Here the Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell delivers a dire warning.
Politicians want to upend the rules of global commerce to undermine and restrict tax competition. They realize that the long-run fiscal outlook of their countries is grim, but rather than fix the bad policies they’ve imposed, they want a system that will enable higher ever-higher tax burdens.
In the long run, that leads to disaster, but politicians rarely think past the next election.
The bureaucrats in Brussels have concocted a strange theory that Ireland’s pro-growth tax system provides “state aid” to companies like Apple (in other words, if you tax at a low rate, that’s somehow akin to giving handouts to a company, at least if you start with the assumption that all income belongs to government).
Senator Elizabeth Warren predictably tells readers of the New York Times that Congress should squeeze more money out of the business community.
Now that they are feeling the sting from foreign tax crackdowns, giant corporations and their Washington lobbyists are pressing Congress to cut them a new sweetheart deal here at home. But instead of bailing out the tax dodgers under the guise of tax reform, Congress should seize this moment to…repair our broken corporate tax code. …Congress should increase the share of government revenue generated from taxes on big corporations — permanently. In the 1950s, corporations contributed about $3 out of every $10 in federal revenue. Today they contribute $1 out of every $10.
As part of her goal to triple the tax burden of companies, she also wants to adopt full and immediate worldwide taxation. What she apparently doesn’t understand (and there’s a lot she doesn’t understand) is that Washington may be capable of imposing bad laws on U.S.-domiciled companies, but it has rather limited power to impose bad rules on foreign-domiciled firms.
P.S. To close on an upbeat point, Senator Rand Paul defends Apple from predatory politicians in the United States.
That’s right. We are seeing a broad long-term trend that is leaving us both less free and poorer as a nation, writes Cato’s Michael Tanner.
As recently as 2009, we were still in the top ten. Now we are tucked between Lithuania and Malta. The top four positions are held by traditional free-market economies Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, and Switzerland. But Americans may be shocked to know that Canada finishes at number five. We may love to make fun of our neighbor to the north. But they are increasingly moving in the right direction, while we are becoming less free. Other countries that beat us now, include Ireland, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Chile.
Some key issues?
Size of government—78th. For all the talk about European socialism, the U.S. has a bigger government than much of Europe.
Regulation—8th. Yes better, but we’ve fallen from 2nd in the 2003
Free Trade—60th. The U.S. is hardly a bastion of free trade. (Mexico comes in at 67th place.)
The Soundness of the Dollar—40th, down from 1st in 2005 for monetary soundness.
“In 2000, the United States ranked second in the world when it came to how free we were to buy and sell, to hire and fire, to run our businesses and conduct other economic activities free of government interference. “
The really bad news, Mr. Tanner points out, is that neither of the leading presidential candidates is likely to make things better. Hillary has never met a regulation that she doesn’t like. Trump says he will cut regulations, but he also wants to implement new regulations, such as paid sick and parental leave and a higher minimum wage.
The long-term trend is going to leave us both less free and poorer as a nation, a sad legacy to leave our children and grandchildren. Read more from Michael Tanner here.
Fraser Institute: The Benefits of Economic Freedom
The Wall Street Journalannounces the complete top 10 list, including an analysis of the huge gains being made in China.
The University of Oxford, the oldest in the English-speaking world, took the top spot in the latest World University Rankings, released annually by Times Higher Education. The English university dating to 1096 dethroned the California Institute of Technology.
This is the first time a university outside the U.S. is No. 1 in the list’s 13-year history. This year’s list also underscores strengthening university systems in Asia as schools in China and Hong Kong have risen up the ranks, some by double digits.
Oxford’s boost came from an exceptionally strong research income and global collaboration.
Further down the list, Asian universities have soared past some of the most prestigious institutions in Europe and the U.S.
Over the past eight years, China has invested the equivalent of roughly $33 billion in developing a group of elite universities through two government initiatives.
American schools account for about one-third of the top 200 schools, same as last year. British universities make up 16% of the list, down a percentage point from last year, and Germany claims 11%, up a percentage point.
Notable movers in the U.S. include the University of California, Berkeley, which returned to the top 10 by tying the University of Chicago at No. 10.
Former CIA bin Laden unit chief Michael warns Americans that “America is either all in the Islam war, or all out.”
“Resolve”, in Hillary’s mind, is what you show when you believe there is some other outcome in the war with Islam besides winning or losing. There is not. And there never has been. All of those in both parties, the media, the military, and the academy who have, for 20-plus years, told Americans that there is — in such forms as nation-building, democracy-spreading, election-holding, or womens-rights awarding — are liars, stupid, or stupid liars. That is the basket in which Hillary, her husband, Bush, Cheney, Obama, and Biden permanently belong.
“Resolve”, in Hillary’s mind, is what you show when you believe there is some other outcome in the war with Islam besides winning or losing. There is not. And there never has been.
America is either all in the Islam war, or all out; slaughter all Islamists and their supporters, or get out of a war that no longer concerns us, except for closing/controlling our border and lawfully hounding domestic Islamists to prison or death.
The best of the two options clearly is to get out of the way and let the currently gathering momentum for a Shia-Sunni war come to fruition. Let the Israelis, Europeans, and our Sunni non-allies take care of themselves.
For the parents of all U.S. soldier-children who have been killed or maimed since 9/11, and for all those whose soldier-children will certainly be killed in Hillary’s unending war of “resolve”, it is worth asking yourself what possible good could be derived — for yourselves, your kids, or your country — from putting two such lethal-to-Americans and self-serving narcissists back in the White House.
Dr. Michael Scheuer: “I’ve Come To The Point Where These Generals Are Just Cowards”
On Sunday, 26 September about one-half of Paris was off limits to autos and limited exclusively to pedestrians. Exceptions were made for buses, taxis, and emergency vehicles.
Under grey skies and light showers, areas around the Louvre and Champs Elysees were inundated with cyclists, prams, scooters and pedestrians.
The 2nd car-free day in Paris is part of Mayor Anne Hidalgo’s wider efforts to fight air pollution. But it wouldn’t be France without controversy. Critics say that the Mayor’s policies are only shifting problems elsewhere.
“… the majority of Parisians support their mayor’s push to restrict car use within the city. Up to 55 percent of respondents said they supported closing off the Berges de Seine to cars, and 59 percent said they wanted to see a decrease in traffic by 2020.
Hidalgo’s so-called ‘war on cars’ has of course run into detractors. Some say the mayor’s policies will do little to reduce air pollution, but will actually increase smog outside the city centre.”
Regardless, for seven hours, starting around 11 a.m., it was a wonder to walk around a honking-free Paris. Even the police took to the streets on rollerblades. The only caution needed when crossing streets? Beware of three-year olds on training wheels.
Daniel Larison and Ben Denison have pieces up decrying the focus on American “leadership” in foreign affairs commentary. It’s a tendentious and vacuous term that’s annoyed me for years, which got me to thinking: there are lots of tendentious and vacuous foreign-policy terms that have annoyed me for years. In the spirit of Ambrose Bierce, I offer a few selections from the Foreign Policy Pundit’s Dictionary below.
Friends and allies. Countries whose interests we should take as our own.
What’s really notable here is the inclusion of “friends.” Allies are one thing, but do nation-states really have friends? Do they play badminton, or talk about their spouses with one another? On any given day, roughly half the nations on earth could count themselves in this category, which has a crippling effect on both American policy and the discussion of American policy. Further complicating things is that once a country becomes a friend/ally, its status is assured, barring an Iran-1979 style reversal of course.
Interests. Things states ought to want.
In the case of the United States, these are whatever the author says they may be. In the case of foreign countries, again they are whatever the author says they may be. At an off the record colloquium on Afghanistan some years ago, an academic challenged a Washington policy hand’s view of what Pakistan should do to help the U.S. occupation of that country, suggesting that Pakistanis would not believe that doing what the speaker had suggested would benefit Pakistan in the broader scheme of things. Without batting an eye, the Washington policy adviser declared, “Well then, Pakistan doesn’t know what its interests are.” One hears this sort of thing so often it ceases to be shocking.
Isolationist. Person who supports fewer wars than me and might possibly be a Nazi sympathizer, we aren’t sure.
I used to shoutmyselfhoarse about the facts that 1) isolationism/-ist was designed as a smear term, 2) there were no isolationists anywhere near the levers of power in Washington, and 3) that the constant invocations of the America First Committee/Charles Lindbergh/etc proved that people were using the term as a pejorative, not a description.
Nationalism. Dangerous and illiberal love of country that only exists outside the United States.
Patriotism. Honorable and decent love of country that exists only in the United States.
Service to our country. A lifetime of enriching oneself at the public trough at the risk of little more than electoral defeat.
Strength. A state’s willingness to engage in enervating self-destructive behavior.
Related closely to “toughness,” as described in the great American folk singer Roger Alan Wade’s song entitled “If You’re Gonna Be Dumb, You Gotta Be Tough.” Frequently invoked around the time of the invasion of Iraq, when opponents were warned that declining to kill 4,500 of our own people and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis–as well as lighting a trillion dollars on fire–by starting a pointless war would be a sign of weakness to our adversaries.
David Franke is a decades-long industry friend and a fine writer and editor. David summarizes last night’s debate outing pretty much in line with what I would have written. So I decided to let David bring you the message of relative calm.
Bottom line first: I think the debate was a wash. Hillary was better on debating points. Trump was better on stressing issues that are very important to highly motivated segments of the population—very important in a campaign. We will probably see incremental gains for Trump in the coming weeks, but that probably was in the works anyway. He has been on a roll.
I won’t start to discuss where I agree or disagree with the candidates, since I am so opposed to so much of what they advocate. Besides, the most urgent issues facing America were misstated or were not even discussed, and I see elections as a distraction (bread and circuses) engineered by the people who really decide policy. Better to focus on performance than truth, which you’re not going to get in a debate.
Expectations are very important in an event such as this. Trump did not come across as a mad man, as the media portrays him. Most people realize that Hillary has had much more experience in campaigning and debating, whereas this was Trump’s first one-on-one debate. On the other hand, he has extensive experience as a television performer. All in all, I think Trump won the expectations game.
Hillary won the beauty contest, which has been important in TV debates since Nixon-Kennedy (sweaty Nixon vs. poised and youthful Kennedy). In this instance, Hillary smiled constantly, didn’t rant or wave her hands like she is often wont to do, and didn’t cough or show any signs of physical distress. Trump, on the other hand, looked like Trump the Grump. This is especially true when not talking, listening to her. This turned strongly against Trump when, at the end, he lambasted Hillary for not having the stamina to be President. She had showed no signs of fatigue or lack of stamina during the debate. This made for a bad debate ending for Trump. It was a good issue in the campaigning of the past few weeks, but not for this debate.
Hillary was the policy wonk, as we all expected, but policy wonks don’t usually win campaign debates, though that works I suppose in collegiate debate contests. Trump inexplicably did not hit her hard on the email issue, one of the strongest reasons people do not trust her. Apparently he couldn’t figure out how to work this into the debate outside of one short segment. And I think the Clinton Foundation scandal is even far more important than the email scandal, yet that wasn’t even mentioned. I don’t expect a mainstream media host to bring up something that embarrassing to Clinton, but why didn’t Trump?
Oh well, this was his first one-on-one debate, as I mentioned at the beginning, and overall I’m relieved (as someone who is unequivocally against Clinton) that he brought the debate to a draw, rather than an embarrassing loss. He has made great progress in campaigning under the tutelage of Kellyann Conway, and perhaps he will also show great progress in the next two debates.
Trump: I will release my taxes when Clinton produces emails
You don’t want to get between a stage and a Clinton. My biggest takeaway from last night’s debate? Simple, there’s no escaping the three-headed monster of Chelsea, Bill, and Hillary: Chillary.
Chillary is the image that I cannot get out of my head.
No sooner did mediator Lester Holt unclip his mic and there was Chillary center stage, shaking hands with their enablers in the crowd, as the Trump family stood back, aghast, and watched.
That is the image I will remember most.
The Trumps, and the rest of the families watching around the country, could only witness another disgraceful, classless act by the Clintons.
Donald Trump did what he needed to do last night. He will be remembered. He reminded everyone watching what a failure Secretary Clinton has been to this country. Three points that I remember most.
One, Hillary called her email problem a “mistake.” Trump countered, no, it was not a mistake. It is not a mistake when your staff needs to plead the fifth to protect you.
Second, Hillary’s negligence as Secretary of State helped create the problem that is ISIS. Now she wants to fix it? Please. Trump reminded us what a failure she has been.
Third, Hillary has spent millions on negative adds. Trump said he’s refrained from telling Americans what he really knows about the Clintons. I believe it. So does everyone else.
Trump did what he needed to do last night. He reminded us what we would get from Chillary. More Washington. More lies. More insiders. And, last but not least: Do not to get between a stage and a Clinton.
