by | BLOG
President Biden and his cohorts in the White House, have been making the point recently that things are good now that inflation has come way down from its highs. In making these assertions, he is trying to take advantage of what he perceives is the economic ignorance of the American people.
Let’s be clear: When the rate of inflation comes down from 9% to 3%, what that means is that instead of prices going up at a 9% annual rate, they are instead going up at a 3% rate. Biden is trying to trick the public into thinking that the rate coming down from its high of 9% means that prices are coming down. But this is nonsense, and in fact, even at 3%, prices are going up faster than they have been going up since 2007. That is why people are confused. They’re thinking that there is this lower rate of inflation, so why does it still seem that prices are rising? The answer is because prices really are still rising, and at a very significant rate.
My only question is whether Biden is intentionally trying to bamboozle the American public, or whether he himself is so economically ignorant, that he actually believes this himself?
by | BLOG
From October 2021 – September 2022 (FY2022), the federal government collected more than $4 trillion this year. The $4,896,119,000,000 of revenue was a record, as shown by the Monthly Treasury Statement. The prior record was FY2021, in which the government collected $4,377,816,830,000. This constitutes a nearly 12% year-over-year increase. These are both in “constant September 2022 dollars.” The only other time the government collected more than $4 trillion was during the Obama administration in FY2015, raking in $4,052,366,920,000 in constant September 2022 dollars. (All September 2022 dollar adjustments were made using the CPI calculator published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)
The record revenue, however, meant nothing to the government, as it still overspent, its outlays totaling $6,271,508,000,000. This resulted in an annual deficit of $1,375,389,000,000. Last year the deficit exceeded $1 trillion as well, as it did in FY2020 and FY2019.
Where did all the money come from this year? From greatest to least, the government collected $2,632,145,000,000 in individual income taxes, $1,483,526,000,000 in social insurance and retirement taxes, $99,908,000,000 in customs duties, $87,726,000,000 in excise taxes, $32,550,000,000 in estate and gift taxes, and $135,397,000,000 in “miscellaneous receipts.”
by | BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, HEALTHCARE
Certificate of Need laws, otherwise known as CON laws, are laws required in many states and some federal jurisdictions before proposed acquisitions, expansions, or creations of healthcare facilities are allowed. They are also absolutely ridiculous and entirely based entirely on cronyism. CON laws are irresponsible, damaging to the economy, and a prime example of an assault on economic liberty. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and we are entitled to their protections by virtue of our Constitution. This economic right to earn a living –this pursuit of happiness–began to be eroded during the FDR era for reasons having to do with partisanship and policy; SCOTUS has subsequently not enforced it rationally. As economic liberty is no longer considered a primary liberty, we get laws such as CON laws that are ultimately unconstitutional. The original argument for CON laws was very specifically to make costs cheapers for the public by virtue of less competition. Instead, CON laws stifle competition by requiring regulatory permission for any new services and equipment within a given region. This is an egregious, suppressive scheme. These burdensome economic rules should be unconstitutional under federal (if not also state) constitutions.
The federal government isn’t supposed to restrict this pursuit of happiness. But once FDR began regulating economic rights, we have a situation where certain liberties are more equal than others . Now, 1st Amendment rights are subject to “strict scrutiny”; these are high, narrow standards used to evaluate the constitutionality of a law. In other words, there must be a damn good reason why such a law violates a 1st amendment right. But when it comes to economic rights, it’s not strict scrutiny, and so sometimes the states can get away impinging on your rights to earn a living by coming up with some ridiculous argument or restriction. For instance, say you are a florist and your state requires licensing in order to operate. Such a concept is ridiculous — what health and safety concerns supersede the right for a person to earn a living as a florist? And yet some court cases have ruled that this licensing is justifiable; one in particular argued successfully that someone could possibly be pricked by a thorn and therefore needs regulation and specialized training. And that’s the problem. You can come up with any conceivable basis for enacting some ridiculous regulation even if it’s unconstitutional.
CON laws are even more ridiculous than the aforementioned thorn-pricking argument, because they are entirely based on something that is economically incorrect — that by restricting competition (as CON laws do), you’ll make the competition cheaper. But that concept is fundamentally wrong.
Unfortunately getting these laws removed is difficult for several reasons. Most of the time, judges tend to defer to government agencies. But even more importantly, when we talk about healthcare as opposed to restaurants, many people believe (incorrectly) that healthcare is some special kind of market that operates differently than other markets do. However, this is simply untrue. Healthcare is just like any other market except that it operates within an extremely complicated incentive structure that was created by the government. Can you imagine a restaurant owner having to submit to a review panel any plans he had to build a restaurant or remodel an existing one? Then why do we tolerate such a thing within the healthcare sector?
Ultimately, CON laws are unconstitutional because of their inherent economic favoritism. There’s no reason why some liberties should be treated differently than economic liberty and the right to earn a living should not be considered as fundamental as other rights. CON laws and their cronyism should be eliminated.
