Originally published at American Institute for Economic Research.
The Economist recently compared Joe Biden’s and Donald Trump’s economic records, concluding Biden wins so far. While the article raises valid points, it excludes key details that make the findings questionable. Ten months from now, there’s a high likelihood Biden and Trump could go head-to-head again for the presidency, especially after the results from the Iowa caucus. But voters should be informed about the effects of their policies on key issues like immigration, inflation, and wages. Starting with a divisive bang, let’s look at each leader’s track record concerning immigration. The Economist correctly noted that apprehensions along the southern border were much lower under Trump. They increased by the most in 12 years during the economic expansion of 2019, decreased early in the COVID-19 pandemic when people could be turned away for public health concerns, and rose again during the lockdowns. While some may see apprehensions rising between Trump and Biden as a loss for Biden, I see it as a loss for both. This metric is somewhat unreliable, given one person can be caught and counted multiple times, and those caught are a subset of total migrants. The truth is immigration is good for the economy, but government failures create unnecessarily complex barriers against legal immigration, contributing to the humanitarian crisis along the Mexico border today. Neither President has pushed for what’s needed (market-based immigration reforms) both lose. Inflation is another hot topic, especially for Biden. The Economist hands the win to Trump, as inflation was far lower during his presidency. But can we give him the credit? Remember, Trump pressured the Federal Reserve to reduce its interest rate target and expand its balance sheet, which was inflationary. His deficit spending skyrocketed during the lockdowns and was mostly monetized by the Federal Reserve, contributing to what was always going to be persistent inflation. Biden made this deficit spending and resulting inflation much worse. Add in the Fed’s many questionable decisions, such as doubling its assets, cutting and maintaining a zero interest rate target for too long, and focusing too much on woke nonsense, and we can see how this was always going to be persistent inflation. But even the Fed’s latest projections indicate it won’t hit its average inflation target of two percent until at least 2026. Likely, it will cut the current federal funds rate target range of 5.25 percent to 5.5 percent three times this year, keep a bloated balance sheet to finance massive budget deficits, and run record losses. If so, this inflation projection is too rosy. Some of Trump’s policies helped stabilize prices, including his tax and regulation reductions. But he still allowed egregious spending. Biden has doubled down on red ink that has contributed to the recent 40-year-high inflation rate. While inflation has been moderating recently under Biden, Trump gets the win. Of course, neither Presidents nor Congress control inflation, as that job is the Fed’s, but its fiscal policies influence it. When it comes to inflation-adjusted wages, The Economist grants a tie. Let’s consider real average weekly earnings that include hourly earnings and hours worked per week, adjusted for the chained consumer price index, which adjusts for the substitution bias and has been used for indexing federal tax brackets since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Trump’s era witnessed a robust upward trajectory of real earnings, with considerable gains by lower-income earners, thereby reducing income inequality. We must acknowledge a real wage spike in 2020 during Trump’s lockdowns, marked by the loss of 22 million jobs and various challenges. To maintain a fair analysis, I disregard this spike. A year later, real wages demonstrated a decline under Biden. Extending the timeframe to two years later, real wages remain relatively flat to slightly increased. To provide a contextual understanding, when we consider the trend under Trump, excluding the 2020 spike, real wages for all private workers or production and nonsupervisory workers fall below those observed during Biden. It’s worth noting, however, that these wages have been higher since 2019, albeit nearly stagnant for all private workers. Given real earnings, I agree with The Economist that Trump and Biden are tied. While much more can be said for each President’s policies, continuing to add context when making assessments is crucial. I give Trump a nuanced “win” overall because his policies supported more flourishing during his first three years until the terrible mistake of the COVID lockdowns, with its huge, long-term costs. I should note that I made a strong case inside the White House for no shutdowns and less government spending but, alas, my efforts, and those by others, lost to Fauci, Birx, and Trump. Given the improved purchasing power during his presidency, Trump receives better poll ratings than Biden after three years of their presidencies. But this win doesn’t mean that Trump’s record is best regarding these issues, protectionism, and more. Let’s hope free-market capitalism, the best path to let people prosper, is on display this November, no matter who is on the ballot.
0 Comments
Today, I reveal the TRUTH about the Iowa Caucus results, how TX expanding Medicaid for mothers will impact poverty, new data supporting the problem of government safety nets, and lots more.
I cover the following in less than 13 minutes: 1) National:
Bible Verse of the Week. Please reach out to me if I can be of service to you! Today, we discuss:
1) Why South Carolina was the fastest-growing state in 2023; 2) How SC leads the way in low supplemental poverty and abundant opportunities to prosper; and 3) Why the newly released 2025 SC Sustainable Budget would take South Carolina to the top. Today, we discuss:
1) How U.S. health care evolved away from a free-market system and the importance of restoring consumer control; 2) How to reduce health care costs and improve quality by reducing regulations and subsidies; and 3) The importance of reining in health care costs of Medicare and Medicaid to reduce government spending and balance the federal budget. I cover the following in less than 12 minutes:
1) National:
Originally posted at South Carolina Policy Council. Thanks to a robust state economy, plentiful business opportunities, and a relatively low cost of living, South Carolina remains one of the fastest-growing states in the nation. To maintain this strong position and promote further growth, it is crucial for S.C. legislators to limit state spending and reduce the government’s burden on taxpayers. The S.C. Policy Council created the South Carolina Sustainable Budget (SCSB) to assist in this effort. The SCSB is a maximum limit on annual recurring general funds[1] appropriations based on the rate of state population growth plus inflation. First published in 2022 and again in early 2023, it has served as a data-driven resource to help rein in unsustainable spending and provide more opportunities for tax relief. Unfortunately, the state did not adhere to the SCSB limit of $11.20 billion for its fiscal year (FY) 2024 budget; instead, it appropriated $11.64 billion – a 12.56% increase above the FY23 base of $10.34 billion. To turn the tide of excessive budget growth and provide more room for tax relief, the Policy Council is issuing its third SCSB. Table 1 provides the results outlined in this report for the FY25 SCSB. Table 1. The FY25 South Carolina Sustainable Budget for Appropriations of Recurring General Funds Based on population and inflation data in 2023, the recommended recurring general funds appropriations limit[2] for South Carolina’s FY25 budget is $12.27 billion. With inflation moderating somewhat since reaching a 40-year high in 2022, primarily because of the errant policies in D.C., the SCSB ceiling is higher than it would be under normal economic circumstances. For example, the average annual rate of population growth plus inflation since 2013 has been 3.78%. Accordingly, the S.C. Legislature should consider freezing spending at the current FY24 budget of $11.64 billion. This would help correct recent overspending in the state’s budget and help put the state on a more sustainable budget path. It would also leave more money available for needed tax relief. At a minimum, recurring general fund appropriations in the FY25 budget must remain below $12.27 billion. Overview A sustainable budget – sometimes called a conservative or responsible budget – is a model for state budgeting that sets a maximum limit on appropriations or spending based on the rate of population growth plus inflation. This metric serves as an indicator of what the average taxpayer can afford to pay for government provisions. It accounts for 1) More people in the state who could potentially pay taxes; 2) Wage growth that’s typically tied to inflation over time to pay taxes; and 3) Economies of scale, as not every new person or wage increase should be associated with new government spending. The SCSB does not make specific recommendations on how general funds should be appropriated in the budget. Instead, it gives legislators the flexibility to appropriate taxpayer dollars to government programs as determined by the General Assembly, while ensuring that spending growth remains in line with what people can afford. Such a voluntary spending limit is key to putting South Carolina in a position for further tax relief. In 2022, Gov. Henry McMaster and lawmakers enacted the first-ever state personal income tax cut, which immediately reduced the top rate from 7% to 6.5% and collapsed the lower bracket to 3%. It also scheduled additional yearly 0.1% cuts to the top rate until it reaches 6%, though general fund revenues must project at least 5% annual growth for the cuts to trigger. The problem with this approach is that it relies on continued revenue growth to deliver incremental tax relief. Following the SCSB would help to accelerate this process, freeing up revenue to buy down the top rate to 6% immediately and fueling other tax cuts. On the other hand, unsustainable spending could build pressure to reverse course and raise taxes, leaving South Carolinians with fewer opportunities to flourish. SC Appropriations vs. Sustainable Budget Figure 1 compares the previous twelve years[3] of South Carolina’s recurring general fund budget appropriations (FY13 to FY24) to those appropriations when limited each year to the rate of population growth plus inflation. Figure 1. South Carolina General Fund Appropriations v. SCSB 12-year GF appropriations: $98.5 billion (+91.1%) 12-year GF appropriations limited to population growth + inflation: $86.5 billion (+50.0%) Notes. Budget amounts are based on data from South Carolina’s state budget publications, Fed FRED for state population growth and U.S. chained-CPI inflation, and authors’ calculations. Appropriations did not increase from FY20 to FY21 because the state operated on a continuing resolution in FY21.[4] Key takeaways (see Table 2):
Note. Budget amounts are based on data from South Carolina’s state budget publications, Fed FRED for state population growth and U.S. chained-CPI inflation, and authors’ calculations. These data provide clear evidence that there is room for the state to limit spending growth to reduce taxes substantially. South Carolina has been one of the 25 states in the last three years to cut income taxes, which has helped the state improve compared to its neighbors. However, North Carolina recently passed legislation that could eventually bring their income tax rate to 2.49%, which would be the lowest in the country, excluding the seven states without personal income taxes. On that list are Florida and Tennessee, two major competitors for jobs and investment in the Southeast. South Carolina could improve its position by passing sustainable budgets and using the surplus revenue to cut taxes, especially income taxes. See Table A in the Appendix for more comparisons of South Carolina with other states. Follow the SC Sustainable Budget We strongly encourage legislators to follow the SCSB when drafting South Carolina’s FY25 budget. As a data-driven resource, the SCSB sets a clear spending limit based on what the average taxpayer can afford to pay for government services. Surpassing this limit will fuel excessive government growth and promote unsustainable spending, leaving less revenue that can be used to lower taxes. Recent budget projections show a historic opportunity for tax relief – if legislators are willing to take it. In its November 2023 forecast, the S.C. Board of Economic Advisors (BEA) estimates a recurring budget surplus of $673.1 million for FY25. It also projects the cost of lowering South Carolina’s top personal income tax rate from 6.4% to 6.3% to be roughly $100 million (which is accounted for by BEA prior to their $673.1 million projection). Based on current data, we estimate[1] it would cost an additional $300 million in revenue to cut the top rate immediately to 6% in the new budget. Accordingly, this all-at-once cut could be achieved using less than half of the projected recurring surplus. Passing a sustainable budget would be easier if state agencies followed South Carolina’s legal budget process. Under current law, agencies are supposed to justify every dollar they are requesting when submitting their annual budget plans to the governor – explaining why both new and current programs deserve taxpayers’ money. The law follows a concept known as zero-based budgeting, where all expenses need to be justified annually based on need and performance without regard to previous budgets. Despite this legal mandate, agencies only provide details for new spending requests each year. Fortunately, South Carolina is decently prepared for a rainy day should it occur. Voters in 2022 approved two amendments to increase contributions to the state reserve funds – raising the General Reserve Fund from 5% to 7% (over several years) and the Capital Reserve Fund from 2% to 3% of the previous year’s general fund revenue. By law, the reserve funds act primarily as a shield against year-end budget deficits. While these reserve funds are important to withstand volatility in the budget, lawmakers should focus on limiting or cutting the budget for it to be sustainable over time. Conclusion Following the SCSB will put South Carolina in a better position to reduce taxes, avoid the cost of excessive government growth, and give citizens more opportunities to flourish. Had this been done since 2013, the state could have substantially lowered personal income taxes, if not eliminated them. Fortunately, the upcoming budget provides state leaders with another crucial opportunity to rein in spending and deliver much-needed relief. South Carolina taxpayers are counting on it. Appendix: How Does South Carolina Compare with Other States? Table A shows how South Carolina compares with the largest four states in the country (i.e., California, Texas, Florida, New York) and neighboring states (i.e., Arkansas and Mississippi) based on measures of economic freedom, government largesse, and economic outcomes. Table A. Comparison of States for Measures of Economic Freedom and Outcomes Notes. Dates in parentheses are for that year or the average of that period. Data shaded in blue indicate “best,” and in red indicate “worst” per category by state.
These rankings show that South Carolina is better than most states in terms of economic freedom, but is substantially less economically free than its neighbors of Georgia and North Carolina. South Carolina does better than others in this comparison in terms of having the lowest supplemental poverty rate and near the best in net migration. South Carolina has the highest state and local government spending per capita among its neighbors and a substantially worse business tax climate than North Carolina. The data show that states with less economic freedom (e.g., New York, California, and South Carolina) tend to perform economically worse. On the other hand, those states with more economic freedom (e.g., Florida, Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina) tend to perform economically better. Given these comparisons, South Carolina has much room for improvement to be more competitive and, more importantly, provide more opportunities for human flourishing. On January 1st, 22 states and 38 cities and counties raised their minimum wages, sparking some celebration for 10 million workers who get a pay hike, and many doubts for the rest.
While this is perhaps a well-intentioned policy, intentions don’t indicate a policy’s effectiveness. Many economists argue that this decision will disadvantage the people it aims to help, namely, lower-skilled workers. Minimum wage hikes aim to make it “livable,” an increasingly frequent discussion due to government-created rampant inflation in recent years. I don’t disagree that $7.25 hourly, the federal minimum wage matched by many states, is insufficient for most to afford necessities. But helping lower-skilled workers move up the economic ladder is more complex than governments arbitrarily raising wages. Because I want to see everyone flourish, especially the neediest among us, I’m against a minimum wage and definitely against increasing it more. Elevating the minimum wage this drastically and suddenly will lead to widespread job losses, because employers must balance profitability with labor that costs more but adds no higher output. The spate of layoffs by major corporations in 2023, driven by slowing sales exacerbated by decreased purchasing power, demonstrates this reality. Now, envision a scenario where these higher-paid retained workers burden employers. Rather than a boon, this often translates into more layoffs or price hikes as companies seek to maintain profitability. The optimistic projection by the Economic Policy Institute, suggesting a $6.95 billion windfall for workers from the recent state minimum wage increases, rests on a questionable assumption that every worker will retain his job. In reality, employers may resort to cost-cutting measures to stay profitable, jeopardizing quality and output, and ultimately resulting in layoffs. If an employer must pay someone $16 hourly, the new minimum wage in New York and California, whom will they pay? Would it be a higher-skilled college graduate or a less-skilled worker with only a high school diploma? You can deduce which hire is the safer option. When the cost of obtaining more education or skills is higher than the cost of relying on government unemployment benefits, dependence becomes the more appealing choice over labor-force participation. Another often-overlooked negative impact of minimum wages is decreased negotiating power. When workers with qualifications and experience who merit higher pay are confined to a predetermined minimum wage, their bargaining potential is stifled. These labor market dynamics, however, extend beyond individual choices. The intriguing patterns in state migration rates underscore how higher minimum wages deter people from seeking better opportunities. Look at California and New York, champions of minimum wage increases. Both experienced some of the highest rates of outmigration in 2023. Conversely, with their comparatively lower minimum wages, Texas and Florida witnessed a substantial influx of new residents. People vote with their feet. The allure of better prospects, lower living costs, and increased job opportunities in states with few-or-no minimum wage hikes outweighs the appeal of higher minimum wages in other states. States with lower minimum wages continue to increase in appeal because, contrary to popular belief, only a very small share of hourly paid workers earn minimum wage, and not for long. Professor of Economics at UC San Diego Jeffrey Clemens’ findings reveal that most minimum-wage workers experience consistent wage growth over time. According to his research, over 12 months, about 70 percent of individuals studied initially employed at or near the minimum wage saw an improvement in their earnings, with an average wage increase of $1.39. The data suggest that the narrative surrounding the persistence of “career minimum wage workers” applies to very few people. But even so, those low-wage jobs maintain value. Low-wage positions, typically entry-level or part-time jobs, serve as the initial rung toward better opportunities with higher pay. Unfortunately, governments inadvertently eliminate many of these essential entry-level jobs by advocating for higher minimum wages. This lost first rung has profound consequences, especially for vulnerable groups like young individuals, part-time workers, the unmarried, and those without a high school diploma. Such individuals rely on these low-wage positions for income and to escape the cycle of government dependency and poverty. Employers and workers alike deserve freedom. Burdensome government regulations that hinder free-market flourishing culminate in the mandated minimum wage, which stifles opportunity rather than allowing spontaneous order to create jobs and economic growth. The states that just increased the minimum wage will experience more problems than they’ve already created. People will continue to vote with their feet. Hopefully, leaders at federal, state, and local levels will come to grips with the best paths to help people prosper, however unpopular those paths may be. These paths that improve productivity to demand higher market wages and increase output to supply higher-paid jobs are found in an institutional framework of free-market capitalism. Specifically for the labor market, politicians should provide universal school choice, remove government obstacles like occupational licensing and forced union dues, rein in spending to cut taxes, and reduce regulations. In short, more government isn’t the answer to higher wages because government is the problem. Let’s not double down on government failures. Originally published at AIER. Episode 78 is with Adam Thierer, innovation policy analyst at R Street Institute and author of, “Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments?"
Today, we discuss: 1) What makes nations rich and how America has become the most prosperous nation on earth; 2) The economic importance of failure, freedom, and permissionless innovation; and 3) Why AI and technology must be embraced, and the issues with Biden's AI executive order. Check out Adam's book: https://www.amazon.com/Evasive-Entrepreneurs-Innovation-Economies-Governments/dp/1948647761/ref Please like this video, subscribe to the channel, share it on social media, and provide a rating and review. Also, subscribe and see show notes for this episode on Substack (www.vanceginn.substack.com) and visit my website for economic insights (www.vanceginn.com). We must learn from history or be doomed to repeat it. This includes honestly assessing the economy in 2023 so that we have better information for making decisions in 2024.
Starting with a bang on many people’s minds is housing affordability. The year commenced with a surge in the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate from 6.5% in January to nearly 8% in October but has declined recently to about 6.6%. These higher mortgage rates and record-high housing prices contributed to an unaffordable housing market. While existing home sales were up 0.8% in November, they are down 7.3% over the last year, indicating a struggling housing market for families that will unlikely improve much in 2024. Another concern is costly inflation. Rampant hikes in the cost of a typical basket of goods and services have meant less purchasing power for us. This contributes to making housing, food, education, and other expenses for that basket less comfortable or worse for many families. As of November 2023, the core consumption personal expenditures increase was 3.2% year-over-year. This price measure of a basket of goods and services excludes food and energy and is what the Federal Reserve prefers to watch. While core PCE inflation has moderated from close to 6% in 2022, the recent 3.2% inflation rate remains 60% higher than the Fed’s average inflation target of 2%. Although moderating inflation represents some relief for many Americans, the challenge is that average weekly earnings adjusted for core inflation declined in 23 of the last 35 months since January 2021. In total, these real average weekly earnings are down 0.8% since then, indicating why inflation is a top concern. An additional problem is debt. Because earnings haven’t been keeping up with inflation, credit card debt soared to more than $1 trillion as people struggled to make ends meet, which is a bad sign for 2024. And many people have been going through their savings and retirement funds quickly. What about jobs? The White House recently celebrated “total job gains achieved under the Biden administration reached 14.1 million through November 2023.” But this metric becomes less impressive considering that 9.4 million of those jobs were just recovering jobs lost during the pandemic lockdowns. So, there have been 4.7 million new jobs added since January 2021, which is 134,000 per month. While this is positive, it is not record-breaking. The weaker labor market in recent months indicates that 2024 could be tough for many workers. Most people’s pocketbooks did not grow but diminished this year, and the job market similarly lags. But what about the nation’s overall growth? Hasn’t GDP soared? Not exactly. In the third quarter of 2023, the annualized real GDP growth hit 4.9%, which appears robust. But when you dig into the details, it’s more complicated. Government spending, which is a drag on the economy as it must take taxes from the private sector and distort market activities, threw in 0.99 percentage points. And private inventories, influenced by the whims of fluctuating interest rate expectations, chipped in 1.27 percentage points. When you exclude those contributions to consider stable real private GDP, there was just a 2.6% bump up. This slower pace didn’t just pop out of nowhere. It’s been a saga since early 2022, when we hit a two-quarter decline in real gross domestic product, waving a big red flag for a recession. And when you consider the valuable metric of real gross domestic output, which is the average or real gross domestic product and real gross domestic income, the economy has declined in three out of the last seven quarters. While these economic issues suggest stagflation triggered by misguided pandemic lockdowns and subsequent trillions of new money printing of deficit-spending, there may be some relief. The Fed’s slow correction to its bloated assets of $9 trillion at its peak to $7.7 trillion contributed to interest rates soaring since March 2022. But with Congress continuing to deficit spend of about $2 trillion per year and net interest payments soaring to $1 trillion per year, there are massive economic challenges ahead. These deficits will make it more difficult for the Fed to correctly normalize its assets quickly to get them back to at least the pre-pandemic $4 trillion. This is because the budget deficits would contribute to higher interest rates, so the Fed will likely monetize the debt more to help Congress avoid needed spending restraint. While these truths are tough to swallow, many beacons of hope also emerged throughout the year that should be noted. In 2023, a momentous shift unfolded with a transformative surge in educational choice. Twenty states expanded school choice, and a record-breaking 10 states passed some form of universal school choice, making 36% of American students eligible for a private choice program. Some states have been slow to increase educational freedom, but this revolution’s overall impact is historical. Recognizing that children are the cornerstone of our nation’s future and acknowledging that improved education is a pivotal predictor of their success, the catalyst for change is undeniably rooted in more universal school choice. The second bright light is the flat state tax revolution. Many states took bold steps to enhance their economic landscapes. Notably, prominent states like California and New York faced ongoing out-migration as individuals sought refuge from progressive policies, and less heralded states embraced free-market principles, propelling them onto the national stage. More conservative Florida and Texas continued to lead the way in places where people moved in 2023. The third thing to cheer is a responsible movement toward a sustainable state budget revolution. Some states are pushing toward improving their spending limits to one that covers more of the budget, limits budget growth to no more than population growth plus inflation, and has a supermajority vote to bust the limit or raise taxes. The synergy of these reforms demonstrates the power of federalism as states experiment with policies, revealing effective strategies and fostering a healthy laboratory of competition. We need lawmakers at the federal, state, and local governments to recognize what works and implement them. The trajectory in 2024 and beyond hinges on embracing free-market capitalism, which is the best path to let people prosper. This includes less government spending, less money printing, more school choice, and more tax relief. In short, less government. That’s how we get a more prosperous 2024. Happy New Year! Originally published at Econlib. Podcast: What do $34 Trillion Debt, Border Wall, & 22 States Raise Minimum Wages gave in common?1/5/2024 Thank you for listening to the 42nd episode of "This Week's Economy."
Today, I cover: 1) National: -Gross federal debt reaches $34 trillion -Immigration data shows there were more illegal immigrants than American births in August 2023 -Inflation updates and my thoughts on the policies presented by current GOP candidates 2) States: -22 states increased minimum wage, which is a bad idea -Important issues on the Texas Republican primary ballot -Key opportunities for welfare reform in states to lift people out of poverty 3) Other: -My two latest interviews with NTD News discussing interest rates potentially falling and what we can expect from this year's economy -My recent op-ed published at AIER about what America can learn from new Argentine President Javier Milei -My radio interview with Newell Normand on WWL NOLA on changes in tax code in 2024 Please like this video, subscribe to the channel, share it on social media, and provide a rating and review. Also, subscribe and see show notes for this episode on Substack (www.vanceginn.substack.com) and visit my website for economic insights (www.vanceginn.com). In 2023, Texas led the U.S. on many fronts: job growth, economic expansion, energy production, and a record surplus of $33 billion. This was when many other states, especially California, were reporting economic challenges and deficits.
Despite Comptroller Glenn Hegar's warning to spend wisely, the 88th Texas Legislature chose out-of-control, record spending. This isn’t a record Texans wanted because it means less available money for property tax relief. Texas can reverse course to lead the U.S. in fiscal responsibility by passing sustainable budgets that result in more surplus to return to taxpayers by reducing school property tax rates until they are zero. In 2023, the Texas Legislature passed the largest spending increase in state history. The fiscal 2024-25 budget increased appropriations by 21.3% to $321 billion, or, excluding federal funds, by 31.7% in state funds to a staggering $219 billion. Even more disturbing is that currently reported amounts may increase further as some legislation passed in the special sessions increases spending. Either way, the budget growth far eclipsed the rate of population growth plus inflation, which increased by 16% over the prior two years. This rate is a good comparison because it represents the average taxpayer’s ability to pay for government spending. This record spending, along with records of over $10 billion in new corporate welfare payments even to multi-billion-dollar companies and more than $13 billion in constitutional amendments that move money outside of the state’s spending limit, sets a challenging path forward. The bloated fiscal 2024-25 budget now looms as the new baseline for lawmakers, expanding government to the chagrin of many Texans. The excessive budget increase overshadowed Gov. Greg Abbott’s historic tax relief compromise signed into law during the Legislature’s second special session. While hailed as the largest property tax cut in Texas history, it fell short. The total for new school property tax relief was $12.7 billion. It falls short of the $14.2 billion appropriated for reducing school property taxes in fiscal 2008-09 due to a Supreme Court of Texas ruling that the school finance system was unconstitutional. But when the amount is adjusted for inflation since then, the $14.2 billion would be about $21 billion. Even when factoring in the state’s contribution of $5.3 billion to maintain reductions in school property taxes in prior sessions, the $18.3 billion in combined relief remains well below the $21 billion needed to be the largest in Texas history. It should be noted that the $14.2 billion for property tax relief for fiscal 2008-09 helped cut school property taxes by just $2 billion in 2007. But then school property taxes increased by $2.3 billion in 2008, surpassing 2006 before the relief by $300 million. Total property taxes decreased by just $450 million in 2007 and then increased by $3.8 billion in 2008. While those with property received some relief in their property tax bill in 2023, especially those with a homestead exemption, the amount will not be nearly as much as some lawmakers claimed. Worse still, these savings won’t likely last as local governments continue to push to pass bonds and increase spending and taxes. The Legislature should focus this interim on doing efficiency audits across the government, much like it started with safety net programs. Finding savings across the government with so much excessive spending recently will help maintain the property tax relief passed last year; spending excesses will not lead to calls for tax increases, and resulting surpluses can put school property taxes on a fast path to zero next session. There will also be an opportunity to put the new, stronger statutory spending limit in the constitution and have this limit cover spending by local governments. There should also be a requirement that at least 90% of resulting surpluses by the state go toward reducing school property tax rates and by local governments to reduce their own property tax rates. Doing so will achieve fiscal sustainability and put all property taxes on a path to elimination. In the meantime, Texans have opportunities in the March primary and November general election to consider many candidates' policy proposals. Do candidates on the ballot support eliminating property taxes, reducing government spending, and increasing prosperity? We need more politicians pushing for these things because they benefit Texas families and entrepreneurs. Let’s not have big-government socialism creep more into Texas but turn back toward free-market capitalism that has contributed to abundance. Originally published at The Center Square. Episode 77 is with Dr. Mark Calabria, former chief economist of former Vice President Mike Pence, senior advisor at Cato Institute, and author of “Shelter from the Storm: How a COVID Mortgage Meltdown Was Averted.”
Today, we discuss: 1) His lessons learned from working as Former Vice President Mike Pence's chief economist; 2) How he helped the nation avert a mortgage crisis during COVID and issues with pandemic policies and their ongoing impacts; and 3) Why was the economy in 2019 so successful, and what should be done to improve things in 2024? Check out Mark's book: https://www.cato.org/books/shelter-storm Please like this video, subscribe to the channel, share it on social media, and provide a rating and review. Also, subscribe and see show notes for this episode on Substack (www.vanceginn.substack.com) and visit my website for economic insights (www.vanceginn.com). Argentina’s new self-described “anarcho-capitalist” President, Javier Milei, is raising eyebrows worldwide with his aggressive attempts to restore the nation’s abysmal economy. On December 20, he signed a decree to remove many government regulations stifling international trade and domestic activity.
With Argentina’s poverty rate soaring to 40.1 percent in early 2023 and its debt burden owed to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) now $45 billion along with its other mountains of debt, the time is now for a no-nonsense pro-growth approach that gets the government out of the way. Since Milei’s inauguration on December 10, he’s set out bold initiatives. These include reducing government spending by as much as five percent of the nation’s GDP, slashing the number of federal ministries by half to nine, and, most notably, declaring that he will devalue the nation’s currency, the peso, by more than 50 percent. To paint a picture, some estimate that the decision to devalue the peso and other policy changes could bring already rapid inflation of more than 160 percent up to as high as 300 percent. Onlookers have been quick to criticize these actions and their potential effects on the country, but desperate times call for desperate measures. And the US, most of all, should not point fingers. If anything, we could stand to learn a thing or two from Milei’s proactive approach. While Milei’s moves will temporarily exacerbate inflation and further strain the economy, as he’s acknowledged, it also aims to enhance the country’s future. Moving from a government-dominated, top-down economy to one built on free-market capitalism is a significant institutional shift. We already know from the work of economist Douglass North that these economic changes are what support more ways to let people prosper, but that the adjustment period will be challenging. There are currently many hindrances to the free exchange of people in the marketplace, and these inefficiencies take time to correct through a well-functioning price system. But after this “shock therapy” comes a brighter future. There will also likely be a move away from the country’s currency of the peso to the US dollar, which should help stabilize markets, inflation, and economic activity. This would provide a better anchor than the peso does today, even though the anchor of the dollar has its own troubles. It’s hard to conceive how Argentina was one of the world’s wealthiest nations only a century ago. Once surpassing European powers in its economic strength, Argentina’s standing took a nosedive in 1929 when it abandoned the gold standard. The shift began a challenging period as protectionist trade policies, influenced by former Argentina President Juan Peron, eroded its once-thriving trade status. Moreover, excessive regulations further distorted price signals, and the emergence of a military dictatorship during the 70s and 80s brought everything crashing down. But the troubles didn’t stop there. In 2001 and 2002, Argentina experienced a severe economic crisis when the government partially defaulted on its debt, froze bank accounts, and abandoned the dollar. The aftermath was characterized by economic collapse, unemployment, and widespread political and social unrest. Argentina had a rough start to the 21st century, and its challenges have only snowballed since. Rampant inflation, exacerbated by the central bank’s relentless money printing to cover mounting debts, has led to the plummeting credibility of the Argentine peso. So Milei’s strategy will likely worsen things before they can improve. Along with shrinking the government, his objective to balance the budget by the end of 2024 is a historical measure aiming to alleviate debt with spending cuts instead of tax hikes, often the go-to when more money is needed. But as the work of the late economist Alberto Alesina confirms, the best path forward for austerity is to cut government spending, not raise taxes, to avoid a deeper recession and higher debt. Cautious optimism is warranted, as the nation’s leaders have a history of abusing power, and we can’t foresee how Milei will wield his influence over time. One concerning move is his intention to raise taxes on grain, which would be a big blow to many farmers. But even so, things should look up if he sticks to what he initially set out to do and what he has done so far. As the US observes Argentina’s economic trajectory, it must take note of the cautionary tale embedded in Milei’s approach. The focus on reducing government spending and narrowing the scope of government aligns with the prescription needed to combat inflation not just there but here. America’s inflationary challenges, rooted in a bloated Federal Reserve balance sheet helping fund excessive government deficit-spending, require Congress to take decisive action. Inflation will strain household budgets until the reins are pulled on government spending, and the Fed cuts its balance sheet more aggressively. We can’t be too proud to take a tip from Argentina. The perilous outcomes of unchecked government spending can manifest anywhere; strategic policies such as responsible spending limits only become more necessary the longer their implementation is delayed. Argentina’s bold moves, though met with skepticism, could be the beacon the US needs to navigate its own economic storms successfully. But until then, let’s keep cheering what the classical liberal President Milei is doing in Argentina. Originally published at AIER. Today, I cover my predictions for the economy in 2024 in less than 6 minutes, including information on:
Thank you for tuning into the FINAL Let People Prosper podcast episode 76 of 2023! Today, I have a brief but informative podcast for you, recapping the highlights of the economy and my business, Ginn Economic Consulting, LLC.
As a Christmas gift, I am giving away a complimentary subscription to the paid version of my newsletter and a copy of Lexi Hudson’s fantastic book, “The Soul of Civility: Timeless Principles to Heal Society and Ourselves.” To enter this giveaway, simply fill out the information at the link and rate my podcast on either Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Is there anyone whom you would like for me to interview in 2024? Leave them in the comments. Today, I cover:
This was originally published at National Review.
Colorado governor Jared Polis (D) and Art Laffer, the economist and Presidential Medal of Freedom honoree, recently critiqued the state’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) at this venue. While not meritless, much of their argument is paradoxical, highlighting an overarching issue of fiscal unsustainability that warrants a reality check. TABOR recently had its 30th birthday. Voters approved the constitutional amendment in 1992, establishing the strongest tax and expenditure limit in the country. It’s been the gold standard for a sound spending limit ever since. Under the amendment, annual growth in spending cannot exceed the state’s population growth plus inflation, which is a good measure of the average taxpayer’s ability to pay for spending. When adopted, the limit covered about two-thirds of state spending. It requires voter approval for tax increases and mandates refunds to taxpayers if tax revenue exceeds the limit. In their critique, Polis and Laffer correctly acknowledge that TABOR surpluses indicate that income-tax rates are too high. They’re correct that the state should seek to reduce income-tax rates to prevent overcollection instead of handing out refunds. They’re also correct that a broader tax base is preferable. It enables the tax rates, and therefore the marginal effect of the tax burden, to be reduced as much as possible for all. But Polis and Laffer incorrectly criticize TABOR without realizing its pivotal role in achieving their purported goal to reduce taxes. Without a crucial spending check such as TABOR, the state would tie its budget directly to revenue levels, eliminating any surplus. While Polis has only recently touted reducing state income-tax rates with surpluses, the Independence Institute has long supported a plan called “Path to Zero.” The plan simply limits government spending and uses resulting surpluses to lower tax rates until they’re zero. This is similar to my efforts in Texas, Louisiana, and other states, which start with a sustainable budget approach, as recently explained in a release by Americans for Tax Reform. Unfortunately, courts and politicians have eroded the strength of TABOR over time, primarily because of politicians’ lack of fiscal restraint. The result has been that TABOR now covers less than half of state spending, allowing expenditures of all state funds, which excludes federal funds, to grow faster than population growth plus inflation. Specifically, appropriations of all state funds have increased by 74.2 percent, compared with an increase of just 46.5 percent in population growth plus inflation over the last decade. This has resulted in the state appropriating $4.2 billion more in just fiscal year 2023–24 than if it had been limited to the rates of population growth plus inflation over time, amounting to higher spending and taxes of about $3,300 per family of four. The summed difference each year in all state funds above this metric over the decade amounts to $16.3 billion, or $11,300 per family of four. These amounts don’t necessarily mean that the state needs to start cutting its budget to get back on track, but they do mean that the time to start reining in the budget is now, to reduce these excessive burdens on taxpayers. To that end, Ben Murrey, director of the Independence Institute’s fiscal-policy center, and I have shown the path forward with the Sustainable Colorado Budget (SCB). The SCB is a maximum threshold for the initial appropriations of all state funds and is based on TABOR’s rate of population growth plus inflation. This will help reinforce the original intent of TABOR, by broadening the spending limit to all state funds. The plan would limit nearly two-thirds of state spending each year, as when voters first adopted TABOR. Doing so will result in larger surpluses to reduce income-tax rates yearly until they’re zero. Polis and Laffer are right to want rate reductions, but there are none if there is no surplus. For the upcoming FY 2024–25, the SCB proposes an all-state funds ceiling of $27.70 billion. This uses the prior FY 2023–24 amount of $26.15 billion and increases it by 5.9 percent, calculated using TABOR’s current method and reflecting a 1.0 percent increase in the state’s population and 4.9 percent inflation. As noted above, it would be even better to grow the budget by less or not at all to correct past budgeting excesses. This more robust TABOR approach outlined in the SCB helps to freeze inflation-adjusted spending per capita, allowing the average taxpayer to afford the cost of government. In recent years, the current TABOR limit alone has already produced substantial surpluses that have been refunded to Coloradans. But instead of using this year’s $1.7 billion TABOR surplus to refund overcollected taxpayer dollars, the legislature could have cut the income-tax rate from a flat rate of 4.4 percent, which ranks 14th in the country, to 3.81 percent. Further, had the state over the past decade followed the SCB, which has a larger base budget, lawmakers could have lowered the income-tax rate to 2.96 percent, putting it on a faster path to becoming the lowest flat income-tax rate in the country, below North Carolina’s 2.49 percent. It would also pave the way to zero income taxes by 2042. Polis in his recent article criticizes TABOR for acting as a spending restraint rather than a mechanism to reduce tax rates. Indeed, his track record in the governor’s office demonstrates his distaste for limitations on spending. The state budget has grown 45 percent since he took office less than five years ago; his budget request for the upcoming fiscal year would constitute an astounding 52 percent increase. In a state with a constitutional balanced-budget requirement, it’s paradoxical to support tax cuts without spending restraints. Unfortunately, given his poor track record on spending and his critique of TABOR’s spending restraints — which he and Laffer improperly call a revenue limit — Polis is unlikely to adopt our sustainable budget to produce larger surpluses with which to cut tax rates. On the contrary, this year he supported a measure that would have increased state spending above the current limit, erroneously claiming that it would cut taxes using state surpluses. “A similar tax-rate reduction for property taxes, Proposition HH, failed on the ballot recently in Colorado,” Polis and Laffer write in their recent NRO article. While a clever misdirection, this argument doesn’t hold up. Prop HH didn’t directly offset the TABOR surplus through tax cuts, as an income-tax reduction would. That’s because the measure influenced only local property-tax revenue. Because the State of Colorado generates no tax revenue from property taxes, as those are collected only by local governments, reducing those rates won’t affect the TABOR surplus. Polis and Laffer contend that the state budget indirectly benefits from local property taxes. However, Prop HH would have lessened the state’s share of local funding by only approximately $125 million. Today, I cover:
1) National:
Want more of my insights, check out the paid version of my Substack newsletter. Originally published at Real Clear Policy.
During the fourth Republican presidential candidate debate the four participating candidates were asked to name a past president who would serve as an inspiration for their administration. In his response, Governor Ron DeSantis stated that he would take inspiration from President Calvin Coolidge. Coolidge, stated DeSantis, is “one of the few presidents that got almost everything right.” Further, DeSantis argued that “Silent Cal” understood the federal government’s role and “the country was in great shape” under his administration. To say that the federal budget process is broken is an understatement. The national debt continues to grow driven by out-of-control spending. The budget hawk within the Republican Party is an endangered species. Governor DeSantis is correct that the Republican Party needs to rediscover the principle of limited government. The best way to do this is to take inspiration from the Republican Party’s best known budget hawks and champions of limited government, Presidents Warren G. Harding, and Calvin Coolidge. President Harding assumed office in 1921 when the nation was suffering a severe economic depression. Hampering growth were high-income tax rates and a large national debt after World War I. Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 to reform the budget process, which also created the Bureau of the Budget (BOB) at the U.S. Treasury Department (later changed in 1970 to the Office of Management and Budget). President Harding’s chief economic policy was to rein in spending, reduce tax rates, and pay down debt. Harding, and later Coolidge, understood that any meaningful cuts in taxes and debt could not happen without reducing spending. Harding selected Charles G. Dawes to serve as the first BOB Director. Dawes shared the Harding and Coolidge view of “economy in government.” In fulfilling Harding’s goal of reducing expenditures, Dawes understood the difficulty in cutting government spending as he described the task as similar to “having a toothpick with which to tunnel Pike’s Peak.” To meet the objectives of spending relief, the Harding administration held a series of meetings under the Business Organization of the Government (BOG) to make its objectives known. “The present administration is committed to a period of economy in government…There is not a menace in the world today like that of growing public indebtedness and mounting public expenditures…We want to reverse things,” explained Harding. Not only was Harding successful in this first endeavor to reduce government expenditures, his efforts resulted in “over $1.5 billion less than actual expenditures for the year 1921.” Dawes stated: “One cannot successfully preach economy without practicing it. Of the appropriation of $225,000, we spent only $120,313.54 in the year’s work. We took our own medicine.” Overall, Harding achieved a significant reduction in spending. “Federal spending was cut from $6.3 billion in 1920 to $5 billion in 1921 and $3.2 billion in 1922,” noted Jim Powell, a senior fellow at CATO Institute. Harding viewed a balanced budget as not only good for the economy, but also as a moral virtue. Dawes’s successor was Herbert M. Lord, and just as with the Harding Administration, the BOG meetings were still held on a regular basis. President Coolidge and Director Lord met regularly to ensure their goal of cutting spending was achieved. Coolidge emphasized the need to continue reducing expenditures and tax rates. He regarded “a good budget as among the most noblest monuments of virtue.” Coolidge noted that a purpose of government was “securing greater efficiency in government by the application of the principles of the constructive economy, in order that there may be a reduction of the burden of taxation now borne by the American people. The object sought is not merely a cutting down of public expenditures. That is only the means. Tax reduction is the end.” “Government extravagance is not only contrary to the whole teaching of our Constitution but violates the fundamental conceptions and the very genius of American institutions,” stated Coolidge. When Coolidge assumed office after the death of Harding in August 1923, the federal budget was $3.14 billion and by 1928 when he left, the budget was $2.96 billion. Altogether, spending and taxes were cut in about half during the 1920s, leading to budget surpluses throughout the decade that helped cut the national debt. The decade had started in depression and by 1923, the national economy was booming with low unemployment. Both Harding and Coolidge were committed to reining in spending, reducing tax rates, and paying down the national debt. Both also used the veto as a weapon to ensure that increased spending and other poor public policies were stopped. The results of the Harding-Coolidge economic plan created one of the strongest periods of economic growth in American history. Unemployment remained low, the middle class was expanded, and the economy expanded. From 1920 to 1929 manufacturing output increased over 50 percent and the United States was a global leader in many key industries. In our current era marked by dangerous debt levels and high inflation whoever becomes the Republican presidential nominee should take inspiration from Harding and Coolidge. Thank you for tuning into the 75th episode of the Let People Prosper Show podcast!
Today, I’m joined by Dr. Chris Coyne, professor of economics at George Mason University and author of the book, “In Search of Monsters to Destroy: The Folly of American Empire and the Paths to Peace.” Today, we discuss: 1) The economic impact of war and the many consequences of engaging in it; 2) What Friedrich Hayek's principle of "fatal conceit" reveals about America's involvement with war; and 3) The truth about terrorism, what the U.S. got wrong with Afghanistan and Iraq, and Chris' thoughts of how Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas can be at peace. Originally published at Econlib.
After a year dominated by historically high inflation and soaring home loan rates, 2023 is carving another negative as the annum of antitrust accusations. From lawsuits targeting Amazon and Google to the emergence of concerns over trading card and sandwich shop monopolies, the growing antitrust frenzy poses a threat to what these laws were originally crafted to safeguard: consumers. Actions of antitrust’s biggest modern advocates, like the Federal Trade Commission’s Chair Lina Kahn and U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, reveal their misunderstanding of these competition laws. To maintain their protected freedoms to buy, sell, and trade, consumers and businesses must know the truth enshrined in these laws and not be duped by misrepresentation. Antitrust laws were enacted with a noble purpose—to protect consumers and promote fair competition. These laws were designed to ensure consumer access to various choices across the marketplace and prohibit businesses from engaging in anti-competitive practices. If those parameters seem vague, that’s because they are. That is, without antitrust’s crucial cornerstone, “the consumer welfare standard” established in the 1970s to help narrow the law’s scope. A principle that assesses whether consumers are better or worse off due to a company’s actions, the consumer welfare standard is mathematically defined as “the value consumers get from the product less the price they paid.” The addition of this language shifted antitrust’s emphasis from preserving competitors to competition. But perceived value varies between individuals. Concerns about monopolies can be legitimate when there is concern about diminished value from a product or service because of a company’s actions. Such monopolistic behavior may result in higher prices and lower quality. These tactics are most likely to prevail when outside competition is intentionally stifled by the government through regulations, spending, and corporate welfare. However, having a large or growing market share alone does not violate antitrust laws, as progressives like Warren would lead people to believe. In a healthy competitive market, companies naturally strive to develop and acquire other businesses to expand their offerings and meet consumer demands. Roark Capital’s acquisition of Subway, adding the sandwich chain to its portfolio, and major sports leagues signing contracts with trading card company Fanatics may seem like consolidation of power, but these changes do not inherently harm consumers or competition. In fact, if permitted to expand via purchasing and agreements with other companies or leagues, not just these but all businesses can improve consumer welfare and profitability. To the chagrin of its Italian competitor, the NFL, MLB, and NBA making agreements with the sports trading card company Fanatics was a voluntary decision executed because increased, not diminished, consumer welfare was perceived. While Panini SpA points the antitrust finger at Fanatics, it has three other fingers pointing back at itself, as the company has its own agreements with the NFL and NBA. Rather than viewing the new competition as an opportunity to improve its company and become the first choice, Panini SpA would rather waste time and resources trying to punish its competitor. This is what the FTC will try to do with Subway, the European Union wants to do with Amazon, and the DOJ has tried to do with Google. This knowledge is critical because consumers are being swayed to favor legal action that does not serve their best interest, more than likely because of widespread misinformation. For instance, a recent poll showed that 60% of Americans believe Google is too big and hurts businesses and consumers. However, conflicting data reveal that, overwhelmingly, Google users and employees derive immense value from its service. At the same time, other search engines continue to increase in popularity alongside Google, with Safari recently reaching more than one billion users. So, if the majority of Google users are happy with the service and other search engine options exist, the welfare of its consumers is far from threatened. But that hasn’t stopped the FTC from trying to take them down. So-called “big tech giants” and “trading card monopolies” aren’t the true titans threatening consumer welfare; it’s the rent-seeking politicians, government bureaucrats, and corporate rent-seekers wielding an insatiable appetite for control that are consumers’ actual adversaries. Economic Reality Check: What Do Falling Mortgage Rates & Jobs+Inflation Signal for the 2024 Economy?12/15/2023 Thank you for tuning into the 39th episode of “This Week’s Economy.”
Much information is packed into today’s newsletter, including my new podcast episode revealing the economic news you need to know in less than 14 minutes! Today, I cover: 1) National: -Why the new U.S. jobs report (my latest commentary) is not as strong as some say -Inflation rates have moderated but still remain well above the Fed’s 2% rate target -Federal Reserve paused again with its federal funds rate target in the range of 5.25-5.5%, supporting a boost in the stock market and likely lower mortgage rates 2) States: -Sustainable Colorado Budget was released that I authored with Ben Murrey at Independence Institute, which provides a path forward for the Centennial state to return to its TABOR roots and buy down the income tax -School choice challenges face Texas as many state leaders are against it, and they keep spending too much -California’s deficit reaches crazy highs, proving why spending is the ultimate government burden 3) Other: -Don't miss my latest LPP episode with Jennifer Huddleston discussing problems with regulating technology, including AI -One of my latest op-eds argues why China is not our biggest threat…what is? -Argentina's new president makes significant strides that could set an example for the U.S. Recent polling data from CNN reveals a grim reality: 84 percent of Americans are concerned about the national economy. Despite President Biden’s efforts to highlight seemingly positive metrics as indicators of the success of his progressive policies, a closer look at the data reveals why most Americans remain dissatisfied.
Biden’s claim of adding 14 million jobs since taking office would be impressive if it were true. The reality is that, since he took office in Jan. 2021, 13 million private sector jobs have been added. This appropriately excludes the unproductive addition of one million government jobs that will soon set a record under his watch. But the bigger point negating his rosy scenario is that the vast majority of this touted “job growth” stems from restoring job losses from the pandemic lockdowns. When we accurately tally the new jobs added since the shutdowns began in Feb. 2020, the count stands at 4.5 million private sector jobs added in three years. While this is a positive, it’s an average of 1.5 million jobs yearly, far from qualifying as record-breaking job creation. The latest U.S. jobs report for November provides additional data, reaffirming the mixed nature of the labor market. The payroll report indicates a feeble performance. There was a headline number of 199,000 jobs added. But there were revisions in October of 35,000 fewer jobs added. So, net additions stand at 164,000 jobs. When government jobs are correctly subtracted, the count is just 115,000 new productive private jobs last month. On a more positive note, the household report shows a substantial increase of 532,000 in the labor force, resulting in a 62.8 percent participation rate. Employment experienced robust growth of 747,000, contributing to a decline in the unemployment rate to 3.7 percent. But the broader unemployment rate that includes underemployed and discouraged workers is nearly twice as high at seven percent. However, it’s crucial to note that the average weekly earnings show a 3.7 percent increase over the last year, though this has been overshadowed by the elevated inflation. Fresh data on inflation as measured by the chained consumer price index (chained-CPI), which accounts for the substitution effect of changes in individual prices not accounted for by the headline CPI, reveals signs of moderation. The latest core chained-CPI inflation rate, which excludes food and energy and is watched by the Federal Reserves, for Nov. 2023 was up 3.7 percent year-over-year. Not only is this 85 percent higher than the Fed’s average inflation rate target of two percent, it also nearly matches the increase in earnings, negating any increase in purchasing power. In fact, real average weekly earnings have declined for 24 straight months. No wonder people are concerned about the economy. The ongoing reduction of the Fed’s balance sheet contributes to this inflation moderation, but further cuts to its bloated balance sheet are necessary to stabilize prices across the economy. Their balance sheet currently hovers around $8 trillion, nearly double its pre-pandemic figure, having increased tenfold in fifteen years from $800 billion in 2007. While some blame the national debt crisis on not having enough tax revenue from slower-than-optimal GDP growth, the truth is excessive government spending. Inflation is not your fault, as The Atlantic recently claimed. It’s the fault of excessive government spending by Congress that led to rising national debt which the Fed purchased and printed money. Too much money chasing too few goods is the classic definition of inflation, and it fits this time, too. A better way to solve this would be to slash government spending and taxes like President Calvin Coolidge did a century ago. During the Roaring 20s, the national debt declined, and the economy supported more opportunities for people to flourish. In light of the evidence, the question arises: Is Bidenomics working? The answer, drawn from the data, suggests it is not. To guide the economy back on course, recalibration is imperative. This includes prioritizing fiscal responsibility, pruning the Fed’s ballooning balance sheet, and reining in excessive government spending. Only through such pro-growth measures can we hope to unlock genuine economic recovery and chart a course toward lasting prosperity. Is Being Big Bad? Are Antitrust Accusations of “Big Tech,” “Big Sandwich,” and Others Warranted?12/11/2023 Thank you for tuning into the 74th episode of the Let People Prosper Show podcast.
Today, I’m joined by Jennifer Huddleston, a technology policy research fellow at The Cato Institute. Today, we discuss: 1) What is the proper role of government in regulating or adapting to technological advancements; 2) Pros and cons of restricting AI, and why antitrust accusations are on the rise, specifically targeting “big tech,” and; 3) What you should know about government regulation on social media for minors, and how parents can be empowered to facilitate social media use at home. Originally published at American Institute for Economic Research. Rating agency Moody’s just downgraded China’s credit outlook from stable to negative after doing the same to the US about a month ago. Does this mean that China is on equal footing with us? Worse? Better off? An economic analysis suggests that China is not our biggest threat, nor are we theirs. In fact, the biggest problem we face is completely self-inflicted and found on our home soil. Apprehensions about China’s military actions and trade strategies maintain resonance, especially among middle-aged and older Americans. While caution is warranted, especially concerning their censorship and the treatment of Hong Kong and Taiwan, an economic comparison settles many doubts. Regarding economic might, the US outshines China with a GDP of $27 trillion compared to China’s $18 trillion. The contrast is stark on a per-capita basis. Americans enjoy an average income of $79,000, six times more than their Chinese counterparts. One alarming similarity stands out though: Both nations have weathered credit downgrades mainly due to escalating budget deficits and national debts. The United States’ national debt is shaping up to be this decade’s hallmark. Now nearly $34 trillion, the deficit spiked in 2020, with trillions of dollars more added since. Net interest payments on the debt climbed by 39 percent and recently surpassed $1 trillion annually. The repercussions of the national debt crisis are not merely theoretical – they are tangible, affecting the everyday lives of citizens.
In 2023, the dollar has significantly depreciated. Fitch (and now Moody’s) downgraded our creditworthiness. Home sales hit their slowest pace since 2010. Average 30-year fixed mortgage rates reached their highest point since 2000. And real median household income dipped to its lowest level since 2018, to name just a few of our recent economic woes. These findings shed new light on our competition with China. They should prompt America’s leaders to reevaluate our priorities and consider whether the enemy across the Pacific is as pressing as the ones we face at home. While some argue the government spending that drove the deficits was necessary, especially during the pandemic’s peak, it underscores the broader problem – a lack of fiscal discipline and a predisposition to rely on debt as a quick fix. It is high time the US adopted a spending-limit rule. Without one, we’ve only made things worse and failed to reach budget agreements. A reasonable spending limit of no more than the rate of population growth plus inflation has worked at the state level, and it would work at the federal level. While the US points the finger at China, we have three other fingers pointing back at us. Excessive government spending and a burgeoning national debt are eroding the foundation of our economic stability. Now is not the time to allocate excessive resources to confront external foes, but to address the fundamental issue plaguing us: a government that refuses to rein in spending of taxpayer money. America should also correct the errors in recent years of trade protectionism. There is reason to counter those countries who don’t play by the same rules, like China, but that should be done by joining free trade agreements with allies. This would be a more effective and affordable approach for Americans instead of raising taxes on them through tariffs, appreciating the dollar thereby increasing the trade deficit and contributing to trade wars that often lead to military wars. Let’s refocus our efforts, fortify our economic foundation, and confront the genuine threat within our borders. If not, governments will not be able to do their job of preserving liberty. This is of utmost importance. Does New Data Support that Bidenomics is Working? Former White House Chief Economist Tells All12/8/2023 Thanks you for tuning into the 38th episode of “This Week’s Economy.”
Lots of information is packed into today’s newsletter, including my new podcast episode revealing the economic news you need to know in <13 minutes! Today, I cover: 1) National: Data shows that the economy is Americans' biggest concern and Bidenomics is making it worse, what the latest state and national GDP show, The Atlantic's bizarre claim about inflation, why my tweet about Biden’s job market claims made the community page, and why we should say no to a carbon tariff; 2) States: What a comparison between Florida and California reveal about policy, what I think Texas should do about School Choice and its $20 billion rainy day fund, and how a conservative state budget could take Iowa to the top; and 3) Other: What I learned attending the Meant for More Summit by the American Enterprise Institute and The Alliance for Opportunity about preventing poverty, my recent podcast episode with Dr. Gale Pooley, and a sneak peek of Monday's episode with Jennifer Huddleston. |
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|