Fausta's Blog

American and Latin American Politics, Society, and Culture

By

Tax less, spend less, grow more jobs

Economic growth and job creation do not come from government spending:

States that Spend Less, Tax Less—and Grow More
States with an income tax spent 42% more per resident in 2011 than the nine states without an income tax.

Does curtailing spending lead to better private sector growth?

States that allow taxpayers and employers to keep more of their earnings are reaping the benefits. States without an income tax have significantly better growth in private sector GDP (59% versus 42%) over the last 10 years. They increased the number of jobs by 4.9% while jobs in the rest of the states declined by 2.6%. States without an income tax gained population (+5.5%) from domestic migration (U.S. residents moving in and out of states) while all other states as a whole lost 1.3% of population between 2000 and 2009.

The 10 states with the highest rank in the State Business Tax Climate Index also dramatically outperform the rest of the country. They win handily on private-sector GDP growth (61% versus 42%), gained 6.1% private jobs while other states declined by 2.8%, and gained 5.5% from domestic migration at the expense of other states, which lost 1.2% between 2000 and 2009.

As a result, the states with the better business tax environment will continue to outperform the rest of the country.

Cross-posted at Liberty Unyielding.

UPDATE,
Linked by Pirate’s Cove. Thank you!

Share

By

Let’s give foodstamps to the Mexicans!?

USDA partnering with Mexico to boost food stamp participation

USDA has an agreement with Mexico to promote American food assistance programs, including food stamps, among Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals and migrant communities in America.

“USDA and the government of Mexico have entered into a partnership to help educate eligible Mexican nationals living in the United States about available nutrition assistance,” the USDA explains in a brief paragraph on their “Reaching Low-Income Hispanics With Nutrition Assistance” web page. “Mexico will help disseminate this information through its embassy and network of approximately 50 consular offices.”

The partnership — which was signed by former USDA Secretary Ann M. Veneman and Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs Luis Ernesto Derbez Bautista in 2004 — sees to it that the Mexican Embassy and Mexican consulates in America provide USDA nutrition assistance program information to Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals working in America and migrant communities in America. The information is specifically focused on eligibility criteria and access.

So, we pay taxes here to educate Mexicans on how to move to the USA and get on the dole.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (AL-R), who has been pushing for reform of SNAP:

“Applicants need only attest that they are citizens of the United States, and the state must accept that attestation as conclusive,” Sessions explained in his letter. “Some states currently voluntarily participate in the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, which allows administrators to run a simple check to determine if non-citizen applicants are eligible for benefits. States that do not use SAVE to verify alien status may simply accept the applicant’s attestation of legal status as a substitute for verification, or, alternately, may accept submitted documents without checking their veracity.”

And

According to Sessions’ office, the Congressional Budget Office was unable to estimate how much money the SAVE amendment would have saved because the federal government does not know how many ineligible illegal immigrants have accessed SNAP.

But the federal government will add some 4,000-4,500 more IRS agents to make you pay for Obamacare.

Look at the bright side, once you’re broke and move to Mexico, you can still get food stamps.

UPDATE,
How is this Not a Betrayal of Every Single American Taxpayer?

Do we need to be borrowing money from China to work with the Mexican government to get more non-Americans on the US dole? Really?

Obama: The food stamp president of Mexico!


Share

By

#NannyBloomberg: “No Big Gulp for you?” UPDATED

Just in time for summer heat, New York Plans to Ban Sale of Big Sizes of Sugary Drinks

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.

Obviously Mike thinks it’s up to him to do something, no matter how meaningless, to bring in more government regulation,

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

The measure would not apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; it would not extend to beverages sold in grocery or convenience stores.

So, after all, to answer my question in the post title, it looks like you’ll still be able to get a Big Gulp, if they sell them in Manhattan?

What will happen is that businesses will offer free refills, people will spend more money, and producers will find a way around it, as it happened with candy bars,

The company has replaced the King Size Snickers with the so-called “2toGo,” which is two bars in one package. Each of the bars is 220 calories. The company said the package can be resealed “to save one for later.”

By the way,
I have had chronic hypoglycemia for well over a decade, and do not tolerate anything with any sugar added, so I simply do not have anything with added sugar. The thing is, it’s up to you, not to Mike Bloomberg, to decide what you eat. Upcoming sugar taxes are even more of an insult than these “bans on sugary drinks”, since the government spends huge amounts of money in sugar subsidies, including corn syrup.

What it all adds up to is, we live in a much less free society than we did 100 years ago. 50 years ago. in fact, 20 years ago, thanks to Mike Bloomberg, among others.

Michael Bloomberg: turning the Empire State into the Nanny State, one diet item at a time.

UPDATE:
Mike wants to save you from yourself but endorses Charlie Rangel. Culture of corruption indeed.

“We’re forcing you to understand“?

And,
NYC Council: Ban Of Large Sugared Sodas ‘Seems Punitive,’ ‘Won’t Yield A Positive Result’

Share

By

Federalism and Canada

Chris Edwards, writing on We Can Cut Government: Canada Did, brings up a very important point,

THE FEDERALISM ADVANTAGE

One of Canada’s strengths is that it is a decentralized federation. The provinces compete with each other over fiscal and economic matters, and they have wide latitude to pursue different policies. Federalism has allowed for healthy policy diversity in Canada, and it has promoted government restraint.

Government spending has become much more centralized in the United States than it has in Canada. In the United States, 71 percent of total government spending is federal and 29 percent is state-local. In Canada it’s the reverse — 38 percent is federal and 62 percent is provincial-local.

The federalism difference between the countries is striking with regards to K-12 education. While federal control over U.S. schools has increased in recent decades, Canada has no federal department of education. School funding is left to the provinces, which seems to work: Canadian school kids routinely score higher on international comparison tests than do U.S. kids.

The countries also differ with regards to the amount of top-down control exerted on subnational governments through federal aid programs. The United States has a complex array of more than 1,000 aid-to-state programs for such things as highways and education. Each of these aid programs comes with a pile of regulations that micromanage state and local affairs.

By contrast, Canada mainly has just three large aid programs for provincial governments, and they are structured as fixed block grants. It is true, however, that one of these grants helps to fund the universal health care system, which is a big exception to the country’s generally decentralized policy approach. Nonetheless, having just a few large block grants is superior to the U.S. system of a vast number of grants, each with separate rules and regulations.

A final federalism advantage in Canada is that provincial and local taxes are not deductible on federal individual tax returns. That structure promotes vigorous tax competition between the provinces. In the United States, state and local income and property taxes are deductible on federal income tax returns, which has the effect of blunting competition by essentially subsidizing hightax states and cities.

Go read the whole article.

Share

By

Pink day at Fausta’s blog: Pink slime!

From Pink Floyd to pink slime: what’s on “My Plate” at the public schools,

Pink Slime For School Lunch: Government Buying 7 Million Pounds Of Ammonia-Treated Meat For Meals

Controversy surrounding “pink slime” stems from various safety concerns, particularly dangers associated with ammonium hydroxide, which can both be harmful to eat and has potential to turn into ammonium nitrate – a common component in homemade bombs, according to MSNBC. It’s also used in household cleaners and fertilizers.

In 2009, The New York Times reported that despite the added ammonia, tests of Lean Beef Trimmings of schools across the country revealed dozens of instances of E. coli and salmonella pathogens.

Yummy!!

And then some people wonder why many choose to homeschool…


29515
Share