Paul Krugman and others on the left routinely sneer at the idea that you can actually increase government revenues by cutting tax rates. (Turns out most of the time you can’t, but in some cases you can.)
?I don’t usually write about political parties and when I do I don’t make broad statements about their intelligence, character, etc. This is in contrast to Paul Krugman at The New York Times, who routinely tells us that Republicans are cruel, heartless, selfish and responsible for almost all our public policy problems.
It's a 2,700 page bill. There are 20,000 pages of regulations. Major provisions seem to change every other week. And despite Nancy Pelosi's promise, four years after it passed most of us still aren't sure about everything that's in it.
Here's something that's really odd. Let's say at the end of last year there were almost 50 million uninsured people in the United States. Averaging over all the different estimates, let's say that 5 million of them have now acquired insurance because of ObamaCare. But now it's April and the open enrollment period is over. That means that 90% of the uninsured are still uninsured and they won't be able to buy an individual insurance plan until next November.
Have you ever wondered why ObamaCare is burdened with so much complexity? Here's the answer: Barack Obama. Obama? Yes, the president himself.
Have you ever wondered why poor people are poor? It's not as though there aren't plenty of role models around. Millions of people live highly successful, productive lives in this country.
What is most missing from the Republicans is not so much the lack of an alternative to ObamaCare. It is the lack of a clear vision. Even if you can understand what their various proposals (and friends and close allies often cannot), it is almost never clear why they want to implement them.
When politicians choose health insurance plans, rational insurance is impossible.
For the last 50 years real income per person in the United States has been growing at a rate of about 2.3% per year. Although that may not sound like such a big deal, that small increase adds up year after year. So much so that real incomes will actually double every 31 years. If we think of the average year for child birth as being close to age 31, then income will double for every generation.
The topic du jour on the left these days is inequality. But why does the left care about inequality? Do they really want to lift those at the bottom of the income ladder? Or are they just looking for one more reason to increase the power of government?
Today I'm going to get personal. The reason? To see if readers have had similar experiences. There were about 450 students in my high school graduating class.
People who worry about death panels are missing the forests for the trees. Yes, people with expensive-to-treat conditions may someday be denied life-saving treatment because of ObamaCare. But there is a far greater danger for ordinary mortals: government and its health insurance proxies telling doctors how to practice medicine.
After delaying the employer mandate to provide Obamacare health insurance to all full time employees for a year, the administration has delayed the mandate for medium size business for a second year. It has also relaxed the mandate for large businesses (they only have to cover 70% of their workers the next year).
Take a look at the graph below. From the end of World War II until 1964 the poverty rate in this country was cut in half. Further, 94% of the change in the poverty rate over this period can be explained by changes in per capita income alone.
If I were to reduce to a bumper sticker the way the left thinks about the world these days, it would read:
The health reform law is trying to force $15 an hour workers and their employers to buy more than a million dollars of coverage when they don't have anything like a million dollars in assets to protect.
During the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama was asked if he would favor a higher capital gains tax rate, even if the government received less revenue as a result. His answer: Yes.
On Thanksgiving eve, a Nicholas Kristof editorial instructed us on how to think about poverty in The New York Times. The main reason there is poverty, he tells us, is bad luck.
"Inequality is the defining challenge of our time," according to President Obama. It's certainly the topic of the day for Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz and a whole raft of liberal pundits.
"Pope Francis attacked unfettered capitalism as 'a new tyranny,'" reads the lead of the Reuters story by Naomi O'Leary.