I was sitting directly under a television in a Caribbean airport yesterday when Trump got inaugurated, so I inadvertently heard his speech.
The bad news is that Trump didn’t say much about liberty or the Constitution. And, unlike Reagan, he certainly didn’t have much to say about shrinking the size and scope of Washington.
On the other hand, he excoriated Washington insiders for lining their pockets at the expense of the overall nation. And if he’s serious about curtailing sleaze in DC, the only solution is smaller government.
But is that what Trump really believes? Does he intend to move policy in the right direction?
Well, as I’ve already confessed, I don’t know what to expect. The biggest wild card, at least for fiscal policy, is whether he’ll be serious about the problem of government spending. Especially entitlements.
“A couple details need fixed, but Tom Price’s plan and the Cassidy-Sessions Plan are on the right track. This is an important article that anyone should read who really wants to understand the economic issues AND the political issues surrounding healthcare reform as it related to repealing and replacing ObamaCare.” – R. Nelson, MD
“There is no practical way to achieve universal coverage by giving everyone a tax deduction for health insurance. The tax relief must be in the form of a credit and it must be refundable – allowing people access to it even if they owe no taxes. Yet refundable tax credits and the idea of universal coverage in general strike many in the Republican Party as socialism.
Price is of the view that we are going to end up subsidizing the health care of the poor and the indigent one way or the other. We can do it through cost shifting and subsidies conferred on impersonal hospital bureaucracies or we can give the money to the people and let the bureaucracies compete for their patronage. The Price tax credit would be refundable and it would vary by age. But unlike the Obamacare credits, Price’s credit would be the same, regardless of income.” – a quote by John C. Goodman, author of the article in Forbes below.
Elevators close on Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., as he arrives at Trump Tower, Wednesday, Nov. 16, 2016, in New York. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster) There are two things you need to know about Congressman Tom Price’s views on health policy : he believes in universal coverage and he believes in tax credits. Why […]
Have you ever wondered why there is a Department of Labor? Why isn’t the Department of Commerce enough to represent the interests of everyone in the business world? If something is good for commerce, that usually means businesses are growing and hiring and paying higher wages. Isn’t that also good for workers?
The idea that management and labor are invariably at odds is a Marxist idea. Which is to say, it’s outside mainstream economics. Similarly, the idea that government intervention can help labor in its struggle against management is also contradicted by what mainstream economists know. Labor market regulations that help some workers, often do so at the expense of other workers. More often than not, intervention makes all workers worse off.
What appears to deprive the populace of its power to decide a president is the very mechanism that preserves its power. The Electoral College works that way because the United States isn’t a pure democracy.
Despite controversies that rage over immigration, it is hard to see how anyone could be either for or against immigrants in general.
Both in the present and in the past, some immigrant groups have made great contributions to American society, and others have contributed mainly to the welfare rolls and the prisons. Nor is this situation unique to the United States. The same has been true of Sweden and of other countries in Europe and elsewhere.
Sweden was, for a long time, one of the most ethnically homogeneous countries in the world. As of 1940, only about one percent of the Swedish population were immigrants. Even as the proportion of immigrants increased over the years, as late as 1970 90 percent of foreign-born persons in Sweden had been born in other Scandinavian countries or in Western Europe.
These immigrants were usually well-educated, and often had higher labor force participation rates and lower unemployment rates than the native Swedes. That all began to change as the growing number of immigrants came increasingly from the Middle East, with Iraqis becoming the largest immigrant group in Sweden.
This changing trend was accompanied by a sharply increased use of the government’s “social assistance” program, from 6 percent in the pre-1976 era to 41 percent in the 1996-1999 period. But, even in this later period, fewer than 7 percent of the immigrants from Scandinavia and Western Europe used “social assistance,” while 44 percent of the immigrants from the Middle East used that welfare state benefit.
Immigrants, who were by this time 16 percent of Sweden’s population, had become 51 percent of the long-term unemployed and 57 percent of the people receiving welfare payments. The proportion of foreigners in prison was 5 times their proportion in the population of the country.
The entire video was very concise, lasting less than four minutes, so it only scratched the surface. For those seeking more information on the topic, I would add the following points.
- Businesses will never create jobs unless they expect that new employees will generate enough revenue to cover not only their wages, but also the cost of taxes, regulations, and mandates. This is why policies that sometimes sound nice (higher minimum wages, health insurance mandates, etc) actually are very harmful.
- Redistribution programs make leisure more attractive than labor. This is not only bad for the overall economy because of lower labor force participation. This is why policies that sometime sound nice (unemployment benefits,food stamps, health subsidies, etc) actually are very harmful.
The American economy is in the doldrums. And has been for most this century thanks to bad policy under both Obama and Bush. So what’s needed to boost growth and create jobs? A new video from …