What to Say?

by Don Boudreaux on September 13, 2011

in Country Problems, Man of System, Other People's Money, Taxes

Here’s the lead, above-the-fold headline in today’s print edition of the Washington Post:

Obama seeking tax increases to fund jobs bill

These eight words reveal volumes about the screwy economics bouncing around in the brains of Mr. Obama, his advisors, and too many other “leaders” and pundits.

(The link above, to the electronic edition, shows the electronic version of the headline to differ only slightly from the print version.)

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

comments

82 comments    Share Share    Print    Email

{ 82 comments }

Daniel Kuehn September 13, 2011 at 7:41 am

The knee-jerk austerity of it is pretty incredible, isn’t it?

So will you debate Karl Smith?

Gordon Richens September 13, 2011 at 8:03 am

$447B jobs bill austere? I guess it’s all relative.

Don Boudreaux September 13, 2011 at 8:04 am

The problem with the proposal isn’t its austerity. (I’m not a Keynesian, remember.) The problem with the proposal is that it would decrease the return to entrepreneurs and businesses.

And who is Karl Smith?

Methinks1776 September 13, 2011 at 8:10 am

They’re using government math where any and all negative return projects should be undertaken – the more negative the better. Dear Leader can’t understand why private industry won’t just do it already.

muirgeo September 13, 2011 at 9:11 am

Yes and you are using libertarian history…

Daniel Kuehn September 13, 2011 at 9:43 am

Negative return projects SHOULD be undertaken? I’m not sure what you’re talking about Methinks.

Methinks1776 September 13, 2011 at 10:35 am

I was hoping you’d explain it to me.

Daniel Kuehn September 13, 2011 at 4:39 pm

I don’t understand the question Methinks – nobody is suggesting undertaking anything with negative returns. Why would they?

Methinks1776 September 13, 2011 at 8:06 pm

nobody is suggesting undertaking anything with negative returns. Why would they?

Really? How many government projects have positive expectancy and how many of them are a version of Solyndra?

Nobody is suggesting undertaking anything with negative returns. Krugman. for instance, is among those insisting on forcing companies to undertake investments with negative returns.

Krugman: “And now you can see why tighter ozone regulation would actually have created jobs: it would have forced firms to spend on upgrading or replacing equipment, helping to boost demand. Yes, it would have cost money — but that’s the point!

Krugman is upset that new Ozone regs weren’t imposed on hapless companies. However, protecting the environment or whatever isn’t his goal. Just getting companies to spend is – the definition of negative expectancy, He also suggested that destroying capital so that it must be replaced is a great idea. For the greater good of employment and all, companies must engage in activities that produce negative returns. If they won’t, they must be forced. What will prevent them from getting out of the business entirely (adding to unemployment) or demanding rent in exchange he doesn’t explain, but I digress.

Can you name one government investment with a positive return and if you can, how many more can you name with hugely negative returns? The postal service? Solyndra (a deal structured so that the taxpayers would lose all of their forced investment first, before the crony investor lost a dime), GM? I could go on forever, but I think the point is made.

Loss producing “investments” are the hallmark of government and there are clearly those who wold like to force the private sector to engage in wealth destroying activity as well. The hubris of thinking that’s even possible is astounding, by the way.

I think this is beyond idiotic. I don’t understand it, so please don’t ask me to explain it. If you think you can, go for it.

LerxstvonSyrinx September 13, 2011 at 8:25 pm

@Methinks1776 – Those are some pretty “stubborn facts” you’ve presented to Mr. Kuehn.

Daniel Kuehn September 13, 2011 at 9:43 am

re: “The problem with the proposal isn’t its austerity. (I’m not a Keynesian, remember).”

Your status as a non-Keynesian seems fairly irrelevant to the problem with the proposal.

re: “The problem with the proposal is that it would decrease the return to entrepreneurs and businesses.”

I agree – but this is only one of two problems with it.

re: “And who is Karl Smith?”

A challenger – http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/09/12/to-don-boudreaux-we-need-to-stop-this/ He’s a pretty well regarded blogger.

Dan H September 13, 2011 at 11:21 am

I’ll take on Mr. Smith:

Keynesianism fails because it ignores the fact that, in the aggregate, production must come before consumption.

Can Mr. Smith or any keynesian prove me wrong here?

Invisible Backhand September 13, 2011 at 11:44 am
Dan H September 13, 2011 at 11:47 am

IB,

What are you trying to say?

Rick Caird September 13, 2011 at 1:26 pm

I have no idea who this “Invisible Backhand” is, but if you click on his name you get something that claims to be

“Exposing Cafe Hayek, Don Boudreaux and Russ Roberts for all their Koch funded propoganda”

Besides misspelling “propaganda”, anything that is invoking the Alinsky rule toward the Koch’s as its purpose in life, is beneath contempt.

Dick Fitzwell September 13, 2011 at 2:12 pm

“Exposing Cafe Hayek, Don Boudreaux and Russ Roberts for all their Koch funded propoganda”

Is that what he thinks he is doing here? Ha!

Dan H September 13, 2011 at 2:44 pm

“Exposing Cafe Hayek, Don Boudreaux and Russ Roberts for all their Koch funded propoganda”

Actually, Don teaches at a public university. So YOU’RE helping fund him. NOT the Koch Brothers. Ironic, isn’t? Perhaps you should change your stance on government funding of education.

Methinks1776 September 13, 2011 at 4:05 pm

Exposing to whom?

Nobody reads his electronic dribbling.

Economic Freedom September 13, 2011 at 3:52 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPxzE2XM1TY

Online debate between Karl Smith (a New Keynesian at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) and Robert Murphy.

http://mises.org/daily/5626/The-Gnome-Thought-Experiment

Article by Robert Murphy

Economic Freedom September 13, 2011 at 5:56 pm

Karl Smith is a “New Keynesian” at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Robert Murphy debated him recently (see YouTube) on the issue of government stimulus.

Economic Freedom September 13, 2011 at 3:31 pm

So will you debate Karl Smith?

Robert Murphy at the Mises Institute already did. See article by Murphy at:

http://mises.org/daily/5626/The-Gnome-Thought-Experiment

See video of debate on YouTube at:

http://youtu.be/lPxzE2XM1TY

Karl Smith is a “New Keynesian” at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Economic Freedom September 13, 2011 at 3:38 pm

So will you debate Karl Smith?

Robert Murphy at the Mises Institute already did. See article by Murphy at:

http://mises.org/daily/5626/The-Gnome-Thought-Experiment

See video of debate on YouTube at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPxzE2XM1TY

Karl Smith is a “New Keynesian” at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Economic Freedom September 13, 2011 at 5:09 pm

So will you debate Karl Smith?

Robert Murphy already has.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPxzE2XM1TY
Debate: Robert Murphy vs. Karl Smith

See also:
http://mises.org/daily/5626/The-Gnome-Thought-Experiment
Article by Robert Murphy

Economic Freedom September 13, 2011 at 5:15 pm

So will you debate Karl Smith?

Robert Murphy already has. See:

http://mises.org/daily/5626/The-Gnome-Thought-Experiment

The article links to the debate on YouTube.

Economic Freedom September 13, 2011 at 6:01 pm

From Robert Murphy’s recent article at Mises.org regarding his debate with Karl Smith:

To illustrate what’s wrong with the typical Keynesian view of the economy, in the debate I told the spectators to imagine that one night, mischievous gnomes decided to rearrange all of the capital goods and skilled laborers in the country. The next morning, brain surgeons who were supposed to report to a hospital in Albuquerque would wake up in Miami. Factory owners in Trenton would open their doors and see that their assembly lines were gone, replaced by defecating cows. Farmers in Iowa, for their part, would be baffled to see drill presses and computer servers sitting in their empty fields.

Keynesians would report that real GDP had collapsed. Factories would be idle; unemployment would be high. After checking various aggregates and checking their models, Keynsians would conclude that the “supply side” was fine, for the total “stock” of capital goods was the same as it had been before. The same would be true of the different types of labor. They would probably conclude that the problem was on the “demand side”:

There was no physical reason for a bottleneck in production. For some inexplicable reason, workers and capital goods weren’t getting together to crank out consumer goods and services desired by the public. This was clearly a gigantic market failure, demanding a massive burst of monetary inflation and large deficit spending to rescue the economy.

After the collapse of a boom, it takes time and genuine search for displaced workers and owners of capital goods to discover their best niches in light of the new information. In an unhampered market, the bulk of this readjustment would probably be over within six months. But with the government and central bank doing everything in their power to prevent this dreaded “liquidation” process, the alleged recovery churns along at an agonizing pace.

Murphy also makes the point that, if left unhampered by government, labor and owners of capital would not, necessarily, opt to move back to their “starting positions” just before the Gnome attack. Instead, everyone would improvise where they currently were:
The crucial point is that even the owners of “idle” capital goods and “unemployed” workers would be actively seeking out their new roles in the horrible adjustment period. Any attempt to short-circuit this process with a wave of fiat inflation or deficit spending would simply screw up price signals and make the adjustment process that much longer.

Jim September 14, 2011 at 11:53 am

Robert Murphy is brilliant.

kyle8 September 13, 2011 at 7:51 am

More silly voodoo from the spoiled brats in the white house.

Peter September 13, 2011 at 8:10 am

This is bad in two ways. It’s (1) An increase of the opportunity cost of productivity and innovation to (2) fund things that the free market wouldn’t support, which will misallocate resources.

kyle8 September 13, 2011 at 11:09 am

You pretty much described nearly all Government spending.

Fred September 13, 2011 at 8:18 am

Taking away money from those who employ people will create jobs? Is this a joke?

Kevin L September 13, 2011 at 8:34 am

The assumption, though, is that employers are sitting on resources that could be hiring people, so there is no net loss by taking the “idle” resources and subsidizing employment somewhere else. When you look only at aggregates, the particulars of how capital and labor are organized to be productive don’t matter, just that all of it is being put to use.

Fred September 13, 2011 at 8:50 am

Sounds to me like aggregates are pretty stupid.

John Dewey September 14, 2011 at 12:17 pm

“The assumption, though, is that employers are sitting on resources that could be hiring people”

Of course, there should be no idle financial resources. If a corporation is not spending all of its cash, it is likely:

- providing that cash to financial institutions who are lending it to someone else having better opportunities; or

- returning that cash to shareholders who then spend it and, by doing so, create demand for labor.

Krishnan September 13, 2011 at 11:31 am

Just as paying people not to work (unemployment) will create employment, taking money from those that create/produce to those that demand and whine will create jobs. This is called ObamaSpeak.

And oh giving people money for food (food stamps) is a great way to stimulate the economy and create jobs

Hence the key to prosperity is to let unemployment rate go higher so the employment rate will go higher – by taking money away from those that can make it, you can grow the economy by preventing those people from expanding the economy

(Oh yes, it makes perfect sense … )

vidyohs September 13, 2011 at 8:27 pm

In the looney government world it makes perfect sense to express your love for the working class by taking money from the working class to give to the working class.

You and I will never get that.

Dave September 13, 2011 at 8:33 am

That’s what you get when you have a bunch of people “in charge” who have never actually worked in business.

Krishnan September 13, 2011 at 11:32 am

Unless it is their business to stop business – and I tell you, this bunch in DC is simply terrific at stopping business and extending unemployment … Obama has succeeded beyond his own wildest dreams

rbd September 13, 2011 at 8:56 am

Since I’m a simple man, let’s break this down into simple terms: Obama wants to confiscate wealth from some people and redistribute it to other people. Do I basically have this right? He believes that his plan for this redistribtution will create jobs for teachers, construction workers, and veterans.

The folks who he stole from will have less, but the folks who he gives to will have more. That’s a net wash, is it not? How is wealth created from this plan? Sounds like Robin Hood to me, with a little vote buying.

Peter September 13, 2011 at 9:06 am

At its absolute most optimistic it’s a net wash.

Methinks1776 September 13, 2011 at 10:18 am

Yeah, because it doesn’t take into account changes in behaviour to account for the new lower expectations.

Stone Glasgow September 14, 2011 at 12:39 am

Y’all just don’t understand. Poor people spend a higher percentage of their income and therefore it is best for everyone if we take from the rich and give to the poor, who will spend the money and stimulate the economy.

It’s either that or force rich people to hire them to dig holes with spoons.

Methinks1776 September 13, 2011 at 10:16 am

Not quite.

Obama wants to get re-elected (this is the only job he’s worried about). He wants to propose a bill that he knows won’t pass congress because it won’t get past the Republicans who, sitting on opposition, have found they need to pay attention to their constituents. He can then campaign as a victim of Republicans and evil business people who will not fall their sword to save his political career.

yet another Dave September 13, 2011 at 4:24 pm

I think we have a winner!

Obama desperately needs to paint the repups as defenders of “the rich” so his class warfare rhetoric can get him reelected. With the predictable help of the left-stream media he’s got a good chance of success.

His proposal is obviously pure political-game BS, so its amazing His Obamnesty could keep a straight face when he said “This is the bill that Congress needs to pass. No games. No politics. No delays.”

He’s kind of a one-trick-pony idiot savant, but without the savant part.

Methinks1776 September 13, 2011 at 8:36 pm

In addition to stealing your brilliant Keynesian formula K=(R)(A)(P), I will also shamelessly steal “Obamnesty” and “repup”. Trust me, it’s for the greater good.

yet another Dave September 14, 2011 at 11:31 am

As long as it’s for the greater good… :-)

vidyohs September 13, 2011 at 8:30 pm

Yes, Obama needs to get re-elected, at least he thinks so. To do so he needs approximately 1 billion dollars to fund a campaign.

Take 450 billion and give it to unions and they will assuredly give a paltry 1 billion back to Obama’s campaign war chest, bingo……..re-election.

Not to hard to figure out.

Fred September 13, 2011 at 10:32 am

“That’s a net wash, is it not?”

Not if you count the money siphoned off the top to pay for the useless bureaucracy that administrates the funds.

That’s something I’ve never been able to figure out – how taking money from productive people, siphoning off the top to pay a bureaucracy, then giving what’s left to the politically connected has a multiplier effect.

It makes no rational sense.

muirgeo September 13, 2011 at 9:08 am

Yeah because we don’t want to increase cost on those job creators at the top with their record corporate profits. I mean they are trickling down and supplying jobs just left and right.

Also because history shows that the economy and jobs data are much better with our current low tax climate then when we had those higher taxes under Clinton and Eisenhower. Things are just wonderful the way they are. Why would we want to go back to those aweful high tax days.

The study of economics can apparently occur in a complete vaccum and abscence of any need of the study of history.

Slappy McFee September 13, 2011 at 9:15 am

If higher taxes are the solution, why was Clinton able to ‘create’ so many jobs when ‘taxes’ were much higher under Eisenhower?

Feel free to take as long as you want to answer that one.

muirgeo September 13, 2011 at 9:44 am

No Slappy McF,

I asked the question first. If low taxes are the answer how come our two low tax eras resulted in a Great Depression and now the Great Recession? And I have been waiting a long time for you jokers to answer that.

Eisenhower AND Clinton both saw growing economies under higher tax rates. Don’t try to use those facts to support your argument. They don’t. They counterthe claims you and your cult make.

Methinks1776 September 13, 2011 at 10:38 am

If I confiscated 80% of the next dollar you earn, would you exchange the time that you could otherwise spend hiking in your favourite forest to work to earn it, Muirdiot?

Slappy McFee September 13, 2011 at 11:01 am

Ok I’ll use crayons for you.

Clinton Era tax rates were lower than Eisenhower Era tax rates.

How was Clinton able to grow the economy?

Liberty 1 September 13, 2011 at 12:50 pm

I have a hard time seeing you making your point by looking back historically
when for the first 130 plus years direct taxation was outside our nation’s law
and the result as a nation was to go from 13 indebted states to the world’s foremost economic superpower where conditions for the nation’s citizenry
were such that millions migrated to this nation and not from it during that time period.

SweetLiberty September 13, 2011 at 1:11 pm

Wow, what an amazingly simple solution! Raise tax rates, and the economy booms – lower them, and the economy sinks into the toilet. No other factors to consider whatsoever! Muirgeo, it is truly a pleasure to see your simple mind at work.

But for those interested in a more detailed analysis, consider this link…

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/07/barack-obama/obama-claims-job-rate-soared-after-clinton-raised-/

rbd September 13, 2011 at 9:20 am

Have you not learned anything from all these years trolling around Cafe Hayek?

If you think that actually raising taxes, i.e. confiscating wealth, is the road to wealth creation, I propose this: From this day forward, I hereby command you to give me 25% of your take home pay. Worry not what I will use the money for – that isn’t your concern. Just ensure that you pay me what I’m due. You can then sit back, relax, and watch your wealth multiply.

Fred September 13, 2011 at 10:34 am

Better than that. Have the income tax raised to 100% and government bureaucrats give back to you what they feel you deserve.

What could possibly go wrong?

Methinks1776 September 13, 2011 at 10:48 am

“Have the income tax raised to 100% and government bureaucrats give back to you the minimum amount necessary to prevent a revolution that would scrape them from power.”

There, I fixed it, Fred.

AU03 September 13, 2011 at 12:21 pm

Show me a company with “record corporate profits” and I’ll show you a company that relies heavily on government subsidies (GE, GM, Whirlpool, etc). Raising taxes will ensure that these companies lobby more to preserve the favorable position they have already obtained, if they aren’t already shielded from said raises.

This isn’t to say that every company that relies heavy on government handouts is doing well (see Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, eg.)

Small businesses, on the other hand, are struggling for the most part. The few that are doing OK are scared to make new hires, mostly due to the regulatory climate the current administration (and the previous Congress) have created, at least judging from the dozens of small business owners I talk to every week as a part of my job.

The Other Tim September 13, 2011 at 6:18 pm

You keep on citing these massive profits, but what point do you actually think you’re making by citing them? Make complete arguments and connect all the dots in your logic before you try to interact with others.

Also, look up “marginalism” before you aggregate employment and profits and try to draw correlations between them.

Bob September 13, 2011 at 9:26 am

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the different results.” Albert Einstein

Brian September 13, 2011 at 9:27 am

I think it also demonstrates that Mr. Obvious is now writing for WaPo. Regardless of whether it’s a jobs bill or a health insurance bill or a supplemental war funding bill, they will all be paid for with tax increases. They may not be directly visible tax increases, but the only way the government funds anything is through taxation. It’s not as if they’re producing something people want to buy and funding these bills through their profits.

dsylexic September 13, 2011 at 9:54 am

“but the only way the government funds anything is through taxation. ”

well,there is the small matter of the printing press too.

Brian September 14, 2011 at 9:09 am

The printing press is one of those forms of taxation that is not directly visible as a tax increase; monetary inflation is a tax on savings and investment, rather than the more visible taxes on revenue or consumption.

Craig Hearn September 13, 2011 at 10:32 am

Is there really a point to debating muirgeo!? He seems unable to find stats on Harding, Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Jr’s tax cuts and results even with their absurdly easy availability.
The fact that someone cherry picks bits of information clearly demonstrates not only a need to do so but also a willingness to do so.
There is far too much American and world history for there to be much debate over confiscatory tax rates snd non-confiscatory tax rates. America, Switzerland and Ireland alone disprove his beliefs nevertheless the Reagan/Obama comparison.

kyle8 September 13, 2011 at 11:11 am

no, he is just a troll.

Ike September 13, 2011 at 10:58 am

I understand the inherent logic of the jobs bill:

1) Businesses are sitting on resources.
2) Those resources could be used to create jobs.
3) Creating jobs gets people off unemployment insurance, and creates taxpayers.
4) Ergo, this thing partially pays for itself.

However, it ignores some harsh realities.

1) Businesses ought to be allowed to sit on resources, when they believe those resources can be used later at a time of greater certainty.
2) Public funding of jobs rarely creates as many lasting jobs as private creation.
3) The tax revenues added by the new jobs will be a tiny fraction of the taxes taken to create those jobs.
4) There’s too much incentive for politicians to parlay favors, by ensuring that certain kinds of jobs and sectors are protected.

The proposal has an internal logic to it — I just don’t agree with the premises (and therefore don’t agree with the conclusion.)

Methinks1776 September 13, 2011 at 11:23 am

Businesses ought to be allowed to sit on resources…

What do you mean “ought to be allowed”. Whose resources are they?

If Obama (and Krugman) are saying that those resources are not being organized efficiently and he needs to find ways to force companies to organize resources differently, how is this not central planning? Let’s list the examples of successful centrally planned economies…..

Methinks1776 September 13, 2011 at 11:51 am

3) The tax revenues added by the new jobs will be a tiny fraction of the taxes taken to create those jobs.

Yes, over $312,000 per job “creates or SAVED”.

“For those eager to put some math to the rhetoric coming from the White House over the president’s jobs creation plan, and that should be everyone, here is a quick and dirty estimate based on the numbers being thrown around of a 2% GDP increase in year 1 and 1.9 million jobs created or saved… most saved, as in those you can’t really quantify. Said otherwise, roughly a $300 billion increase in GDP yields 1.9 million jobs. So far so good. Now since the president is proposing to pay for the program over 10 years, let’s assume the $475 billion in direct expenses is financed for 10 years at 2.5% which adds roughly $120 billion to the total cost of the program. In other words, as the calculations detailed and show below elaborate, the overall AJA plan will cost $250,000 per job created (excluding the interest expense) and $312,500 per union job, er job created (including interest). And that’s how much it costs for Obama to purchase one vote… created or saved. Keynesian efficiency strikes like a Swiss watch yet again.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/cost-obamas-stimulus-plan-312500-job-vote-created-or-saved-and-guess-who-paying-it

John Dewey September 14, 2011 at 12:24 pm

As I pointed out above, corporations should have no idle financial assets. If a business is not spending cash, that business is lending the cash to financial institutions who lend it to other businesses.

Stone Glasgow September 13, 2011 at 11:56 am

Obama seeks bigger holes in sinking ship; hopes laws of nature change by fiat.

Gordon Richens September 13, 2011 at 12:05 pm

Is the boat half full or is it half empty?

Methinks1776 September 13, 2011 at 1:14 pm

Matters not for it will soon be all sunk.

Jim September 13, 2011 at 11:57 am

The one (and only) positive thing I heard during Obama’s jobs speech was that the thing would be funded with cuts elsewhere. “Well finally,” I thought they are comparing benefits from use of taxpayer dollars. That’s a positive, albeit only a slight one.”

So in less than 5 days even that’s gone. Poof, with no explanation. Either he lied in the first place or this is further evidence that this Administration is entirely rudderless.

purplefox September 13, 2011 at 12:57 pm

But, but, but if Congress doesn’t pass this jobs bill right now, there will be a crisis! A crisis!

Economiser September 13, 2011 at 3:13 pm

Things would’ve been worse if we didn’t do it!

SweetLiberty September 13, 2011 at 1:32 pm

Libertarians on this blog are guilty of blind ideology and refuse to see the FACTS liberals so patiently attempt to explain. So let’s all take a moment and try to see this from someone like Muirgeo’s perspective…

ALL businesses are making record profits because ALL businesses are evil because profits are evil. ALL businesses won’t hire because ALL consumers are evil for not going into debt to boost aggregate demand (which makes sense on the one hand because wise consumers don’t want to add to the record profits of evil businesses – but sadly they must be forced to spend more or things won’t get better). Therefore, ALL businesses must be taxed more heavily, then ALL people will benefit – problem solved. There are no actual people being taxed here (except “the rich” who never earned their money in the first place, and if they did, they have too much of it and must be forced to give it to others), just evil corporations. The government is infallible in spending taxpayer dollars to create jobs – just look at their amazing success so far – and before you know it, the economy is back to perfect!

On second thought, let’s not try to see things from the liberal perspective – it’s nauseating.

Economiser September 13, 2011 at 3:15 pm

The economy’s still struggling. Clearly, things were worse than we thought and we didn’t spend enough in the first five bailouts.

Chucklehead September 13, 2011 at 1:59 pm

Instead of “Obama proposes higher taxes for wealthy to fund jobs bill”, the headline should read “Obama proposes higher taxes for wealthy to fund Union Campaign Contributions”

Dan H September 13, 2011 at 3:19 pm

Mr. Thompson has clearly stated that if we don’t institute Directive 10-289, we will never again see economic progress.

indianajim September 13, 2011 at 4:17 pm

The election of 2012 can’t come soon enough; if O wins, New Zealand is getting a serious look.

Lee Waaks September 13, 2011 at 7:00 pm

This NYTheadline on taxes reminds me of this priceless NYT headline:
“Despite Drop in Crime, an Increase in Inmates”

Mesa Econoguy September 13, 2011 at 9:34 pm

Not sure if somebody posted this above, but shouldn’t this (obviously) read “Obama seeking tax increases to fund anti-jobs bill”?

Previous post:

Next post: