Beta

Password Reset Confirmation

If an account matching the email you entered was found, you will receive an email with a link to reset your password.

Welcome to our Beta

The Advocates of Self-Government is preparing a new experience for our users.

User Not Found

The username/email and password combination you entered was not found. Please try again or contact support.

Skip to main content
Start My Journey
Enable Dark Mode

Quizzes & Apps

Articles

Author: Jose Nino

millennials home ownership

Will Home Ownership be a Fleeting Prospect for Millennials?

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economics, Liberator Online, News You Can Use. No Comments on Will Home Ownership be a Fleeting Prospect for Millennials?

The rising price of homes in major metropolitan areas has been a particular interest of economics observers during the last few years. After all, housing is a major political issue due to the economic status implications of owning a home in America. At the end of 2019, Attom, a provider of real estate data, released its fourth-quarter 2019 report on housing affordability in America. It’s no secret that housing prices have been on the rise during the last decade. According to Attom, median home prices in the fourth quarter of 2019 were unaffordable for the average wage earner in 344 of 486 — 71 percent — of the counties observed in the report. The prospect of homeownership is starting to seem out of reach for most Americans. The report revealed that the rise in home prices is already eclipsing wage growth in 76 percent of the markets that Attom studied. Obviously, younger generations of prospective home-buyers will have more problems in this environment. For example, in two-thirds of the counties studied, aspiring homeowners need to put down at least 30 percent of their annual wages upfront, as well as pay the fees associated with buying a home. Although the American standard of living is quite high by historical standards, Americans still have trouble acquiring goods and services such as education, healthcare, and housing. However, some jurisdictions enable Americans to find more affordable housing arrangements. Sun Belt states have built a reputation for being more affordable than the majority of the largest metro centers in America. This is no coincidence given their support of economic freedom and relatively lax land-use policies. Land-use regulations play a key role in restricting housing supply and making it more expensive for potential home-buyers. Easy money guidelines that the Federal Reserve has implemented have also generated price inflation over the years, as well. When the money supply increases, a reduction in the purchasing power of a monetary unit inevitably follows. This combination of regulatory actions and central banking policies has put tremendous financial pressure on young professionals. The glory days of affordable housing seem to be a fading memory for the would-be upwardly mobile in big cities. The good news for Americans is that these problems are not a matter of life and death. What is required is hard-nosed political action that addresses the underlying causes of the numerous problems that current generations are facing. In the meantime, younger generations should proactively be educating themselves and their acquaintances on sound financial practices. Responsible individuals are a necessary precondition for building an economically stable society. It’s key for younger age groups to resist the temptation of false promises from the government and instead rely on self-education and civil society to help them get by when economic uncertainty looms.
minimum wage, economy, employment

Calls to Increase the Minimum Wage are Still Misguided

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economics, Elections and Politics, Monetary Policy. 1 Comment on Calls to Increase the Minimum Wage are Still Misguided

With former Vice President Joe Biden as the likely 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, Americans should be expecting a great deal of lofty promises in the upcoming months. Compounded by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, politicians will be pledging to give out all sorts of government goodies and forms of protection in these troubling times. minimum wage, economy, employment Although Biden has been billed as a moderate, some of his more radical Democratic colleagues’ ideas may finally be rubbing off on him. For example, increasing the minimum wage. Although billionaire Tom Steyer had no chance of winning, one of his ideas — pushing Congress to pass a $22 per hour minimum wage —  is gradually becoming more mainstream, as odd as the policy may sound. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25. Most of the 2020 candidates have embraced a $15 wage standard. According to Pew Research polls, 67 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Especially in today’s environment of a global pandemic, with many people being economically displaced, such policies will likely receive high levels of support. As Jon Miltimoe of the Foundation for Economic Education notes, however, this support plummets when the respondents are made aware of Congressional Budget Office estimates showing that a minimum wage hike would kill nearly 1.3 million jobs. Many minimum wage proponents believe that the minimum wage is not high enough. Despite their protests, the data demonstrates that when state and local minimum wage laws are factored in, America has historically high minimum wage rates. “Averaging across all of these federal, state and local minimum wage laws, the effective minimum wage in the United States — the average minimum wage binding each hour of minimum wage work — will be $11.80 an hour in 2019,” The New York Times reported last April. “Adjusted for inflation, this is probably the highest minimum wage in American history.” In today’s climate of economic uncertainty, it can be understood why people desire an increased minimum wage. Housing markets in many cities have become out of reach for the working class and even growing numbers of college-educated professionals. But these dynamics merit understanding their true causes, rather than simply applying ineffective Band-Aids. When considering wage increases, it’s best to understand the role capital and productivity play in boosting wages. An increased capital stock and the boost in productivity that inevitably follows is the blueprint for wage growth, not minimum wage mandates. Minimum wage laws are notorious for causing unemployment, reducing opportunities for unskilled workers, and, in contemporary times, accelerating the shift to automation. When legislation sounds too good to be true, we must first ask about the unintended consequences. Politicians shouldn’t be so narrow-minded when considering policies for boosting wages. There are many ways to skin a cat, and increasing productivity can be done in a manner that keeps America’s economy going while generating positive socioeconomic outcomes. Reforms from simplifying our convoluted tax code, to rolling back many of the country’s unnecessary regulations, will do more for workers than anything politicians pull out of their legislative bag of tricks. Indeed, it’s difficult to talk about the minimum wage in the current state of pandemic. We must remember that what is right is not always popular. Further, the road to prosperity involves us instituting tough reforms. There are no quick fixes or linear paths to economic progress. But there are tried and true ways of building wealth, which include the respect of private property and letting businesses operate with as little government impediments as possible. In this way, America’s most successful businesses will be allowed to thrive and workers will end up benefiting through higher wages and better living standards. The key is the government staying out of the way.
regulation deregulation south korea

South Korea Considers Deregulation to Boost Its Economy

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics. No Comments on South Korea Considers Deregulation to Boost Its Economy

Last month, South Korea’s finance ministry announced that it has identified 10 industrial sectors that it wants to see privatization take place in. Among the sectors included in the reforms are artificial intelligence, biotechnology, e-commerce, fintech, new medical technologies, and tourism. The main purpose of the reforms is to develop services and technology with fewer regulatory constraints. Under these proposals, companies in the aforementioned sectors will be allowed to operate more freely. regulation deregulation south korea South Korea has been a regional leader in terms of economic development and one of the most high profile economic miracles of the past 50 years. It is currently ranked as the 29th most economically free country in the world. It joins the other Asian Tigers  — Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong, as an economic juggernaut in the region. South Korea still has work to do in regards to labor freedom and government integrity, but it’s light years ahead of its neighbor North Korea. This is quite possibly the starkest country A versus country B comparison you will find out there. South Korea is a paragon of modernity and social cohesion. On the other hand, North Korea is a communist garrison state whose people and even soldiers are starving to death, thanks to the collectivist reforms set in place by the nation’s first leader Kim Il-sung and his successors, Kim Jong-il and Kim Jong-un. Even China, a country that transitioned from Maoist authoritarianism to a more rational economic approach under reformist leader Deng Xiaoping, still lags behind South Korea on development indicators. Not coincidentally, China is ranked in a sub-par 100th place in the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom. This success story did not happen overnight. South Korea was one of Asia’s most destitute countries beginning in the 1950s. In fact, its standard of living was comparable to many underdeveloped nations in Africa at the time — per capita income stood at less than $100 in South Korea. However, this did not discourage South Korean leaders. Instead of buying into Keynesian or radically redistributionist dogmas, the country opted for a middle-of-the-road approach that was relatively business friendly, promoted high savings, and protected property rights. The second factor —savings — is one of the pillars of a modern economy and how civilizations are able to perpetuate themselves. It’s only fitting that South Korean leaders take these logical next steps and continue to liberate South Korea’s economy so that the country can reach its full potential.  
Texas taxes education reform

To Keep Property Taxes Low, Texas Will Need to Reform Education

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Economic Liberty, Economics, Education, Taxes. No Comments on To Keep Property Taxes Low, Texas Will Need to Reform Education

According to a recent University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll, voters in the Lone Star State believe that property taxes are too high and the state is not spending enough on public education. Texas taxes education reform The majority of Texas voters are of the opinion that they pay too much in property taxes. Only 5 percent said they pay too little, and 26 percent said the property tax burden is just right. Among Democrats, 45 percent believe they pay too much. Sixty-three percent of independents and 59 percent of Republicans also believe property taxes are too high. On the question of public education, 50 percent of Texans think the state spends too little. Property taxes are one of the principal ways public education is funded in Texas. This was a major point of contention during the 2019 session of the Texas Legislature. The concerns of Texas taxpayers are warranted. Texas has made a name for itself by having no income tax, which has been a major selling point that policymakers have used to attract business and new residents. Nevertheless, the lack of an income tax has not fully contained politicians’ desire to raise tax revenues in other ways. According to Ross Kecseg of the conservative website Texas Scorecard, Texan households must shoulder, on average, a tax burden that is sixty percent higher than that of other states without income taxes. On the property tax front, the picture looks bleaker when comparing Texas to other states with no or very low income taxes. Texas households pay 83 percent higher property taxes than households in Washington, 102 percent higher taxes than in Nevada, 213 percent higher than in Wyoming, and more than 230 percent higher than taxpayers in Tennessee. Rising property taxes have been a feature in Texas politics over the past decade. James Quintero of the Texas Public Policy Foundation pointed this out when he revealed that statewide property taxes have climbed by 60 percent in the last decade. Texas’ rising property tax rates have clearly outstripped the population growth, which was 19 percent in the observed period. To get to the bottom of the property tax burden problem, Texas will have to address education spending. Education researchers Vance Ginn and Trey Berthelot of the Texas Public Policy Foundation discovered that education spending has increased by 7.6 percent from 2004 to 2016. Further, as spending has increased in the education sector, bureaucratic bloat has inevitably followed. From the fiscal year of 1993 to the fiscal year of 2015, student enrollment at public schools in Texas grew by 48 percent while non-teaching staff swelled by 66 percent and teachers grew by only 56 percent. In that time, there has not been an observable increase in the quality of education. Texas should start considering other options such as school choice and measures that begin to insert market dynamics into the education sector. Ideally, there would be a steady transition towards a private education model. By going the private route, children will not only have more educational options in front of them, but education reform will also save taxpayers a considerable amount of money. There are many elderly homeowners who have no kids and people without a personal connection to public education who are effectively subsidizing the education of others. Education reform is not only a question of expanding options for students but also of promoting social equity.
America dollar cash dollars

Make America Fiscally Sane Again

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics, Liberator Online, News You Can Use. No Comments on Make America Fiscally Sane Again

The economy under President Donald Trump has looked solid so far, with unemployment levels reaching historic lows and job creation growing steadily. According to the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), 7 million jobs have been created since the 2016 election. The CEA’s recorded figures exceed the 1.9 million jobs that the Congressional Budget Office originally projected. Unemployment rates across demographics have fallen significantly. However, Robert Samuelson, a columnist for the Washington Post, is skeptical of Trump’s policies and even penned an article titled “Trump is Hooked on Deficits.” Samuelson suggests that a “stroke of luck” may be behind some of this growth. In his view, growing consumer confidence since the Great Recession could be a major factor behind the economy’s recent uptick. However, public policy cannot be ignored. In defense of the Trump administration, its tax policies and deregulation measures were steps in the right direction. On taxes, Trump cut income taxes and corporate taxes in order to make America more competitive on the global stage. For administrative deregulation, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771, which orders federal agencies to repeal two regulatory measures for each new regulatory measure enacted. The former, unfortunately, was not accompanied by spending reforms. Hence, the ever-present deficit problem. At the end of 2019, the total deficit for the year stood at $984 billion.  To make matters even worse, the national debt reached $23 trillion by the end of 2019. Samuelson’s concerns for the deficit are reasonable. However, there is reason to believe they may be partisan in nature. The Post is known for its pro-establishment bias. Let’s be honest here, Republicans have clearly demonstrated a longstanding devotion to fiscal irresponsibility. That said, their Democratic colleagues have not offered much in return. The fiscal problem in D.C. is a bipartisan affair through and through. Both parties have had their hands in the cookie jar, so it’s intellectually dishonest to score political points against the other when basically doing a copycat routine. A more nuanced take on this matter would be to take both parties to task for their fiscal mischief. Economist Peter Schiff is great at that. He has built a long track record of calling out D.C.’s spendthrift ways and offering an independent perspective, free of partisan cheerleading. Even though he originally voted for Trump, Schiff has been a major critic of his spending policies. In fact, he believes that Trump’s spending is making the U.S. borrow its way into poverty. This type of impartial analysis is desperately needed, unlike commentary which tows a partisan line. Trump has passed some solid policies but he will have to get serious about overspending. If Trump wants to make America great again, he needs to get the country’s fiscal affairs straightened out. Not doing so could have terrible consequences for millions of young Americans.
bill de blasio nationalization

New York City Mayor Uses Coronavirus Crisis To Promote Nationalization

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Economics, Healthcare, Property Rights, Trade & Tarrifs. 1 Comment on New York City Mayor Uses Coronavirus Crisis To Promote Nationalization

On March 14, 2020, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio called for the nationalization of certain industries to tackle the novel coronavirus that has been spreading across the globe. De Blasio went on MSNBC to chat with news host Joy Reid to make the case for radical government action. bill de blasio nationalization “Here’s the reality. This is a war-like situation. We’re in a wartime scenario with a Mar-a-Lago attitude being used by the federal government. It’s so laid back, and I don’t understand it,” he told Reid. “By the way, testing. How about ventilators? Where is the federal government making sure our hospitals have the ventilators we’re going to need? Where is the federal government when it comes to surgical masks, getting them distributed? This is a case for a nationalization of crucial factories and industries – literally a nationalization – that could produce the medical supplies to prepare this country for what we need.” In the face of the coronavirus outbreak, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo was able to enlist state prisoners to produce hand sanitizer. For de Blasio, however, this strategy is only one piece of the puzzle in effectively fighting the coronavirus. “The point I’m saying is the federal government should recognize this is a crucial part of stopping this. There should be a national approach to ensuring every factory that can make hand sanitizer should be on 24/7 shifts and the distribution should go to the places that need it most,” the mayor remarked. “We’re not into the discussion because we can’t even get the testing.” Nationalizing “crucial factories and industries” is textbook top-down socialism, as private property is seized by the state in a desperate attempt to stave off a crisis. One can make a good case for state governments and local entities taking necessary steps to curb transmission of the virus in their jurisdictions. However, using this outbreak to engage in outright nationalization is a clear example of a power grab. Economist Ludwig von Mises offered powerful insights about the authoritarian nature of central planning. It is one of the great enablers of authoritarian dictatorship, given how conceited some politicians are. They think they know what’s best for a country, as opposed to free individuals and the subsidiary institutions they form. Mises observed the following in his book, Planned Chaos:
The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute preeminence of his own plan.
One would think that the fall of the Soviet Union and China’s transition from economic Maoism would have put these disastrous ideas to rest. However, there appears to be a residual acceptance among a section of the population who still believes in the economic authoritarianism of these failed schemes. A potential nationalization of certain American industries could create severe economic dislocations, resulting in the inefficient allocation of essential goods and services that would otherwise be provided under normal market circumstances. A better approach would be to keep the private sector intact and let them cooperate with all levels of government to stem the crisis. Economic education continues to be necessary in order to not repeat the mistakes of the past. In the meantime, civil society, companies, and local and state governments should work as hard as possible to stop the spread of this virus. Nevertheless, we should be leery of any politician who is using this crisis to promote certain forms of government overreach.
central banking

If You Support Free Markets, You Must Call Central Banking Into Question

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics, Liberator Online, News, News You Can Use. No Comments on If You Support Free Markets, You Must Call Central Banking Into Question

Former Congressman Ron Paul recently brought up some interesting points about the Federal Reserve in an article for his institute.  The coronavirus has the entire world in a panic, with U.S. policymakers fumbling for a solution to put a handle on it. This panic has spilled onto Wall Street, with the stock market taking a beating. Unsurprisingly, the Federal Reserve responded to the panic by announcing an “emergency” interest rate cut. After the stock market sputtered along, there is now speculation that the Fed plans on cutting interest rates again throughout the year.  Given that interest rates are already low, additional rate cuts would bring interest rates close to zero and possibly have them go into the negative. The reduction of the interest rate creates perverse incentives throughout the economy. In effect, it encourages consumers and businesses to spend all the money they make. Indeed, this could provide a “stimulus” in the short term. However, we must always look at the long term when analyzing public policy. These loose money measures hinder economic growth by diminishing the savings needed for investments in crucial economic activities that keep people’s livelihoods intact. As a result of the loose money moves the Fed is taking, there will be more pressure on the Fed to maintain lower interest rates. Further, there will be new demands on Congress and the president to create a new round of government spending. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg.  Boston Federal Reserve President Eric Rosengren has hinted that Congress let the Federal Reserve add assets of private companies to the Fed’s balance sheet, which is already quite big. Ron Paul is correct in noting that “allowing the central bank to buy assets of, and thus assume a partial ownership interest in, private companies would give the Federal Reserve even greater influence over the economy.” By handing this power to the Fed, the Fed can now pick winners and losers for its investment. Paul points out that the Fed can now favor investing “in ‘green energy’ companies over other companies or refusing to purchase assets of retailers who sell firearms or tobacco products.” This proposal to “invest” in private companies is clearly top-down and should disabuse people of the notion that the Federal Reserve is apolitical. The Federal Reserve’s manipulation of interest rates is a textbook example of central planning. Like other forms of central planning, central banks’ blind attempts to set interest rates cause distortions throughout the market economy. The infamous boom and bust cycle comes to mind as productive capital is wasted during the phony boom period.  At the fundamental level, civilization is at stake when talking about monetary policy. Forget the fancy graphs that you saw countless times during your college economics classes. Monetary policy goes well beyond that. Jeff Deist, the president of the Mises Institute, recognized this in an article condemning negative interest rates:  “Negative interest rates are the price we pay for central banks. The destruction of capital, economic and otherwise, is contrary to every human impulse. Civilization requires accumulation and production; de-civilization happens when too many people in a society borrow, spend, and consume more than they produce. No society in human history previously entertained the idea of negative interest rates, so like central bankers, we are all in uncharted territory now.” It’s important to point out that managerial policies enjoy considerable support from across the political spectrum. That’s why it’s incumbent upon us to highlight how free-market principles also apply to monetary policy. It would behoove free-market advocates to take a multi-pronged approach to economic issues, where they must encourage Congress to cut spending and put the clamps on the Fed’s policies. In an ideal scenario, the Fed would be abolished. Alas, we live in an era where the managerial state is so consolidated that it will take a gradualist approach to roll back monetary malfeasance. We have to start somewhere, though. Raising awareness is the first step, which should then be consolidated into legislative action.  No one said the road to monetary reform would be easy.
education new york andrew cuomo taxes

More Education Spending Will Not Help New York City Schools

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Economics, Education, Personal Liberty, Taxes. 2 Comments on More Education Spending Will Not Help New York City Schools

New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo has bragged about his state’s record-breaking education spending under his watch. However, a report from New York City’s Independent Budget Office, or IBO, indicated that the state is spending a smaller percentage of money on New York City schools. Based on the findings of an annual report covering three decades of school spending, New York City spends $28,808 per student. education new york andrew cuomo taxes Reema Amin of the education news outlet Chalkbeat broke down what this number actually signified:
“That number includes pension obligations and debt service, which make up a chunk of the total budget but are costs that have grown since 1990, the report shows. Without accounting for those factors, the city spends significantly more per student than most other large, urban districts — in some cases, upwards of $10,000 more.”
During the last few decades, there has been a notable shift in terms of how much the state government is covering New York City’s public education costs. For example, the city assumed 46 percent of the cost to educate New York City students in 1990. On the other hand, the state of New York shouldered 45 percent of the spending, while the federal government picked up the rest at 9 percent for that year. In the fiscal year of 2019, the game changed though. The state has only assumed 33.6 percent of the city’s education budget, while the city is now responsible for 60.1 percent — the federal government only had to pitch in 5.7 percent. For public education activists, these numbers indicate that the state government should be throwing more funds at New York City’s school system. After all, education is always “underfunded” and any type of problem associated with education is because there isn’t enough money in schools. So we are told. We have to ask: Why should the state, which is really taxpayers across the state of New York, be subsidizing New York City’s education needs? This is the folly of public education. None of it is free, and someone will ultimately have to foot the bill. If public education is going to exist, it should be funded and administered locally, so that it can conform to the needs of its immediate users. Education policy that works in Buffalo may not work in New York City. More education spending does not necessarily yield better educational results. According to Cato’s Freedom in the 50 States rankings, New York is ranked at a dismal 37th place for educational freedom. Maybe, instead of basing education policy in terms of taxpayer dollars spent, education reformers in New York should consider a strategy which enhances choice for students, while keeping taxpayers protected from spendthrift politicians. American history is filled with many alternative education models, from private education and homeschooling to charter schools. New York City should promote other options before begging the state government for more taxpayer funds.
unconstitutional wars

Idaho Lieutenant Governor Wants to End Unconstitutional Wars

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Foreign Policy, Military, National Defense, War. 1 Comment on Idaho Lieutenant Governor Wants to End Unconstitutional Wars

Throughout 2016, President Donald Trump campaigned to end the “never-ending” wars in the Middle East. unconstitutional wars Fast forward to 2020, and there’s been tepid progress on scaling back conflicts like the Afghan war. One positive sign was the deal that the Taliban reached with the U.S. government on February 29, 2020. Under this deal, the U.S would begin withdrawing troops on the condition that the Taliban would no longer let Afghanistan become a safe haven for terrorists. So, this deal is a good start. But this would have never happened without certain people in the media like commentator Tucker Carlson, grassroots activists, and state politicians putting pressure on Trump to follow through with his promise. One politician who stood out in making Trump live up to his promise was Idaho Lieutenant Governor Janice McGeachin. The lieutenant governor was championing “Defend the Guard” legislation, which requires that Idaho’s guard personnel cannot be activated for combat duty overseas unless Congress issues a formal war declaration. Similar legislation has been pursued in states like Oklahoma, where State Senator Nathan Dahm introduced a bill that would keep the state guard from serving in unconstitutional foreign conflicts. McGeachin drew from the Founding Fathers such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin — who were all skeptics of indiscriminate military action — to justify her efforts to bring some sanity into foreign policy. She called attention to America’s decades of undeclared wars and global democratic crusades based on dubious constitutional and political premises. The war in Afghanistan has cost the U.S. thousands of soldiers’ lives and $1 trillion in nearly two decades of occupation. When factoring in other costs related to the Iraq War and the overarching “War on Terror”, the U.S. has spent over $6 trillion. Undoubtedly, America’s blood and treasure are being drained in these nation-building programs. McGeachin appealed to the Constitution by noting that Section 8 of the document states that only “Congress shall have the power to declare war.” That stipulation has largely been ignored during the last 70 years. The last time a formal war declaration was made was during World War II. Foreign policy is a delicate subject. There are those who believe it’s America’s duty to police the world. This author, on the other hand, believes in a restrained foreign policy that is in line with the Founder’s vision. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, there is one undeniable truth: American taxpayers can no longer afford to finance the U.S.’s robust foreign policy. With trillions spent in our present foreign policy engagements and the U.S. debt at $23 trillion, America is reaching a point of no return for its fiscal profligacy. Should the American government’s negligent spending continue, successive generations will be left with massive tax burdens? Since the federal government is dragging its feet, state elected officials like McGeachin will have to lead the charge and make sure the president lives up to his word.
states

Blue States Have Only Themselves to Blame for People Moving Out

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Economic Liberty, Economics, Personal Liberty, Taxes. 2 Comments on Blue States Have Only Themselves to Blame for People Moving Out

A few months ago, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump’s tax reforms are starting to impact some high-tax states like California. As a result of the Trump administration’s tax reforms, citizens in high-tax, high-cost of living states like California cannot reduce their tax liabilities by deducting from their federal income taxes for state and local taxes. The state and local tax deduction (SALT) was capped at $10,000. For new home buyers, there was a reduction in the size of mortgages for which they can deduct — it went from $1 million to $750,000. According to Attom Data Solutions, the average property tax burden in America was approximately $3,500 in 2018. However, The Wall Street Journal noted that “many residents in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California had been deducting well over $10,000 a year.” High earners in high-tax states tend to be the most impacted by the 2017 tax reforms, but their white-collar professions do afford them some flexibility in moving out. Some are business owners, remote workers, or on the verge of retirement. Given the new fiscal realities, people from states such as California, New York, and New Jersey are now packing up and buying new homes in the much more affordable Sun Belt. In light of these circumstances, politicians in blue states have been blaming President Trump’s tax reforms for their declining tax revenues. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo criticized the tax cuts, declaring in 2018, “It has redistributed wealth in this nation from Democratic states—we’re also called blue states—to red states.” Not only have tax coffers been hit hard, Chuck DeVore, Vice President of National Initiatives at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, contends that 400,000 private sector jobs may have shifted from high-tax states to low-tax states. Additionally, private-sector job expansion is growing 80% faster in the low-tax states as of 2019. Does Cuomo have a point? At first glance, it is true that the SALT limits have effectively hamstrung people’s ability to deduct their taxes in blue states. There is some validity to the concerns of blue-state taxpayers, who live in states that are less dependent on federal government funding and effectively subsidize other states by paying the bulk of federal taxes. Some of these states that are least dependent on the federal government include California, Illinois, and New Jersey. However, the eroding tax base and job displacement occurring in blue states are still the faults of the state governments. The policies that constrict their economic freedom and make their states unaffordable for people of all backgrounds to live in are the primary cause. That said, SALT shows why the federal tax system needs to be completely overhauled, if not abolished. The simpler the tax system, the better. We wouldn’t have these debates about SALT, other deductions, and tax loopholes if the income tax was scrapped. However, state governments should still take ownership and clean up their fiscal backyards. When more state governments are able to fix their fiscal situation, potential changes at the federal level could actually become feasible. Engaging in petty political blame games won’t bring any kind of reform though.

Why is the Trump Administration Betraying Julian Assange?

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Elections and Politics, Liberator Online, National Defense, News, News You Can Use. 1 Comment on Why is the Trump Administration Betraying Julian Assange?

Former Congressman Ron Paul believes that President Donald Trump has betrayed Julian Assange. In one of his latest articles, Paul provides a big picture analysis of the “deep state,” the shadow government made up of bureaucracies and agencies that run politics without the consent of the governed. The deep state meme gained notoriety during the exhausting Special Counsel Investigation in which the FBI failed to prove that Trump allegedly colluded with Russian officials to get elected in 2016. Paul is correct in claiming that the deep state “is not just some crazy conspiracy theory.” It’s a part of U.S. politics that has been kept under wraps for decades, but because of the black swan nature of Trump’s victory in 2016, it has been placed under the microscope like never before. Now, people are beginning to question institutions like the CIA and FBI, which used to be held sacrosanct. Individuals like Julian Assange worked assiduously through Wikileaks, a non-profit organization dedicated to publishing news leaks, to create an environment where more people started to question the legitimacy of legacy institutions. Ironically, Trump praised Wikileaks on the campaign trail when it exposed Hillary Clinton’s dirty laundry. Sadly, Trump gave Assange the cold shoulder when he was arrested last year. When he was asked about Wikileaks following Assange’s arrest in April of 2019, Trump said “I know nothing about Wikileaks,” and added that, “It’s really not my thing.” Thanks to pressure from the U.S. government, the Ecuadorian embassy in London terminated Assange’s asylum. Since his high profile arrest in London last April, Assange has been subject to torturous conditions, likely the result of indirect U.S. influence on London. On February 24, 2020, Assange faced an extradition hearing at a U.K. courthouse. The U.S. is currently pursuing a 175-year prison sentence against Assange. Like with his foreign policy, Trump appears to be giving in to the influence of the establishment figures around him and giving power to the very swamp he supposedly campaigned against.  The looming Assange trial would represent a clear affront to free speech rights, especially of the sort that exposes some of the nastiest details surrounding the foreign policy establishment. To quote the former Texas congressman, “We don’t have freedom of speech so we can talk about the weather.  We have the 1st Amendment so that we can say very controversial things.” Should Assange be successfully convicted, it could set in motion bad precedents for future whistleblowers and other journalists who put out content exposing foreign policy elites.  If Donald Trump is serious about making America great again and sticking it to the deep state, he should pardon Assange immediately. 

Will Tennessee Pass Constitutional Carry?

Written by Jose Nino on . Posted in Gun Rights, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Second Amendment. 5 Comments on Will Tennessee Pass Constitutional Carry?

On Thursday, February 27, 2020, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee put forward constitutional carry legislation that would allow law-abiding residents of at least 21 years of age to carry a firearm without a permit.  The legislation in question covers both open and concealed carry. Tennessee’s present law mandates a permit for both types. Tennessee is currently ranked in 13th place according to Guns & Ammo magazine’s ranking of the best states for gun owners. Passing constitutional carry will assuredly go a long way in strengthening the state’s already pro-gun image. “The Second Amendment is clear and concise and secures the freedoms of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms,” Lee said during his announcement. “I am pleased to announce constitutional carry legislation today that will protect the Second Amendment rights of Tennesseans, while also stiffening penalties on criminals who steal or illegally possess firearms. I appreciate Lt. Governor [Randy] McNally and Speaker [Cameron] Sexton for helping to lead the way on this important issue.” Lee also unveiled stricter penalties for people who break gun laws, which includes increasing the punishment for stealing a firearm to a felony and increasing the mandatory minimum sentence for stealing a firearm from 30 days to 189 days. “A big part of protecting the Second Amendment for law-abiding citizens is cracking down on criminals who use guns,” said Lieutenant Governor Randy McNally. “We will make sure those who commit crimes with firearms serve their full sentences and nothing less. Many states across the nation are moving towards permitless carry, and I support the governor in this initiative.” Republicans currently hold a 73-26 majority in the House and a 28-5 majority in the Senate. On paper, this bill’s passage seems like it would be a walk in the park on account of the Republicans’ pro-gun image and their firm control of the Tennessee General Assembly. However, history has shown that partisan labels are not always strong indicators of support for meaningful reforms on Second Amendment issues. Hence, the need to put relentless pressure on politicians and educate constituents about the merits of pro-freedom legislation like constitutional carry.  Constitutional carry simply reaffirms the right to carry, which politicians were supposed to protect as part of their constitutional oath. Once the ability to carry became subject to the permitting process, it ceased to be a right. This is why countless activists have promoted constitutional carry as a means of rectifying the political class’s inability to protect this right. Such policies are already in place in 16 states and have not caused a surge in crime like many constitutional carry detractors have claimed in the past.