Video: government spending does not create jobs

September 8, 2011

Most people seem to get this, but this simple fact seems lost on the Democrat leadership, Leftist academics, and the mainstream media. (But I repeat myself.) Via Dan Mitchell, here’s a good video from Caleb Brown of the Cato Institute explaining the basics of real job creation and why government spending and regulation is a hindrance to that:

Seems straightforward enough to me. Maybe they should play it in the House just before Obama’s speech tonight.

PS: While they’re at it, maybe they should show Obama this report from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank comparing the effectiveness of Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics. Hmmm…

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Four reasons why big government is bad government

February 8, 2011

Via Dan Mitchell, here’s another video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity. This one explains why the growth of government is harmful to a nation’s prosperity:

Check out Mitchell’s post for some related interesting videos.

BTW: A message was making its way around Twitter last night; by “retweeting” it, one asks Speaker Boehner to post a live debt clock (like this one) in the House chamber. I like it.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Why a flat tax is a good idea

January 31, 2011

I believe I’ve posted this before, but, since tax season is fast approaching with all its wrangling over this rule and that deduction, I thought it worthwhile to offer again. In it, the Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell explains how a flat tax would work and why it would be better for the country than the current Byzantine system we have:

And, speaking of those Mitchell mentions who benefit from the current tax code, I’m sure the tax-prep industry would just hate this.

via International Liberty

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


An easy way to balance the budget without tax increases

October 5, 2010

The current deficit of the United States -the difference between the federal government’s expenditures and its revenues- is roughly 1.3 trillion dollars, according to the Department of Commerce. That’s how much the government has to borrow in order to finance crucial services, such as Barbara Boxer’s research trips. Members of the Statist Democratic Party tell us that the only way to close this deficit is to raise taxes, whether through higher levies on “the rich” (the definition of which is rather broad) or some form of a value-added tax on top of everything else, or a combination of both.

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute calls “bull” on this. In this short video, he shows how one could easily balance the budget by doing something almost unheard of in Washington: showing some restraint.

In earlier years, even the minimal method Dan recommends would have been almost unthinkable, let alone eliminate whole departments of the government. But, if the elections next month and in 2012 turn out to be the true populist, anti-establishment wave that it seems to be building into, we may yet see some restraint at least in Washington’s wastrel ways.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Econ 101: the perils of Moral Hazard

August 8, 2010

I’ve occasionally posted videos from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, an ally or affiliate of the libertarian Cato Institute, that touch on aspects of economics and why government intervention in the free market often causes more problems than it solves. In this offering, the speaker discusses “moral hazard,” in which government interventions provide incentives for people to engage in irresponsible behavior:

What I like about this series is that it teaches economics by focusing on human behavior, rather than abstruse formulae and obscure jargon, and I recommend taking the time to watch them all.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Get rid of the capital-gains tax

May 3, 2010

As an investor (and one who believes that private investment is the best way for Americans to secure their retirement), I’ve never liked the capital-gains tax.  Dan Mitchell presents another Center for Freedom and Prosperity video on why the CG tax should be eliminated:

Dan offers six reasons, and I think they’re all sound.

LINK: More at Hot Air.


Of public unions and state debt

April 4, 2010

Following up on this post, the Washington Examiner’s David Freddoso writes about a study done by the Cato Institute (PDF) that shows a strong positive correlation between the size of public-sector unions and per-capita state debt:

There are hundreds of reasons why states accrue debt. In some cases, it has to do with special programs they pursue. (See RomneyCare.) In others, it has to do with their method of taxation.

But the states with the highest per-capita debt all have something in common: Robust public-sector unions that have, over the years, cut sweetheart deals with politicians — usually, but not always, Democrats.

In the graph below, each blue square represents a state (some are labeled), plotted by its per-capita debt and the percentage of state and municipal workers in public sector unions.

(Click the graph for a larger view)

I’m not sure what the answer is to this problem, but a major problem it is because of both the corrupting influence unions wield over state officials anxious for campaign donations and the increasingly underfunded and over-generous pension systems. Something has to give somewhere, but, if human nature is a guide, it probably won’t until states start going bankrupt.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 14,948 other followers