Via Heritage:
The bulk of Taxmageddon comes from expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, but also means the child tax credit will be cut in half, the Alternative Minimum Tax patches end, the Death Tax returns to its 2001 level, and a handful of new Obamacare tax hikes take effect.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Way to go Congress…
Yep, here in Michigan we are overtaxed.
Total state tax revenues are up by nearly $300 million since they were last estimated by state officials in January, according to consensus estimates agreed upon Wednesday by state economists and Treasurer Andy Dillon.
The increase over January projections is due to greater-than-expected sales and business taxes, combined with a decrease in cash assistance and Medicaid caseloads reported by the state departments of human services and community health.
Revenue into the School Aid Fund declined 3.3 percent to $10.87 billion, while the general fund grew by 0.6 percent to $19.94 billion in fiscal year 2011-12. The total growth in School Aid and General Fund revenue was $9.06 billion, or 2.6 percent.
Growth is School Aid and General Fund revenue is expected to dip by 1 percent in the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, though combined School Aid and General Fund revenues will increase by 1 percent to $20.13 billion.
Gov. Rick Snyder will seek to spend the additional money on one-time expenses due to the temporary nature of the extra funds, state Budget Director John Nixon said after the estimates were announced.
“It’s not like we’ve got a windfall today,” Nixon said.
The state of Michigan overtaxed its residents by over $300 million and, rather than devise a plan to return the money to the people through a tax cut next year (helping the state economy in the process), Michigan’s governor is planning to burn through Michigan taxpayers money.
But don’t worry, our governor and his crew will spend our money on “one-time” expenses.
It’s good seeing the concept of Federalism being discussed again (surprisingly by a Romney adviser) in political circles:
For much the same reason, competition among governments leads to better governance. In choosing where to live, people can compare public services and taxes. They are attracted to towns that use tax dollars wisely. Competition keeps town managers alert. It prevents governments from exerting substantial monopoly power over residents. If people feel that their taxes exceed the value of their public services, they can go elsewhere. They can, as economists put it, vote with their feet.
The argument applies not only to people but also to capital. Because capital is more mobile than labor, competition among governments significantly constrains how capital is taxed. Corporations benefit from various government services, including infrastructure, the protection of property rights and the enforcement of contracts. But if taxes vastly exceed these benefits, businesses can — and often do — move to places offering a better mix of taxes and services.
Not only does Federalism create competition between local governments, it allows for more decisions being made at the lowest levels of government, pushing more decisions closer to home.
Federalism is a brilliant concept in that it’s the most effective way for groups of people to organize and operate. In government, business, military or even in team sports, the most effective organizations push decisions to the lowest levels of that organization possible.
A good example of pushing decisions to the lowest level is football. Some of the most important decisions in a game are the “tackle calls” made by offensive lineman. The linemen need to quickly adjust blocking schemes just prior to the snap to pick up defensive stunts, changes in alignment and blitzes. At that point in the game, there is no time for the coach to change the play. The decisions must be made by the players on the field.
In much the same way, a Federalist government pushes more decisions closer to home. This allows for more effective decisions being made by the people most affected by the decisions rather than having decisions made by the bureaucracy in Washington.
After nearly four years of Obama, people understand the importance of Federalism.
A short (but excellent) video explaining how free market economics play a role in natural resource development and management.
An extra big tip O’ the hat to Peter for finding the video.
All day today, it seems everywhere you looked the Romney faction (media elites and party insiders) have declared victory in the Michigan primary.
Via MLive:
Romney’s victory sets him up as the clear front-runner heading into next week’s Super Tuesday, snatching momentum from chief rival Rick Santorum in a contest that was more expensive and nastier than he likely imagined.
But the battle allowed Romney to “unleash his superior organization,” as one scholar described it, flexing his financial muscle to the tune of $6 million. While the former Massachusetts governor might have preferred to use those resources later, it was available to tap when he needed it most.
“For Santorum to keep fighting seems like it is delaying the inevitable, almost to the point of being counter-productive for the party,” said Whitt Kilburn, a Grand Valley State University political science professor. “It seems that Romney is going to get the nomination unless he totally collapses.”
Sure, this is all fine and good except Romney and Santorum split Michigan’s 30 delegates 15 each.
Delegates and not the popular vote count toward the nomination. It takes 1144 delegates to win the GOP nomination. When you look at the delegate count to-date, Romney has 149 delegates or 13% of the required to Santorum 86 delegates (7.5% of the required total).
In today’s Twilight Zone political environment, a tie is called a win (for Romney) and a 63 delegate lead (with 2002 delegates still up for grabs) somehow makes Romney a clear front-runner.
It is such a political Twilight Zone, you would think the media and the political elites are in the tank for Romney.
Nahhh… That can’t be happening.
One of my all-time favorite political blogs, PowerLine, is in overdrive pushing Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination.
According to PowerLine, it seems Republicans are foolish to not support Mitt Romney:
Is this the Democratic Party’s dream, or what? In a national poll that came out today, Santorum is leading Mitt Romney by eight points among likely Republican voters. Can Republicans possibly be that foolish? Is it conceivable that a president with Obama’s lousy record could coast to victory, virtually by default, because the Republicans nominate a candidate who would rather talk about gynecology than debt?
Sorry PowerLine. The left wants, and is doing its best, to ensure Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee. No matter who challenges Romney, the left wing media will drive the narrative to the most inane and insignificant minutia in an effort to destroy the Romney rival.
It is plainly obvious throughout the primary process, whoever challenges Romney becomes the target of some of the most trivial nonsense, forcing him or her to spend precious time deflecting attacks rather than discussing issues.
As us non-insider, non party elites understand. Once Romney becomes our nominee, the media will turn on Mitt. He will be destroyed within weeks by relentless left wing media attacks.
His first interview after securing the GOP nomination will go something like this:
Media Elite (ME): Mr. Romney, when you were governor of Massachusetts you signed into law a single payer, state-run, mandatory health care plan…
Mitt Romney (MR): Wait… Let me clarify. This was a state issue and the people of our state wanted this. As you know, I’m a big states rights, 10th Amendment supporter.
ME: When given the option you supported, and signed into law, a big government program. Since you are running as a conservative, why didn’t you take a free market approach similar to Governor Rick Perry took in reforming health care in Texas?
MR: Like I said, this was a state issue and I’m a big states rights, 10th Amendment supporter.
ME: Mr. Romney, you are running on the issue that you understand the economy. However when faced with an economic problem such as rising health care costs, you implemented government-run health care that, in a short 6 years, has become a financial disaster for Massachusetts. How do you explain your claim of economic expertise in light of the financial collapse of your signature legislation while Governor of Massachusetts?
MR: This was a state issue… And I’m a big states rights supporter?
ME: Mr. Romney, you claim to be a conservative, yet your signature accomplishment while Governor is the implementation of a very non-conservative piece of legislation. How can you reassure conservatives that if elected President that you will advocate a conservative agenda?
MR: I’m a big states rights… I’ve got nothing.
ME: You got that right.
Can PowerLine writers possibly be that foolish to be in the tank for Mitt Romney?
Thaddeus McCotter sent me this great video. Be sure to watch it to the end.
When you see nonsense such as this:
Democrats call for broader investigation into banks’ foreclosure processes
…….
Meanwhile, Maryland Democrat Elijah Cummings, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asking him to bring high-ranking executives from the nation’s biggest mortgage banks to Capitol Hill testify about foreclosure abuses.
“Rather than using its substantial investigative powers to protect American consumers from the abuses of banks, the committee has focused instead on attacking the new agency created by Congress to protect these same consumers,” Cummings wrote.
Miller said the settlement won’t likely include enough relief for those who are underwater on their mortgages. He and Brown said they don’t yet know what mortgages are subject to the settlement because negotiations are ongoing.
But markets don’t “fail.” They respond rationally, quickly and often brutally to conditions as they find them. If they see a shortage of supply or an excess of demand, they’ll drive prices higher. Conversely, excess supply or falling demand drives prices lower. If you’re looking for villains, examine why supply is constricted or inflated or why demand is stifled or encouraged. But don’t blame the markets for responding accordingly.
Politicians, on the other hand, do.
For example, the onset of the financial crisis three or four years ago was largely due in the US and the UK to excessive demand for mortgages from people who couldn’t afford them. In the US, this was driven by government mandates to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to do just that – pump up demand for housing. In the UK, tight restrictions on construction limited supply to a market that quite rationally came to believe home ownership was a sound substitute for more productive investment.
In both cases, the bankers’ cost of funding was distorted by deliberately low official interest-rate policies, the implicit knowledge they wouldn’t be allowed to fail and lax competition enforcement that led to the likes of Royal Bank of Scotland swallowing up competitors. The logical response by the markets was to divert money to housing, just as the politicians wanted.
How could anyone think government is going to solve this, or any other economic mess, when the government created the mess in the first place.
According to economist at ASI, mass employment in factory’s is going the way of the horse and buggy:
It’s a consitent trope from those over on the mouth breathing left, that everything would just be better if we did more manufacturing in the UK. More specifically, that if we just had more manufacturing then everyone would be employed. Which would be so nice, wouldn’t it?
The problem with this is that mass employment in manufacturing just isn’t coming back. Ever.
Manufacturing output in the UK kept going up until 2005 or so (with variations for recessions, to be sure). Manufacturing output in the US is still going up and I don’t think anyone needs to be reminded that manufacturing output in China is rising. However, rising output does not mean more jobs. Not necessarily at least.
Not only are increases in productivity curbing growth within the manufacturing sector. As pointed out last may here at MCT, manufacturing as a percentage of the US and global GDP has steadily declined over the last 40+ years.
As a result, even China has lost manufacturing jobs
Yes, China is losing manufacturing jobs. The world as a whole is losing manufacturing jobs. The cause is exactly the same thing that led to the loss of agricultural jobs 80 to 90 years ago: increasing productivity in that activity.
Remember this the next time a politician rants about ‘creating more manufacturing jobs here in the US.’ Because, the only way this will happen is if the government creates subsidized works projects. Like Solyndra.
I’m still in the ‘anybody be Romney’ camp as far as 2012 goes. Furthermore, I’m not sold on Newt however, I really like this video.
