A few weeks back the communications director for Tim Walberg called me to let me know that he felt I was misrepresenting the facts of a previous post of mine about a conversation I had with a staffer regarding government regulations. In essence I was told that Mr. Walberg was just gathering information about how regulations affect business and that there was no agenda behind the call.
What I fail to understand about this defense is that the Representative's own website has an article titled: "Rep Tim Walberg Focuses on Job-Destroying Regulations". It's clear he is against a litany of government regulations. Why run from that fact? If there is good rationale behind your objectives you should tout them.
Also during my conversation I was told that job creation is Tim Walberg's number one priority. When I asked for proof of that I was given two links. Here and here. Both of these links show that Tim Walberg is for cutting taxes and reducing regulations. This is hardly revolutionary thinking. It happens to be the same principles that George W. Bush governed under for 8 years. The record would indicate that job creation was dismal for those 8 years.
The reality is that Tim Walberg has sponsored two pieces of legislation. One on February 14th seeking a moratorium on Flood Insurance Rate Maps and one on February 16th basically preempting any regulations that the EPA may try and enforce. He has also signed on as a co-sponsor to a number of pieces of legislation but if you look though them you will see the vast majority of them are for restricting abortion, limiting restrictions on guns, reducing taxes, eliminating government regulations, and generally attempting to repeal anything that the President has supported. That is not to say that he hasn't co-sponsored or voted for any reasonable legislation but there is very little there to support the notion that Tim Walberg has made job creation his number one priority.
If you look at the second link above to Eric Cantor's "Jobs Legislation Tracker" you will see that 50% of what Republicans consider job creation legislation is in the reducing regulations category. While government regulations may cost jobs, like most everything else Republican legislators have gone after lately, the emphasis is not appropriate to the benefits. The number of jobs created by ending government regulations is relatively small when compared with something like infrastructure spending that the President will propose (and Republicans will oppose) next week.
Of course the thing that Tim Walberg and his Republican colleagues won't tell you is the costs for removing regulations. While government regulations may cost jobs and more money for tax payers, they don't cost lives. The gulf oil spill and the West Virginia mining accidents were due in part to a lack of a proper regulatory system. It should also be noted that the removal of regulations was a major contributor to the housing bubble that led to the most recent economic downturn, costing around 8 million jobs.
It would also be a mistake to focus solely on the costs of regulations without acknowledging the benefits. By continuing to reduce regulations we run the risk of serious public health issues like the Chinese toothpaste that was tainted with poison. By in large government regulations follow the government mandate of being "for the public good". Just because a regulation has detractors doesn't mean that it should be repealed.
The other point I would like to make is that in a recent survey of 250 economists who work in corporate America, 80% of the economists termed the currently regulatory environment as "good". The other 20% was split between "bad" and "unsure". If regulations are such a burden on corporate America shouldn't they be aware of this? It is tough to say that corporate America is being held back by government regulations when less than 20% of corporate America agrees with that statement.
In some sense I really wish Tim Walberg would admit that he has an agenda since then at least he could show he stands for something. By claiming to be impartial and then voting with Republicans 93% of the time while only sponsoring two pieces of legislation Tim Walberg has proven he is just a good solider, not a valued leader. In this political climate we need leaders with ideas otherwise rhetoric like jobs are number one come of sounding like number two.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Friday, August 19, 2011
German Economic
Over the past week my colleagues have been debating austerity measures and in particular the austerity measures of Germany. The basic assumption seems to be that Germany is a success story so we should emulate their methods if we hope to have similar success.
If you look at Germany's economic policies over the past couple years you will see that austerity was part of their solution but to suggest that their subsequent economic success proves or disproves the effects of austerity is an oversimplification.
In addition to cutting back on government spending Germany has taken a number of other steps to promote economic success, one of which Libby mentioned in a previous post, which kept people at work with the government picking up the tab for some of the lost wages. Germany is also looking at tax cuts but only for the low and middle class workers. In addition they passed two different stimulus packages which involved infrastructure spending as well as their version of cash for clunkers. They are also increasing revenue by adding taxes to different segments of the economy.
One other thing that should be noted is that in the New York Times article, quoted in this debate, the writer seems to give credit to an increase in the Germany retirement age for their economic success. That is fine except that the increase in the German retirement age has not occurred yet. It is scheduled to be phased in starting 2012 and fully integrated in 2029. I think it is a stretch to claim the future increase in retirement age as rational for the current recovery.
To the extent that Germany is an economic success story it has achieved this using a balanced approach. If only some American politicians would fight for a balanced approach so we could mimic the success of Germany.
If you look at Germany's economic policies over the past couple years you will see that austerity was part of their solution but to suggest that their subsequent economic success proves or disproves the effects of austerity is an oversimplification.
In addition to cutting back on government spending Germany has taken a number of other steps to promote economic success, one of which Libby mentioned in a previous post, which kept people at work with the government picking up the tab for some of the lost wages. Germany is also looking at tax cuts but only for the low and middle class workers. In addition they passed two different stimulus packages which involved infrastructure spending as well as their version of cash for clunkers. They are also increasing revenue by adding taxes to different segments of the economy.
One other thing that should be noted is that in the New York Times article, quoted in this debate, the writer seems to give credit to an increase in the Germany retirement age for their economic success. That is fine except that the increase in the German retirement age has not occurred yet. It is scheduled to be phased in starting 2012 and fully integrated in 2029. I think it is a stretch to claim the future increase in retirement age as rational for the current recovery.
To the extent that Germany is an economic success story it has achieved this using a balanced approach. If only some American politicians would fight for a balanced approach so we could mimic the success of Germany.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
BS Watch Update: Amy K. Nelson
In what was one of the most trafficked posts in the history of the Furriners blog, on March 2nd, I called out Amy K. Nelson for saying on Jim Rome Is Burning that the New York Yankees had "no shot" at the postseason.
Well, we are at the 3/4 poll here on August 16th. Let's review the standings:
On winning percentage, the best team in baseball is the Philadelphia Phillies (.655).
The best team in the American League is the Boston Red Sox (.617).
The New York Yankees, whom Ms. Nelson claimed had "no shot" at the playoffs, have the third best record (.613). They are a 1/2 game behind the Red Sox in the A.L. East. Perhaps more relevant is if you look at the Wild Card Standings (which will actually determine if they make the playoffs), the Yankees have a 9.5 game lead over their nearest competitor!!! In other words, it would take a Jason Dufner-esque collapse for the Yankees to NOT make the playoffs.
Nice call, Amy!!
(I told you so)
Well, we are at the 3/4 poll here on August 16th. Let's review the standings:
On winning percentage, the best team in baseball is the Philadelphia Phillies (.655).
The best team in the American League is the Boston Red Sox (.617).
The New York Yankees, whom Ms. Nelson claimed had "no shot" at the playoffs, have the third best record (.613). They are a 1/2 game behind the Red Sox in the A.L. East. Perhaps more relevant is if you look at the Wild Card Standings (which will actually determine if they make the playoffs), the Yankees have a 9.5 game lead over their nearest competitor!!! In other words, it would take a Jason Dufner-esque collapse for the Yankees to NOT make the playoffs.
Nice call, Amy!!
(I told you so)
Texas taxes
Now that Governor Rick Perry has thrown his hat into the Republican Presidential candidate ring there is certain to be a lot of talk about an odd phenomenon over the last few years where Texas has created as many as 50% (depending on what report you read) of the new jobs since the start of the Bush recession.
While there are a number of explanations for this "Texas Miracle" the only one that I have really heard people latch onto is the corporate tax rates in Texas.
If the dogma surrounding taxes is that less is better then Texas can not be your star pupil. According to the Tax Foundation Texas ranks 13th in the nation for corporate tax climates. If you believe the lower taxes explain job creation, as Rick Perry supporters would have you believe, then Texas should at least be in the top 3 if not number one.
Even if you do use a source that puts Texas near the top of the tax climate ladder, such as the Small Business & Entrepreneur Council, and compare that with the recent Gallup job creation index you will see there is no correlation between job creation and corporate tax rates. The same is true of corporate tax rates and unemployment.
Claiming low tax rates as a rational for job creation is very simple and easy for people to latch on to. The data, however does not support this view. If creating jobs was as easy as low corporate tax rates you can be sure that Rick Perry would not have been the first elected official to think of it.
The reality is that job creation is a complicated animal. While that may not play well with the simple minded who want to coalesce around an obvious and easy answer, understanding that economic success is a complex issue gives us a much better chance of succeeding as a country than vacuous rhetoric.
While there are a number of explanations for this "Texas Miracle" the only one that I have really heard people latch onto is the corporate tax rates in Texas.
If the dogma surrounding taxes is that less is better then Texas can not be your star pupil. According to the Tax Foundation Texas ranks 13th in the nation for corporate tax climates. If you believe the lower taxes explain job creation, as Rick Perry supporters would have you believe, then Texas should at least be in the top 3 if not number one.
Even if you do use a source that puts Texas near the top of the tax climate ladder, such as the Small Business & Entrepreneur Council, and compare that with the recent Gallup job creation index you will see there is no correlation between job creation and corporate tax rates. The same is true of corporate tax rates and unemployment.
Claiming low tax rates as a rational for job creation is very simple and easy for people to latch on to. The data, however does not support this view. If creating jobs was as easy as low corporate tax rates you can be sure that Rick Perry would not have been the first elected official to think of it.
The reality is that job creation is a complicated animal. While that may not play well with the simple minded who want to coalesce around an obvious and easy answer, understanding that economic success is a complex issue gives us a much better chance of succeeding as a country than vacuous rhetoric.
Don't Quit Your Day Job, Mr. Duke!
It can be an interesting phenomenon when you come across a pundit or media figure whose politics are unknown. It strips away any preconceptions you may have before the person even opens his or her mouth.
For example, the first time I ran across Glenn Beck on TV. This was before he was "The Glenn Beck" - the Fox News host that some love and many love to hate. He was just some guy who was on HLN. I was on a cruise and HLN was basically the only channel available in my room. So I watched him for a little while and thought this guy is an idiot. I stand by that initial impression. And you can add to that my more recently formed impression that Mr. Beck is a total huckster.
It has been noted several times on this blog in the past that I am a loyal viewer of Fareed Zakaria GPS. They (almost) always have very intelligent guests with rational points of view on the topics of the day (the recent appearance of Ann Coulter notwithstanding). However, on Sunday's show, there was a discussion about the rioting in London (and other English cities) and Fareed welcomed a guest named David Goodhart. He was introduced as the founder and editor of Prospect magazine. I had not heard of it. I have no idea what it covers, any ideological slant it may or may not have, if it's any good, etc.
Anyway, Fareed asks the question to Mr. Goodheart:
FZ: Why is this (the riots in London) going on? Why is this happening right now?
The reply (mildly edited for space and clarity):
DG: We have a lot of problems in the our inner cities... there is a whole culture of nihilism amongst a hardcore people in the inner city. A lot of it comes from the black hip-hop and rap culture, which was picked up by the white kids as well. This idea that you cannot make it in straight society so violent transgression is really the only thing to do.
How about that?
White kids and young adults are rioting in London and it's the fault of black culture?!?!
And I don't think you have to have a PhD in Sociology to wonder why, when hip-hop and rap are also popular in the United States (not to mention other countries throughout the world), are the other countries not experiencing such rioting? If there is a cause and effect relationship, shouldn't there be rioting in Detroit?
It is also worth pointing out (hopefully without stepping on my previous point) that there has been rioting throughout history. There have been countless reasons to trigger flash riots (some "better" than others: think the travesty of justice of the acquittal of the officers who beat Rodney King compared to the Los Angeles Lakers winning an NBA Championship). So, in that sense, I would concede that a cultural phenomenon can play a role. Yet, it still begs the question, why there and not "here"? And why now?
I consider those to be interesting questions that merit intelligent conversation on a show like GPS. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Mr. Goodheart does not seem fit for such a role.
For example, the first time I ran across Glenn Beck on TV. This was before he was "The Glenn Beck" - the Fox News host that some love and many love to hate. He was just some guy who was on HLN. I was on a cruise and HLN was basically the only channel available in my room. So I watched him for a little while and thought this guy is an idiot. I stand by that initial impression. And you can add to that my more recently formed impression that Mr. Beck is a total huckster.
It has been noted several times on this blog in the past that I am a loyal viewer of Fareed Zakaria GPS. They (almost) always have very intelligent guests with rational points of view on the topics of the day (the recent appearance of Ann Coulter notwithstanding). However, on Sunday's show, there was a discussion about the rioting in London (and other English cities) and Fareed welcomed a guest named David Goodhart. He was introduced as the founder and editor of Prospect magazine. I had not heard of it. I have no idea what it covers, any ideological slant it may or may not have, if it's any good, etc.
Anyway, Fareed asks the question to Mr. Goodheart:
FZ: Why is this (the riots in London) going on? Why is this happening right now?
The reply (mildly edited for space and clarity):
DG: We have a lot of problems in the our inner cities... there is a whole culture of nihilism amongst a hardcore people in the inner city. A lot of it comes from the black hip-hop and rap culture, which was picked up by the white kids as well. This idea that you cannot make it in straight society so violent transgression is really the only thing to do.
How about that?
White kids and young adults are rioting in London and it's the fault of black culture?!?!
And I don't think you have to have a PhD in Sociology to wonder why, when hip-hop and rap are also popular in the United States (not to mention other countries throughout the world), are the other countries not experiencing such rioting? If there is a cause and effect relationship, shouldn't there be rioting in Detroit?
It is also worth pointing out (hopefully without stepping on my previous point) that there has been rioting throughout history. There have been countless reasons to trigger flash riots (some "better" than others: think the travesty of justice of the acquittal of the officers who beat Rodney King compared to the Los Angeles Lakers winning an NBA Championship). So, in that sense, I would concede that a cultural phenomenon can play a role. Yet, it still begs the question, why there and not "here"? And why now?
I consider those to be interesting questions that merit intelligent conversation on a show like GPS. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Mr. Goodheart does not seem fit for such a role.
Warren Buffett on taxing the rich
Given the vast wealth and subsequent power of his voice it should come as no surprise that a couple of posts have already been made here about Warren Buffett's recent editorial regarding taxes on the rich.
Unfortunately Nolan Finley completely misses the point in his article. Nolan has taken the stance that because Mr. Buffett feels that he, and more importantly those like him, "should" pay more taxes means that he "wants" to pay more taxes. Mr. Buffett is pointing out that thanks to tax loopholes (mainly capital gains tax rules) he and others like him actually pay a very low percentage compared to the rest of us.
Mr. Buffett thinks this is unfair and would like to see it corrected. Could Mr. Buffett voluntarily pay more taxes? Sure. But that is not the point. Our system is set up to benefit the super rich and legislators continue to legislate under the myths of wealth and taxes that Mr. Buffett debunks in his article.
Boiling Warren Buffett's editorial down to an oversimplified view of he "wants" to pay more taxes does the piece a disservice, since that takes it from a rational discussion of the current issues with our tax system to an ideological talking point.
Tax issues such as the ones Mr. Buffett addresses are in no small way part of the debt ceiling debate that we just endured as well as the larger ongoing national debt concern. Trivializing the views of a respected businessman simply because they don't fit your narrative is not how we reach consensus on solutions to our economic issues.
By the way, Warren Buffett is not the only super rich American to suggest that the rich should pay more taxes. So do Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Ted Turner, Tom Steyer, Morris Pearl, Mark Cuban, Michael Steinhardt, Doug Liman, Garrett Gruener, and over 100 other millionaires.
Unfortunately Nolan Finley completely misses the point in his article. Nolan has taken the stance that because Mr. Buffett feels that he, and more importantly those like him, "should" pay more taxes means that he "wants" to pay more taxes. Mr. Buffett is pointing out that thanks to tax loopholes (mainly capital gains tax rules) he and others like him actually pay a very low percentage compared to the rest of us.
Mr. Buffett thinks this is unfair and would like to see it corrected. Could Mr. Buffett voluntarily pay more taxes? Sure. But that is not the point. Our system is set up to benefit the super rich and legislators continue to legislate under the myths of wealth and taxes that Mr. Buffett debunks in his article.
Boiling Warren Buffett's editorial down to an oversimplified view of he "wants" to pay more taxes does the piece a disservice, since that takes it from a rational discussion of the current issues with our tax system to an ideological talking point.
Tax issues such as the ones Mr. Buffett addresses are in no small way part of the debt ceiling debate that we just endured as well as the larger ongoing national debt concern. Trivializing the views of a respected businessman simply because they don't fit your narrative is not how we reach consensus on solutions to our economic issues.
By the way, Warren Buffett is not the only super rich American to suggest that the rich should pay more taxes. So do Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Ted Turner, Tom Steyer, Morris Pearl, Mark Cuban, Michael Steinhardt, Doug Liman, Garrett Gruener, and over 100 other millionaires.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Blind Spot or Wilfull Disbelief?
I'm apparently the only pundit in the whole country who thinks that Sarah Palin is running for president this year - but I'm sorry, Sarah Palin keeps really acting like she is running. --- Rachel Maddow, 8/11/11
I don't get this. Is it feasible that a pundit could think Sarah Palin is going to eventually jump into the 2012 presidential race? Yes. I suppose that is possible. However, what I find entirely inconsistent with Ms. Maddow's logic is that she was the same pundit who spent the winter asserting that Newt Gingrich was "faking it" when he was indicating that he was going to run... that he was essentially only trying to seem to be a potential candidate so that he could continue to get high profile Sunday morning news show guest spots and, more importantly, so he could monetize his seeming relevance (i.e. so he could scam the gullible out of their money).
If you ask me, that is EXACTLY what Sarah Palin is doing! And yet Ms. Maddow doesn't see it? I don't get it.
Sarah Palin is not hiring significant staff. She is not raising a significant amount of money. All she is doing (with, for example, her trek to the Iowa State Fair this weekend) is trying to protect her "brand" without doing any actual hard work.
It is, by all accounts, a serious pain-in-the-ass to credibily run for President. That is more work than Sarah Palin is willing to do right now.
Rachel Maddow should know that.
Monday, August 8, 2011
47% revisited
Back in February I put together a post on the oft used statistic that 47% of Americans pay no Federal income tax. When I pointed out that the report by the Tax Policy Center, where this statistic originated, showed - 1.5% of American taxpayers making over one million dollars a year don't pay any taxes. This is also true of 2% of Americans making between $200,000 and $1 million and 3.5% of Americans making between $100,000 and $200,000." one commenter said I was playing "fast and loose with facts." and that "Opinions aren't facts." Apparently the commenter never bothered to read to original report.
It now seems that some of the national media outlets, in the storm of the debt ceiling debate, have taken a second look at this report (here and here) and are pointing out how we have millionaires who pay zero federal income tax and Republican legislators vowing not to increase taxes by a single penny.
The good news is that this information is finally getting out there to an electorate that has been asked to accept shared sacrifice as long as that sharing doesn't include the rich. The bad news is that our current political landscape is too political to make the obvious choices and actually close the tax loopholes that allow the rich to avoid all Federal income taxes.
It now seems that some of the national media outlets, in the storm of the debt ceiling debate, have taken a second look at this report (here and here) and are pointing out how we have millionaires who pay zero federal income tax and Republican legislators vowing not to increase taxes by a single penny.
The good news is that this information is finally getting out there to an electorate that has been asked to accept shared sacrifice as long as that sharing doesn't include the rich. The bad news is that our current political landscape is too political to make the obvious choices and actually close the tax loopholes that allow the rich to avoid all Federal income taxes.
Friday, August 5, 2011
The people's representative?
I was recently contacted by Tim Walberg's office to discuss how regulations are affecting our business. The conversation went something like this.
Staffer: Mr. Hansen, we have a short survey that we are giving Michigan businesses about regulations that I wanted to see if you would be interested in participating in. Also after the survey you will be allowed to leave a message with any additional thoughts.
Me: Sounds good.
Staffer: What regulations are giving your company troubles?
Me: None really. We are compliant with the regulations for our company both State and Federal.
Staffer: Oh. OK. Well I guess I can skip a bunch of questions here since they are mainly all about the difficulties Michigan businesses are experiencing with regulations.
Staffer: Well actually it looks like that is all we have for you today. Is there anything else you would like to share with Representative Walberg?
Me: I have an issue with Mr. Walberg's stance on Capital Gains taxes but it sounds like that is not really what this call is about.
Staffer: No. Not really.
Me: The only other thing I would say is that the recent obsession with tax cuts for companies is not something we support and really has no benefit for us as far as hiring new employees. We noticed an increase in business from programs like Cash for Clunkers and would prefer see more programs like this.
Staffer: OK. Well, I appreciate your time. Have a good day.
This survey was specifically set up to take a perceived problem of Mr. Walberg and find examples of it, not to understand the problems that businesses within his district would like to see addressed. I had always assumed that being a Representative meant that Mr. Walberg would be interested in how he can help represent the concerns of our business not how our business can help represent his concerns.
On a side note I assume there must have been a glitch in their system since I was never given the chance to leave a message with my additional thoughts.
Staffer: Mr. Hansen, we have a short survey that we are giving Michigan businesses about regulations that I wanted to see if you would be interested in participating in. Also after the survey you will be allowed to leave a message with any additional thoughts.
Me: Sounds good.
Staffer: What regulations are giving your company troubles?
Me: None really. We are compliant with the regulations for our company both State and Federal.
Staffer: Oh. OK. Well I guess I can skip a bunch of questions here since they are mainly all about the difficulties Michigan businesses are experiencing with regulations.
Staffer: Well actually it looks like that is all we have for you today. Is there anything else you would like to share with Representative Walberg?
Me: I have an issue with Mr. Walberg's stance on Capital Gains taxes but it sounds like that is not really what this call is about.
Staffer: No. Not really.
Me: The only other thing I would say is that the recent obsession with tax cuts for companies is not something we support and really has no benefit for us as far as hiring new employees. We noticed an increase in business from programs like Cash for Clunkers and would prefer see more programs like this.
Staffer: OK. Well, I appreciate your time. Have a good day.
This survey was specifically set up to take a perceived problem of Mr. Walberg and find examples of it, not to understand the problems that businesses within his district would like to see addressed. I had always assumed that being a Representative meant that Mr. Walberg would be interested in how he can help represent the concerns of our business not how our business can help represent his concerns.
On a side note I assume there must have been a glitch in their system since I was never given the chance to leave a message with my additional thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
