign for the presidency by a vote of the American People.
Until January 6, 2021, there was a peaceful transfer of power from one President of the United States to his successor for almost 250 years. The peaceful transfer of power from one President of the United States to the next and the commitment of presidential candidates and their respective political parties to the peaceful transfer of power in the next election are fundamental tenets of our constitutional Republic. Adherence to these tenets is essential to American Democracy, American governance and government, and to the Rule of Law in the United States of America. Without the peaceful transfer of power, America would have no democracy.
The politicians tell us that America’s Democracy and the Rule of Law are too “abstract” to “resonate” with American voters. If that was ever true in the past, which I do not accept, it is emphatically not true today. For reasons we all know too well, there could not possibly be any more concrete and consequential issues for the Nation and the American voter today than America’s Democracy and Rule of Law. America’s Democracy, and along with it the Rule of Law, were almost stolen from us on January 6, 2021, by the former President of the United States, who is, today, asking us to return him to the Highest Office of trust in the land.
America’s Democracy and Rule of Law are the defining features of our Nation. It is America’s Democracy, Constitution, and Rule of Law that have made America the envy of the world and the beacon of democracy and freedom for the world for almost 250 years. This presidential election is a test of Americans’ commitment to America’s Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law. It is so because the former president and the Republican Party have shamefully made it so.
The often lofty, at times even noble, policy differences that have been the hallmark of American Politics and partisan debate for almost a quarter of a millennium pale in comparison to the foundational national policy issues of America’s Democracy, Constitution, and Rule of Law. American Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law are the stakes — the only real stakes — in the upcoming election. Having made them so, these foundational issues of our times cannot now be wished away by the former president and his Republican Party, as they would have it. And they must not be wished away by the American People.
The fact remains to this day that even the loftiest and noblest of policies and policy differences will be comparatively inconsequential unless and until we Americans bring to an end the war on America’s Democracy that was instigated by the former president and his allies on January 6, 2021. For their part, the former president and the Republican Party have determined to prosecute their war against America’s Democracy to its catastrophic end. As a consequence, for our part, “We the People” must bring this unholy war to an end – now.
The Founders of our Nation and the Framers of our Constitution feared most of all this very moment in American history, when the American People would be tempted by the seductive demagoguery of a modern-day populist demagogue. In a letter to George Washington in 1792, over 230 years ago, Alexander Hamilton warned of this day and this demagogue, who would “mount the hobby horse of popularity” and whose “objects” “may justly be suspected to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”
Thomas Jefferson agreed with Alexander Hamilton about very little, except about the existential danger to the Republic of a populist demagogue. “If once elected, and at a second or third election outvoted by one or two votes, he will pretend false votes, foul play, hold possession of the reins of government, be supported by the States voting for him,” Jefferson presciently wrote to James Madison in 1787.
The time for America’s choosing has come. It is time for all Americans to stand and affirm whether they believe in American Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, and want for America the same — or whether they do not.
The former president and the Republican Party have cynically framed this choice as a Hobson’s choice, and they have cynically forced their supposed Hobson’s choice upon the Nation. But they have chosen as their standard bearer the one man who is singularly unfit to embody and represent not only to the Nation, but to the world, America’s sacred Democracy, Constitution, and Rule of Law.
In a word, for America and Americans, this is no Hobson’s choice at all. America’s two political parties are the political guardians of American Democracy. Regrettably, in the presidential election of 2024 there is only one political party and one candidate for the presidency that can claim the mantle of defender and protector of America’s Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law. As a result, I will unhesitatingly vote for the Democratic Party’s candidate for the Presidency of the United States, Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris.
In voting for Vice President Harris, I assume that her public policy views are vastly different from my own, but I am indifferent in this election as to her policy views on any issues other than America’s Democracy, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law, as I believe all Americans should be. In the 2024 election for President of the United States, there are no more important issues for America.
It is our Democracy, our Constitution, and our Rule of Law that bind us together as Americans. We Americans must never allow ourselves to be put asunder from this that binds us by the siren calls of the politicians and the political sophists, the mercenaries and the opportunists, who entreat us that the only thing that matters in this presidential election is the candidates’ different positions on the sundry policies of the day. All, as if nothing had come before.
We Americans know all too well what has come before. We understand what the political class does not want us to understand. That in the presidential election of 2024, the candidates’ policy differences are the least that matters to the United States of America.
by Rod Williams, Aug. 18, 2024- I have been shocked at the economic nonsense coming from both the Harris camp and the Trump camp. Do neither team have economic advisors? A lot of what is being proposed is pandering and vote buying, such as the proposal from both camps to not tax tips and Trumps proposal to not tax social security. What is not pandering seems to be the result of economic illiteracy.
Just consider Harris' proposal for housing affordability. Anyone who has had Econ 101 knows that the primary reason for the housing affordability issue is basic supply and demand. Supply is lagging demand and pushing prices higher. Much of the corrective action needed is found in local zoning regulations that restrict the supply of housing and regulatory sluggishness that delays the permitting process. Harris' proposal for an up to $25,000 down-payment support for first-time homebuyers will simply further bid up the price of housing. It is counterproductive. She says she will also incentivize supply but supply significantly lags demand. Unless the underlying issues affecting supply are fixed, simply subsidizing builder to build starter homes will do little.
And, then there is Harris' proposal for price controls on food. Price controls were tried by Richard Nixon and failed. They have been tried in country after country and they always lead to shortages and higher inflation. The problem with high food prices is not price gouging. This is an appeal to the worst instincts of people to find a scapegoat.
One of the worst proposals is coming from Donald Trump and that is to replace the income tax with across-the-board tariffs. This will increase the cost of almost everything we buy. Lumber and appliances and other components of housing are often imported products. Even cars made in America contain imported components. Much of the food one buys in the grocery store is imported. Tariffs will in effect be a massive sales tax on the American people. Anytime a tax is imposed on a producer, it is a cost of production and incorporated into the price and is paid for by the consumer. As import tariffs increase the price of the things we buy, people will buy less of those things and so the tariffs will bring in less money and have to be raised even higher. Higher tariffs on imports will mean America will export less also. America exports a lot of stuff. Other countries will retaliate and impose tariff on America's exports. This will likely lead to America exporting less and resulting job losses. This will not work. It could lead to a worldwide depression. This is just an insane policy proposal.
Another insane proposal from Donald Trump is to end the autonomy of the Federal Reserve. We need an independent Federal Reserve to tinker with interest rates to cool the economy when inflation occurs. Durning Trump's time in office he was critical of the Fed and at one time advocated zero interest rates. The public always wants lower interest rates, but sometimes higher rates are necessary. The proposal by Donald Trump to politicize the Fed would be an absolute disaster.
To compound this insanity of massive tariffs and a trade war and ending the Feds autonomy, Trump is proposing to expel 15 million immigrants. This will result in increased labor cost and labor shortages. There are not Americans standing by waiting to fill all of those construction jobs, service jobs and agriculture jobs being performed by immigrant labor. However, the tariff policy, if enacted, will likely lead to a depression so his proposal to cause a labor shortage may not be a problem at all since by destroying the economy we will have many fewer jobs anyway.
Neither camp is addressing the most pressing economic issue facing us. We are rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell. We are fast approaching a financial cliff. With government Debt to GDP in the United States reaching an all-time high of 126% and with interest on the debt exceeding the total defense budget and being almost as much as we spend on Medicare, runaway inflation is a real possibility. Unless we get a handle on this, runaway inflation is predictable. That portion of income needed to service the debt will continue to take a greater and greater share of the federal budget.
We had GDP of 113% at the end of World War II and survived it and recovered but things were much different then. A larger share of the budget went to defense and when the war ended defense cost drastically dropped. Also, we had been on a war footing and many things from nylons to automobiles had been rationed or not produced and there was a lot of pent-up demand. Also, we were not facing a large cohort of the population entering retirement. We were able to produce our way out of the situation. Maybe, there will be some new technology breakthrough that will spur massive GDP growth, and we can grow our way out of this mess this time too, but I wouldn't count on it. Some economists say the way we are going we have only about 20 years before it will be impossible to service the debt. The longer we wait to start reducing the national debt, the harder it will be to take the corrective actions we need to bend the curve.
A more immediate concern is the pending Social Security crisis. According to the Social Security Administration, the Social Security Trust Fund's reserves are expected to be totally depleted by 2037. After that, taxes well be enough to pay only 76% of scheduled benefits. That means a required cut of 24%. This is fixable, but neither party is willing to propose a fix. Social Security could be means-tested, FICA taxes could be increased, retirement age increase, or the income cap subject to taxation could be increased or some combination of these things. All politicians of either party can offer is a pledge not to touch Social Security.
I am disappointed that neither party is addressing our pending economic collapse. I would be hopeful that Congress would take the advice of the Congressional Budget Office and not pass disastrous or counterproductive policies, but I am not so sure members of Congress are ready to listen to experts anymore. While Trump seems to be an economic illiterate, it is worth recalling that it was only a few years ago when Democrats were touting something called Modern Monetary Theory. MMT said debt doesn't matter and the government can just monetize the debt for as much and as long as they like with no consequences. No orthodox economist believes that, but many Democrats apparently do.
I see both campaigns as proposing bad economic policies. As bad as Harris' policy proposals are, Trump's I fear are worse. It is hard to wrap my head around the concept that a Republican candidate could have worse economic policies than a Democrat, but these are not normal times. Kamala Harris's proposals are bad; Trump's are insane. Some Republicans will discount any wild crazy thing Trump proposes. They will say that Trump won't be able to do things like abolish the income tax and replace it with massive tariffs so we should not be concerned. I don't know why Trump's biggest supporters do not take him seriously, but they don't.
For me, this election unfortunately is not about policy differences. Even if Trumps economic policies made sense, I could not vote for him. When one candidate on the ballot has tried to stage a coup, and the other hasn't, you choose the latter.
As the author of A Disgruntled Republican I often post items which I think may be of interest to the conservative, Republican, libertarian or the greater community. Posting of a press release or an announcement of an event does not necessarily indicate an endorsement. Rod
Posts
