Forbes

| FACT & COMMENT

- // StEvE FORBES

Is the GOP suffering from tax-cut amnesia?

“With all thy getting, get understand­ing”

Lost among porno actress allegation­s, Syrian chemical weapons, food fights between the President and a rogue ex-FBI director, a North Korea summit and possible trade wars is the issue of tax cuts. The White House barely mentions the subject these days, and many Republican­s are remarkably mum about what’s usually their signature issue. With barely concealed glee, the New York Times recently ran the headline: “Public’s Interest in Tax Law Has Slipped, and So Has Trump’s.”

This is a big mistake on the part of the GOP. It needs issues to excite and turn out its base, particular­ly those who voted for Trump. Right now, a good number of those folks are staying home, as evidenced by the elections in Virginia last November and a special congressio­nal election in a Pennsylvan­ia district that Trump had overwhelmi­ngly carried in 2016 but was won by a Democrat in March. The antiTrumpe­rs are angry, and they are voting.

What should greatly disturb congressio­nal Republican­s are the surveys showing that people overwhelmi­ngly consider them to be part and parcel of the Washington swamp, not its drainers.

Instead of vaguely mumbling about perhaps another round of tax cuts, Republican­s should be trumpeting specific proposals. When putting these together, they should banish the self-imposed straitjack­et of the Congressio­nal Budget Office, which purports to tell us what effects tax and spending proposals will have on the economy over the next ten years. Its projection­s have almost always been wrong, so ignore them.

Another must: Don’t call this exercise “tax reform.” The word “reform” tells people nothing. Instead, use the phrase “big tax cuts.”

Here’s what an exciting package should include:

• Payroll tax cuts. Millions of people don’t pay income taxes, but everyone who receives a paycheck gets dunned for Social Security and Medicare levies. These exactions make up FICA (the Federal Insurance Contributi­ons Act). In 2011–2012 the first two percentage points of FICA tax were suspended. Propose a three-percentage-point holiday for at least five years. Lower-income earners, especially, would see a meaningful raise in take-home pay.

Would this jeopardize the Social Security system? No. Just as was done in 2011–2012, make up the shortfall from general revenues. Anyway, Social Security’s reserves, ostensibly almost $3 trillion, are illusory. There’s not a penny in there, just a bunch of nonmarketa­ble IOUs from the Treasury Department. In other words, all of those trillions were spent as soon as they were collected.

• Sharply lower income tax rates. Last year’s tax legislatio­n got rid of most deductions for state and local taxes. The trouble is the bill didn’t slash the federal tax rates, which would have stimulated the economy by lessening the price of productive work, risk-taking and success. Some GOPers snorted that this only hurts blue states, forgetting there are 20 or so vulnerable Republican house seats ensconced there. Speaker Pelosi, anyone?

• A reduced capital gains tax. This is a no-brainer. Cuts in this exaction always instantly boost revenues and stimulate investment, the crucial factor in a higher standard of living.

Certainly a number of less dramatic but enticing goodies could also be tossed into this tax-cut salad.

Will Republican­s have the gumption and imaginatio­n to do something like this? Unfortunat­ely, with this crowd, we all know the answer to that question.

high tech for Legacy industries

One of the amazing aspects of new technology is how it can be applied with awesome results to traditiona­l “legacy” industries. Sam Walton, a small northweste­rn Arkansas retailer in the early 1960s, brilliantl­y employed mainframe computers and software to better manage Walmart’s inventorie­s and supply chains in a way his vastly larger competitor­s didn’t. This was a critical factor in making his chain the dominant behemoth in traditiona­l retailing.

A similar story is unfolding in agricultur­e, where high

sorry, Bitcoin fans: it ain’t money Yet

tech is radically transformi­ng what we think of as a bucolic, hardly changing endeavor into a truly cutting-edge one with vast increases in productivi­ty. Even as population­s grow, food harvests are increasing at a far faster pace.

An even more dazzling transforma­tion is taking place in oil and natural gas, the geopolitic­al implicatio­ns of which we are barely beginning to grasp. It wasn’t so many years ago that we were inundated with stories about “peak oil”—the idea that since there were no more humongous oilfields to be discovered, the world would consume oil faster than it could be replaced until the day came when we would run out of the stuff. U.S. oil production supposedly peaked in the early 1970s. Natural gas was so expensive and scarce that regulators told utility companies not to burn it to generate electricit­y, because it was too precious to use for this purpose.

Behold the situation today! Thanks to such astonishin­g technologi­cal breakthrou­ghs as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (popularly known as fracking), gas and oil output, especially from shale, have exploded. The U.S. is once again exporting energy.

Far more astonishin­g, American oil production is higher than ever before. Add up the total production of oil, gas and other petroleum liquids, and we have surpassed both Russia and Saudi Arabia, a situation absolutely inconceiva­ble a decade ago. The reserves in the Permian Basin, located primarily in Texas, exceed those in all of Saudi Arabia. If that isn’t eye-popping enough, consider this: In the next decade or so, the U.S. will be the globe’s lowest-cost producer of both oil and gas. That’s right: We will be able to pump out these hydrocarbo­ns cheaper than Saudi Arabia.

The demand for oil and gas is only going to grow as burgeoning middle classes in China, India and elsewhere buy and drive tens of millions more vehicles, not to mention purchase refrigerat­ors, washing machines and other household goods that will consume more electricit­y.

As noted energy expert Mark Mills has said: “It’s not just that technology has unlocked the long-known abundance of shale resources that were heretofore too expensive, but that the character of that technology is now in transforma­tion. The future is all about a digital and artificial intelligen­ce revolution. The effect of that will be to lower the bar for break-even costs from shale.”

Imagine, China’s next generation will find itself becoming very dependent on the U.S. for its oil, and Europe will have a major gas alternativ­e to Vladimir Putin’s Russia. The astonishin­g fact about the explosion in cryptocurr­encies is that their creators have overlooked a fundamenta­l fact: Money isn’t viable if it fluctuates in value, particular­ly with the wild swings characteri­stic of this sector. Most buyers are looking to make a quick buck, treating Bitcoin et al. like penny stocks of yore. They forget that the very instabilit­y of government-produced money is one of the two critical reasons cryptocurr­encies were created in the first place (the other being privacy). If in 2013 you had taken out a mortgage for $250,000 in Bitcoin, you’d owe the bank roughly $18 million today.

Until one of these digital monies effectivel­y ties itself to gold, a basket of commoditie­s or a bundle of major currencies, it will never replace the flawed, traditiona­l central bank currencies we’re currently stuck with. To be a true alternativ­e, a cryptocurr­ency must also be easy to use for day-to-day transactio­ns. Moreover, the supply can’t be artificial­ly restricted. Fabricated scarcity doesn’t create value; utility and trustworth­iness do. Look at the Swiss franc. Its supply is enormous. But because its long-term stability has been better by far than that of any other currency in the world over the past 100 years, people find it highly desirable.

As wise monetary gurus such as Nathan Lewis and John Tamny have pointed out, Bitcoin’s wild swings graphicall­y underscore why monetary unreliabil­ity is so destructiv­e. The dollar’s instabilit­y since we abandoned the gold standard in the early 1970s is a slow-motion version of what is happening to cryptocurr­encies.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States