When You Give A Mouse A Cookie…

If any of you haven’t read If You Give A Mouse A Cookie I strongly suggest that you find a copy and read it. It is a children’s book, but it contains a powerful message. It also offers tremendous insight into what Congress just did with the coronavirus relief package and omnibus spending bill they just passed. Remember when Congress had to pass a separate spending bill for various areas of the budget and had to negotiate to keep spending under control? I don’t either. The coronavirus relief package is nothing more than a Christmas tree of spending on pet projects, many of which have nothing to do with the impact of the coronavirus.

Breitbart posted an article today about one item in the bill.

The article reports:

The coronavirus relief bill released Monday includes $250 million in investment aid for the Palestinians and for encouraging Israeli-Palestinian dialogue in a provision titled the “Nita M. Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Act of 2020.”

The provision, named for retiring Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), is buried deep within the nearly 6,000-page legislative text.

First al all, the only reason a bill is 6,000 pages long is that the people supporting it don’t want it read carefully.

The article continues:

Citing economic stagnation in the Palestinian Territories, and the potential for economic development to encourage peace, the Lowey Act would spend $50 million per year for the next five years. A version of the act passed the House in July.

The act would create the “People-to-People Partnership for Peace Fund,” run by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to “provide funding for projects to help build the foundation for peaceful co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians and for a sustainable two-state solution.”

It would also support projects that foster dialogue between Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel. The fund would have an advisory board of 13 members, plus two members “who are representatives of foreign governments or international organizations for renewable periods of 3 years.”

The act would also create the “Joint Investment for Peace Initiative,” which would provide investment funding for “projects that contribute to the development of the Palestinian private sector economy in the West Bank and Gaza.”

The act prohibits the funding from being used to aid any foreign government, including the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). It also prohibits funds from being given to any group deemed to be involved in, or encouraging, terrorist activity.

Congress limited funding to the Palestinian Authority in 2018 under the Taylor Force Act, which prevents U.S. taxpayer dollars from going to the Palestinian government while it continues to pay stipends to terrorists and their families.

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the Palestinians don’t want a two-state solution–they want a one-state solution without Israel. Sending them money is not going to change that.

 

The Problem With Taxes In America

Walter Williams, a professor of economics at George Mason University, posted an article at The Daily Wire today about taxes.

Professor Williams noted a few things about taxes in America:

The argument that tax cuts reduce federal revenues can be disposed of quite easily. According to the Congressional Budget Office, revenues from federal income taxes were $76 billion higher in the first half of this year than they were in the first half of 2017. The Treasury Department says it expects that federal revenues will continue to exceed last year’s for the rest of 2018. Despite record federal revenues, 2018 will see a massive deficit, perhaps topping $1 trillion. Our massive deficit is a result not of tax cuts but of profligate congressional spending that outruns rising tax revenues. Grossly false statements about tax cuts’ reducing revenue should be put to rest in the wake of federal revenue increases seen with tax cuts during the Kennedy, Reagan and Trump administrations.

A very disturbing and mostly ignored issue is how absence of skin in the game negatively impacts the political arena. It turns out that 45 percent of American households, nearly 78 million individuals, have no federal income tax obligation. That poses a serious political problem. Americans with no federal income tax obligation become natural constituencies for big-spending politicians. After all, if one doesn’t pay federal income taxes, what does he care about big spending? Also, if one doesn’t pay federal taxes, why should he be happy about a tax cut? What’s in it for him? In fact, those with no skin in the game might see tax cuts as a threat to their handout programs.  (The underline is mine.)

The above information might explain why Democrats keep getting elected despite their overtaxation and reckless spending (yes, I know the Republicans also overspend).

The article concludes:

Another part of the Trump tax cuts was with corporate income — lowering the rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. That, too, has been condemned by the left as a tax cut for the rich. But corporations do not pay taxes. Why? Corporations are legal fictions. Only people pay taxes. If a tax is levied on a corporation, it will have one or more of the following responses in order to remain in business. It will raise the price of its product, lower its dividends to shareholders and/or lay off workers. Thus, only flesh-and-blood people pay taxes. We can think of corporations as tax collectors. Politicians love our ignorance about this. They suggest that corporations, not people, will be taxed. Here’s how to see through this charade: Suppose a politician told you, as a homeowner, “I’m not going to tax you. I’m going to tax your land.” I hope you wouldn’t fall for that jive. Land doesn’t pay taxes.

Getting back to skin in the game, sometimes I wonder whether one should be allowed in the game if he doesn’t have any skin in it.

It’s time to insure that everyone has some tax burden so that they will consider that burden when they vote.