Since Im a big fan of the Laffer Curve, Im always interested in real-world examples showing good results when governments reduce marginal tax rates on productive activity.
Its time for a lesson in tax economics.
We should fondly remember the great, late Margaret Thatcher for several reasons, most notably because she saved the United Kingdom from economic collapse.
Remember the scene in Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail, when the Knights of the Round Table have to answer three questions before they can cross the Bridge of Death?
Since its basically a way of protecting property rights, environmental protection is a legitimate function of government.
Perhaps the least recognized and least appreciated triumph of the GOP Congress is the de facto spending freeze between 2009 and 2014.
Its been a challenge to assess Donald Trumps fiscal policies since theyve been an eclectic and evolving mix of good and bad soundbites.
As we get deeper into an election season, many politicians feel compelled to discuss how to deal with poverty. And some of them may even be serious about trying to improve the system.
Almost everyone in Washington is talking about last nights GOP debate. I sent out a few tweets as I watched, and my main after-the-fact observation is that there was very little discussion about the ever-growing burden of government spending, which is Americas most pressing economic problem.
Back in 2013, my colleagues at the Cato Institute, Michael Tanner and Charles Hughes, released a study looking at the value of welfare programs in various states.
Like Sisyphus pushing the rock up a hill, I keep trying to convince my leftist friends that growth is the best way to help the poor. I routinely share new evidence and provide real-world data in hopes that they will realize that good results are more important than good intentions.
we should accept the fact that politicians are pathologically ambitious narcissists (which is why these jokes and cartoons are so funny) and simply try to figure out whether they might be vehicles for good and necessary reforms.
Socialism is an economic failure. International socialism didnt work in the Soviet Union. National socialism didnt work in Germany. And democratic socialism, while avoiding the horrors of its communist and Nazi cousins, also has been a flop.
This century has not been good news for economic liberty in the United States.
The United States has what is arguably the worst business tax system of any nation.
I never watched That 70s Show, but according to Wikipedia, the comedy program addressed social issues of the 1970s. Assuming thats true, they need a sequel that addresses economic issues of the 1970s. And the star of the program could be the Congressional Budget Office, a Capitol Hill bureaucracy that apparently still believes notwithstanding all the evidence of recent decades in the primitive Keynesian view that a larger burden of government spending is somehow good for economic growth and job creation.
Lets celebrate some good news. When politicians can be convinced (or pressured) to exercise even a modest bit of spending restraint, its remarkably simple to get positive results.
Whats the best way to understand the burden of government regulation and red tape?
I have a very mixed view of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which is an organization representing self-styled deficit hawks in Washington.
Remember the big debt limit fight of 2013? The political establishment at the time went overboard with hysterical rhetoric about potential instability in financial markets.