Interesting artical about what government can and can't do. It's a bit longish, but worth the read. (1 Viewer)

[jpl458]

Against nihilism​

We live in a time of cynicism about what government can accomplish. Most Americans say they don’t have much trust in Washington, regardless of which party is in charge. Even when the federal government sets out to do something that Americans support, many wonder whether it can succeed.
In today’s newsletter, I want to connect four news stories from the past few years and argue that this cynicism has gone too far — that government can indeed accomplish what it promises. I recognize some readers will support the policies I describe, while others will oppose them. But that’s OK. I’m not trying to persuade you that these policies are good or bad.
The point instead is that the U.S. federal government remains a powerful force that can alter the course of American life. The country has the capacity to address its biggest problems. Whether it does is a different matter.

1. The Covid vaccine​

The pandemic was so miserable and divisive that it can be easy to overlook the triumph of the federal government’s vaccine development. Before Covid, the creation of any new vaccine took years. But Operation Warp Speed — a public-private partnership that received $18 billion in federal funding — led to the discovery of a Covid vaccine within months. That speed likely saved millions of lives worldwide.
Yes, the pandemic was also a case study of government failure. Republican politicians (including Donald Trump, who deserves some credit for Warp Speed) refused to embrace the vaccines, leading to hesitancy that cost lives. And many Democratic-run school districts shut down for a year or longer, causing lasting damage to children.
All of this, though, was a reminder of the power of government, for good and ill.

2. Immigration​

In the debate over immigration, you sometimes hear the suggestion that the U.S. is powerless to change migration flows. “Border Enforcement Won’t Solve the U.S. Migrant Crisis,” as a typical op-ed argued in 2022. One way or another, according to this argument, people will find ways to enter the U.S.
But that argument is mostly wrong, as the past four years show.
President Biden took office promising a more welcoming approach to immigration than any president in decades. Sure enough, immigration surged. During the first three years of Biden’s administration, annual net immigration (the number of people arriving, regardless of legal status, minus the number of immigrants leaving) averaged 2.4 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s about three times as high as during Trump’s presidency. It’s more than twice as high as under Barack Obama.
Late last year, Biden changed course. The administration first worked with Mexico to reduce migration flows and then tightened border policies, as my colleague Hamed Aleaziz has explained. Almost as quickly as immigration spiked in 2021, it has fallen in 2024:

[td]

[/td]​

[td width="600px"]

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection | by The New York Times​

[/td]​

A restrictive approach to border security won’t keep out everybody, but it makes a huge difference. Many experts believe that the ideal immigration system would involve both a more secure border and more legal pathways to entry. That combination is well within Congress’s power.

3. Economic policy​

Biden’s economic record is obviously mixed. But he made a set of specific promises about using the federal government to rebuild infrastructure, reduce medical costs, promote clean energy and expand certain kinds of manufacturing. In each of these cases, it’s happening.
New semiconductor factories are being built in Arizona, Missouri, Texas and elsewhere. Roads and bridges are being rebuilt. The cost of insulin has plunged for many people. Clean energy production has increased.
Biden’s industrial policy has been a reminder of the vital role that the federal government has historically played in creating industries like aviation, biotechnology, fracking and the internet.

4. Taxes​

As with immigration, you sometimes hear the claim that federal laws don’t much matter — and particularly that the wealthy can find ways to avoid any tax increases. That’s not correct.
After Obama raised taxes on wealthy Americans, they paid more in taxes. After Bill Clinton raised income taxes at the start of his presidency, the same thing happened. And after Clinton later cut capital-gains taxes, tax payments fell.

[td]

[/td]​

[td width="600px"]

Source: Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman | by The New York Times​

[/td]​

If Democrats control both the White House and Congress next year, they really will be able to increase taxes on the rich. And if Republicans sweep into power, they will cut taxes on the rich.
The bottom line: The fact that governments remain powerful forces even in a globalized, digitized economy doesn’t answer many of the hard questions about what policymakers should do, of course. But it at least offers an antidote to the nihilism that sometimes dominates political debates.

 

[Steve R.]

If Democrats control both the White House and Congress next year, they really will be able to increase taxes on the rich. And if Republicans sweep into power, they will cut taxes on the rich.

An absurd prostration. The poor don't pay taxes. In many cases they receive negative taxes (better know as welfare). Consequently the only people who would receive a Republican tax benefit would be rich people. How do you cut taxes of people who pay no taxes?

To be fair, even the poor should pay some taxes. After all, if they don't have "skin-in-the-game", they will have no interest in having a government that spends tax money efficiently.

PS: You also neglect the obvious question of cutting federal spending. The issue shouldn't be always increasing spending as the solution, but actually cutting federal spending by eliminating unnecessary programs. Even implementing austerity, as an extreme example.

 

[AccessBlaster]

For those of us with dark themes colored fonts especially dark ones are unreadable.

 

[NauticalGent]

For those of us with dark themes colored fonts especially dark ones are unreadable.

Bigot...

 

[jpl458]

An absurd prostration. The poor don't pay taxes. In many cases they receive negative taxes (better know as welfare). Consequently the only people who would receive a Republican tax benefit would be rich people. How do you cut taxes of people who pay no taxes?

To be fair, even the poor should pay some taxes. After all, if they don't have "skin-in-the-game", they will have no interest in having a government that spends tax money efficiently.

PS: You also neglect the obvious question of cutting federal spending. The issue shouldn't be always increasing spending as the solution, but actually cutting federal spending by eliminating unnecessary programs. Even implementing austerity, as an extreme example.

Steve, there are some on welfare, and other less poor people that do pay taxes. There are gradations of wealth. I assume that you do not subscribe to the Christian concept of "my brothers keeper". Don't you think the super rich should pay some more in taxes? What about the sick and infirm, should they be paying taxes, when they can't work? Your description creates a binary situation. There are only the rich, and the poor. Which is not the case.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Bigot...

That's an impossibility, I was born in the free state of California where bigotry was vanquished hundreds of years ago.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I assume that you do not subscribe to the Christian concept of "my brothers keeper".

I'm not Christian. I subscribe to the Confucian saying, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

If we do not somehow persuade people to be contributing members of society, we run towards a society being dragged down by the weight of the useless hangers-on. When there is true illness, certainly we should offer help. Where there is laziness and avarice, pardon my French but screw that.

My wife and I happen to support food-bank charities, so we "offer a man a fish." But if my "brother" is able-bodied, I do him a disservice by keeping him dependent on me when he could have FAR more freedom by working on his own and not having to repeatedly come to me with an empty cup. Further, now that I'm retired, I have to watch my own cup's level a bit more closely, too.

 

[jpl458]

I'm not Christian. I subscribe to the Confucian saying, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

If we do not somehow persuade people to be contributing members of society, we run towards a society being dragged down by the weight of the useless hangers-on. When there is true illness, certainly we should offer help. Where there is laziness and avarice, pardon my French but screw that.

My wife and I happen to support food-bank charities, so we "offer a man a fish." But if my "brother" is able-bodied, I do him a disservice by keeping him dependent on me when he could have FAR more freedom by working on his own and not having to repeatedly come to me with an empty cup. Further, now that I'm retired, I have to watch my own cup's level a bit more closely, too.

Doc, I agree with you for the most part. But some cannot help the consequences that they are in. I realize that there are those that game the system, but should we punish the true needy to stop those that cheat?

 

[Steve R.]

Steve, there are some on welfare, and other less poor people that do pay taxes. There are gradations of wealth. I assume that you do not subscribe to the Christian concept of "my brothers keeper". Don't you think the super rich should pay some more in taxes? What about the sick and infirm, should they be paying taxes, when they can't work? Your description creates a binary situation. There are only the rich, and the poor. Which is not the case.

A carefully crafted one sided sob story argument that only promotes increasing taxation. At some point the nation becomes bankrupt trying to save everyone. Also don't forget, that only targeting the rich means that they will get-up and leave. So who are you going tax then?

You also need to consider taxation a form of theft. While you may want to take care of the poor, stealing from the rich does not seem to be within the concept of "my brothers keeper". People, just because they are poor, does not mean that they have a right to steal.

With current deficit spending and ballooning national debt, we need to consider austerity.

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[moke123]

That's an impossibility, I was born in the free state of California where bigotry was vanquished hundreds of years ago.

There are anomalies in everything, everywhere.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The two authors of the above article have had questionable results.

Something's fishy with the Saez-Zucman tax stats - Phillip W. Magness

Just over two weeks ago, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman approached the New York Times and Washington Post with an astonishing claim. According to new calculations performed by the pair, the wealthiest earners in the United States paid an overall effective tax rate in 2018...

philmagness.com

 

[Pat Hartman]

Late last year, Biden changed course. The administration first worked with Mexico to reduce migration flows and then tightened border policies, as my colleague Hamed Aleaziz has explained. Almost as quickly as immigration spiked in 2021, it has fallen in 2024:

No, it hasn't fallen. It is just being hidden. There is a phone app where you can sign up ahead of time and if you do this and tell the guards when you get to the border, you are not counted as an illegal crosser because you have "official" standing.

he hard questions about what policymakers should do,

Our founders envisioned a much smaller government than we have today. Many would think that the government has grown way too large and way too powerful. Trump is a huge threat to the status quo because he believes that the government needs to be reduced. The RINOs are just as unhappy about this as are the Democrats. Trump worked very hard on that last time by insisting that for every new regulation imposed by new legislation, 2 would need to be discarded. I think his average was way higher by the end of his term but I'm not sure of the exact number. This term he will do his best to get rid of the DOE. In the 70's when this bureaucracy was created, our educational system was one of the best in the "first world" countries. We are now down to close to 50th place. What happened? The DOE is what happened. Instead of raising the bar they lowered it to the lowest common denominator. The objective was equity. The strive for excellence was removed. Everyone now gets promoted whether they can read at grade level or not. They lower the standardized tests for college entrance or eliminate them entirely. Colleges no longer give grades or everyone gets an "A" like at Yale. Really? Do I really want a doctor who got the obligatory "A"? Ask a dying man if he wants the black, female doctor to operate or the best doctor in the house which could be the white male or the homosexual midget.

Why does the government need to grow every year? Why do we not simplify the tax code so we don't need to hire 87, 000 new armed IRS agents? When you add up all the accountants and tax lawyers and IRS employees, there have to be 5 million people involved. The government has already forced businesses to tattle on me. They know exactly what trades took place in my investment accounts so they know exactly how much money I earned with dividends and how much from capital gains and losses. If I earn a salary as an employee, they get my W2 statement probably before I do. They get my SS income from the SSA. They get my pension income from the plan administrator. They get my bank balance from my bank. That leaves the cash economy as well as independent contractors like myself. I get income that the IRS doesn't know about. But, in my case, it is never in cash so there is always a money trail. I couldn't hide my income if I tried, not that I would anyway. When I was a freshman in high-school, I started doing tax returns for my entire family because my 8th grade math teacher taught us how to do them. How many 8th graders today learn how to fill in a tax return or balance a checkbook? Today, I have to use a tax preparation program because the rules have gotten so complicated I can't figure them out from the written instructions.

What Trump needs to do if elected is to get the government agencies that are left, out of the swamp of DC (after he prunes them of course). Move at least some of them to other parts of the country where the living is cheaper and spread the wealth of government jobs to fly-over country. The federal employees have become an echo chamber of bad ideas. Maybe if they live with the hicks for a while, they'll absorb new values and stop this craziness of wanting to kill babies in the delivery room and thinking that boys should beat on women in sporting events.

 

[moke123]

When I was a freshman in high-school, I started doing tax returns for my entire family because my 8th grade math teacher taught us how to do them.

What level of education did your entire family attain that they needed a ninth grade student to do their taxes?

balance a checkbook?

I can't even remember the last time I wrote a paper check. I think I have a blank check in my wallet that's been there about 15 years.

 

[Pat Hartman]

What level of education did your entire family attain that they needed a ninth grade student to do their taxes?

Any opportunity to take a cheap shot. You never disappoint. Given this was 60 years ago, the answer is typical for the time. High school for most, age 16 if they needed to drop out to go out to work for the family.

You could have said, wow, you must have been in an advanced math class. Children aren't taught those skills today. But negative is always better. Keep it up. We wouldn't want you to step out of character.

 

[Isaac]

My Dad only reached the 8th grade and I'm immensely proud of him regardless. He provided a family foundation of love, moral values and Christianity that has supported his children during tough times of all kinds. Out of that family, supported on little education and a minimum wage, has come a major restaurant company CEO, a community college system President, a stellar public defense Lawyer ... and whatever the heck I am.
He considered marriage to be for LIFE and is still with Mom after a lifetime of togetherness.

He believed that God still does healing miracles and has believed for his and Mom's health all his life, and he is the absolute healthiest 86 yr old man I have ever seen - with zero physical problems and still mows the lawns, including large ditches and hills.

My Dad's lack of formal education did nothing to detract from the amazing foundation he gave all of us to grab life by the horns and take personal responsibility for our choices.

+1 for those who didn't need a formal education to leave a massive legacy!

 

[AccessBlaster]

So arrogant, and probably first in line for school debt default.

 

[Darrell]

But if my "brother" is able-bodied, I do him a disservice by keeping him dependent on me when he could have FAR more freedom by working on his own and not having to repeatedly come to me with an empty cup.

Couldn't agree more.
Unfortunately in NZ for the last 10 years or so we have had a massive shift away from this thinking. The previous government thought that because certain sections of society fare poorly in loads of statistics, i.e. prison representation, health, dependance on welfare, education, that they decided to legislate towards improving these statistics, but sure enough nothing has changed except the country is now more divided (I for one didn't like finding out that I had to pay to see a doctor, whereas someone else of a different race got this service for free) and the working class has been taxed to the point of collapse.
They literally couldn't understand that whilst you can legislate equal opportunity, you cannot legislate outcomes.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

What level of education did your entire family attain that they needed a ninth grade student to do their taxes?

My Dad was a young adult during the Great Depression. He had only an 8th-grade education because of family issues including his father's (my grandfather's) early demise from a construction accident in a time when the litigious nature of society hadn't yet reared its ugly head. Granny, who was a ne'er-do-well to begin with, survived because Dad quit school in order to get a job armed only with his 8th-grade education. Damage and wrongful death suits weren't a big thing until much later so to say they were poor just doesn't quite cut it.

Dad eventually got his GED when he was in his 50's, while working for the local fire department, but he was never able to get any advanced job or even a blue-collar skilled job UNTIL he got on with the fire department and took advantage of civil service. For those of us who are ... a bit more senior than others, the possibility exists that our generation WAS far better educated than our parents' generation.

My dear old Dad had many flaws and many foibles but he was an honorable, brave, and caring man. After he retired, he collected money for the Shriner's Children's Hospital and frequently made it to the $2000 (in a year) mark several years in a row by collecting loose change at shopping centers ("shaking his can"). He didn't have a good education - but he had compassion for the poor and the uneducated. When I graduated with a doctorate, it was one of only five times that I saw him cry. I didn't understand then, but do now, that his tears were because he knew HIS son wouldn't have to endure what HE endured in being mostly unemployable.

I have to say, Moke123, that your answer was borderline abusive. It arrogantly makes assumptions that are not appropriate for civilized discussions. You are being excessively judgmental in your comment. It not-so-subtly implies that Pat might have been prevaricating. It is unworthy of you to do so.

 

[moke123]

Yes it didn't come out as intended, belated apologies.