Nope, We Still Don't Have An Income Inequality Problem

A follow up piece to my original post on inequality is up at The Federalist. 

A slice regarding the myth of wage stagnation:

The myth of wage stagnation is commonly perpetrated by looking at average real wage statistics. But there are several problems with using average wages as a measure, which I’ve explained before, here, here and here. Briefly, one big problem is that average wage statistics are skewed downward due to the large wave of immigration we experienced in the 1980s and 1990s. Even though many immigrants were finding work and improving their lives, the influx of low-skilled work pulled wage averages downward, which makes it appear like there was stagnation when there really wasn’t.

Read the full piece here.

The Moral Case For Low Taxation

The economic case for low taxation is familiar enough, but in my piece at the Daily Caller I make the moral case.

A slice:

Important as these matters are, however, the case for reduced taxation is also compelled by moral considerations.

Every generation of Americans has understood that taxation is a fact of life. Ben Franklin famously remarked that in life “nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” However, our founders worked to keep taxes limited and uniform. “[A]ll duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,” reads the U.S. Constitution. [emphasis added] That is why they not only rejected progressive income taxation, but income taxation entirely. The early republic instead applied taxes primarily to goods, which provided maximum personal choice (to avoid the tax one could avoid purchasing the product).

This vision generally held until the early 20th century, although there were two brief experiments with an income tax prior to that period. The first involved income taxation as high as ten percent during the civil war, which was repealed shortly thereafter. The second was in 1894, when congress passed an income tax that applied to the top two percent of wealth holders. However, it was quickly struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. As historian Burt Folsom notes, “At age 77, [Stephen] Field,” who was a Supreme Court justice at the time, “not only repudiated Congress’s actions, he also penned a prophecy. A small progressive tax, he predicted, ‘will be but the stepping stone to others, larger and more sweeping, till our political contests will become a war of the poor against the rich.’”

Read the full piece here.

We Don't Have An Income Inequality Problem, We Have An Ego Problem

In my recent piece at the Federalist I argued that we don't have an income inequality problem, we have a culture of entitlement problem.

A snippet:

Despite what we routinely read in the news, we do not have an income inequality problem.

First, as I’ve previously argued, we don’t refer to height differences as “height inequality.” Nor should we speak of income differences as “income inequality.” Doing so implies the deck is stacked for the “haves” and against the “have nots” before scrutinizing the facts.

Second, the statistics are often misleading.

A common tactic is to paint a dire economic picture by looking at statistical units— “households,” “families,” “income quintiles,” etc.—instead of individuals. For example, a headline from The New York Times reads: “Household Incomes Have Remained Flat Despite Improving Economy.”

Another article claims that, “after adjusting for inflation, U.S. median household income is still 8 percent lower than it was before the recession, 9 percent lower than at its peak in 1999, and essentially unchanged since the end of the Reagan administration.” Moreover, we are repeatedly warned that increasing shares of income go to the “top one percent” of earners while the rest stagnate or worse.

For the full piece, click here. 

Do We Have a "Right" to Health Care?

My explanation is up in a piece at The Federalist.

A snippet:

Buried beneath the Obamacare replacement debates is the philosophical question of whether health care is a “right.” Article 25 of the United Nations’ Declaration of Rights, for instance, declares it so. While this is correct as a means, it’s wrong as an end. Understanding the distinction is vital.

For the first time in human history, the Declaration of Independence announced that “all men are created equal.” As Abraham Lincoln argued, everyone is equal because everyone is free, and everyone is free because everyone is equal. Hence no man has the authority to rule over another without the other’s consent. Furthermore, because this equality emanates from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” it imbues every individual with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Read the full article here.

The Great Recession: This Time Really is Different

David has a piece up at the Daily Caller highlighting an article by economist Robert Barro, who claims that the U.S. economy should have recovered much faster from the recession than it did. David expands on this point, arguing that too much focus on fiscal stimulus is to blame for the anemic recovery. I don’t find either of these arguments very convincing.

The Myth that Tax Cuts Don't Work

My piece is up at the Daily Caller.

It begins:

Despite the preponderance of contrary evidence, myths persist that tax cuts primarily benefit “the rich” and have no discernible impact on economic growth.

Months ago, for instance, Hillary Clinton charged that “slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn’t worked. And a lot of really smart, wealthy people know that.”

She’s right that it hasn’t worked, but she failed to mention that it’s also never happened. The tired “tax cuts for the rich” canard is disproven by the 1920s, the 1960s, the 1980s and the 2000s, when tax rates were reduced for all—and especially low—income groups.

Read the full piece here.

This is Why Economic Recovery is So Slow

My piece is up at the Daily Caller. 

A snippet:

“I actually compare our economic performance to how, historically, countries that have wrenching financial crises perform. By that measure, we probably managed this better than any large economy on Earth in modern history.” – Barack Obama

So say defenders of the sluggish recovery.  But recent research belies that idea. The truth is our lackluster growth is the result of neglecting an essential economic concept.

According to Just Facts Daily, “even after the recession ended in 2009 average real GDP growth has been 35% below the average from 1960–2009, a period that includes eight recessions.” Moreover,

In early 2011, the White House Office of Management & Budget projected that real GDP would grow by an average of 3.6% per year for five years after the Great Recession (see pages 14–16). Obama’s economists noted that this figure was lower than the typical post-recession growth rate of 4.2%, but they concluded that the “lingering effects from the credit crisis may limit the pace of the recovery,” even though the recession left “enormous room for growth in 2011.” Ultimately, GDP grew by an average of 2.2%, or 39% below the White House’s conservative estimate.

Read the full piece here. 

Making America Suffer Again

In December 2015, Mary Giliberti, CEO of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, wrote a call to action. Her message was to those “who believe in the importance of mental health services and supports” to be better advocates for mental health reform in 2016. The year just ended, but I’d like to answer that call.

Is it Time to End the Electoral College?

My piece defending the Electoral College is up at The Daily Caller.

It begins:

“Time to End the Electoral College,” announced the New York Times.

“Monday’s Electoral College results prove the institution is an utter joke,” declared Vox. 

The Electoral College is a “vestige” and a “carryover” from the past, proclaimed the president of the United States. 

It is a sign of our failing education system that reputable news outlets and intelligent people don’t understand the Electoral College. Its preservation is vital for securing the rights of the minority and averting the tyranny of pure democracy.

Yet seemingly unfamiliar with these arguments, the New York Times (NYT) haughtily pronounced that:

By overwhelming majorities, Americans would prefer to elect the president by direct popular vote, not filtered through the antiquated mechanism of the Electoral College. They understand, on a gut level, the basic fairness of awarding the nation’s highest office on the same basis as every other elected office — to the person who gets the most votes. 

The editors of the Times would do well to consult the history books. “Antiquated” is a term better applied to the idea of a direct popular vote. Millennia ago, Greece and Rome attempted what the NYT celebrates as a novel idea, and both collapsed.

To read the piece in full, click here.