<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel><title>IPI PolicyBytes | Categorised Content</title><description>News, Notes, and Opinions From the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI)</description><link>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/</link><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:51:07 -0500</lastBuildDate>
<item><title>TaxBytes 7.27: Christmas Surprise</title><pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:01:12 -0500</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ You&#8217;ve heard of the &#8220;October surprise,&#8221; when politicians pull some stunt right before an election to try and salvage it. Well, this year we may see a &#8220;Christmas surprise.&#8221; <br /> <br />The Wall Street Journal&#8217;s John Fund recently explained that Democrats are considering an ambitious lame-duck session when Congress returns after the November elections. <br /> <br />If Democrats lose control of the House and maybe even the Senate, their congressional leaders could return in early December with plans to tax and spend like there&#8217;s no tomorrow -- which, for them, there wouldn&#8217;t be. <br /> <br />If a number of Democratic incumbents has been defeated, why not &#8220;go for the gold&#8221; -- your gold, that is -- and ram through their Christmas wish list? New taxes, new spending, maybe &#8220;card check&#8221; for the unions. <br />]]></description><link>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.27-christmas-surprise.htm</link><dc:subject>Economic Growth</dc:subject><dc:creator>Merrill Matthews Jr.</dc:creator><comments>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.27-christmas-surprise.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</comments><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.27-christmas-surprise.htm</guid><wfw:commentRss> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.27-christmas-surprise.htm</wfw:commentRss><wfw:comment> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.27-christmas-surprise.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</wfw:comment></item>
<item><title>TaxBytes 7.26: When Flips Don&#8217;t Flop</title><pubDate>Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:06:10 -0500</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ President Obama and the Democratic leadership, as well as many of the Washington chattering class, seem to agree: Failure to throw even more money at the economy will prove disastrous for Democrats in November. <br /> <br />Politico quotes Howard Gleckman of the Urban Institute as saying, &#8220;The question is, can &#91;Democrats&#93; create the perception that they have done all these things to create jobs, or that they tried but the dastardly Republicans prevented them from creating jobs?&#8221; <br /> <br />Rather than blaming Republicans, Democrats ought to thank them. Had Republicans been able to stop the Democrats&#8217; uber-spending spree even earlier, the economy might have come back quicker and unemployment might be trending down. <br />]]></description><link>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.26-when-flips-dont-flop.htm</link><dc:subject>Economic Growth</dc:subject><dc:creator>Merrill Matthews Jr.</dc:creator><comments>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.26-when-flips-dont-flop.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</comments><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.26-when-flips-dont-flop.htm</guid><wfw:commentRss> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.26-when-flips-dont-flop.htm</wfw:commentRss><wfw:comment> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.26-when-flips-dont-flop.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</wfw:comment></item>
<item><title>TaxBytes 7.25: Making European Socialists Blush</title><pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:44:58 -0500</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ After President Obama&#8217;s election, conservatives were afraid he would drag the U.S. down into European socialism. We underestimated his vision. <br /> <br />A mere 18 months later not even the European socialists want to go where the president wants to lead&#8212;ever more government spending. Indeed, most of Europe is headed in the opposite direction. <br /> <ul> <li>The U.K. has announced new austerity measures, including 25 percent budget cuts and a two-year public-sector pay freeze. Even the queen&#8217;s allotment will be frozen next year.</li></ul> <ul> <li>Germany has said it will cut its budget by nearly $100 billion over the next four years. </li></ul> <ul> <li>And France wants to cut its budget deficit from 8 percent of GDP this year to 3 percent by 2013.</li></ul> <br />By contrast, Obama tried to convince countries at the G-20 meeting to, lemming like, follow us off the economic cliff. They declined en masse.]]></description><link>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.25-making-european-socialists-blush.htm</link><dc:subject>Economic Growth</dc:subject><dc:creator>Merrill Matthews Jr.</dc:creator><comments>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.25-making-european-socialists-blush.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</comments><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.25-making-european-socialists-blush.htm</guid><wfw:commentRss> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.25-making-european-socialists-blush.htm</wfw:commentRss><wfw:comment> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.25-making-european-socialists-blush.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</wfw:comment></item>
<item><title>TaxBytes 7.21: Debunk and Defund</title><pubDate>Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:32:45 -0500</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ Republicans have kicked off their ObamaCare &#8220;repeal and replace&#8221; campaign, but there will likely be neither repeal nor replace unless Republicans control both Congress and the White House, and that&#8217;s 2012 at best &#8212; if then. However, by taking over only one house of Congress opponents can dramatically lower the unsustainable cost of ObamaCare by refusing to fund its worst elements. Here&#8217;s a few suggestions. <br /> <br />Reduce Medicaid eligibility. Historically, states have varied widely on Medicaid eligibility, with some setting the threshold significantly below the federal poverty level (FPL). ObamaCare sets a nationwide eligibility threshold at 133 percent, which increases the number of people in the government-run program by an additional estimated 15 million by 2019. Funding Medicaid eligibility only up to 100 percent of FPL would dramatically lower its cost.]]></description><link>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.21-debunk-and-defund.htm</link><dc:subject>Economic Growth</dc:subject><dc:creator>Merrill Matthews, Jr. </dc:creator><comments>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.21-debunk-and-defund.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</comments><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.21-debunk-and-defund.htm</guid><wfw:commentRss> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.21-debunk-and-defund.htm</wfw:commentRss><wfw:comment> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.21-debunk-and-defund.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</wfw:comment></item>
<item><title>TaxBytes 7.20: How Washington Hammers Early Retirees</title><pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 10:23:44 -0500</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ So you&#8217;re 62 years old and have been downsized, laid off or forced into early retirement because of the struggling economy. And you think to yourself, &#8220;I&#8217;ll take early retirement under Social Security, which will provide a small but reliable (let&#8217;s hope!) income, and get a job that will pay maybe $20,000 or $25,000 a year to make ends meet.&#8221; <br /> <br />In a word: <em>fugetaboutit!</em> <br /> <br />That&#8217;s because Social Security will withhold one dollar for every two you make above $14,160 this year. It&#8217;s called the Social Security earnings limit, and it exists to discourage older Americans from taking early retirement under Social Security. <br /> <br />The original earnings limit was created with the passage of Social Security in 1935 to fulfill social policy, not economic policy.]]></description><link>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.20-how-washington-hammers-early-retirees.htm</link><dc:subject>Economic Growth</dc:subject><dc:creator>Merrill Matthews, Jr.</dc:creator><comments>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.20-how-washington-hammers-early-retirees.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</comments><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.20-how-washington-hammers-early-retirees.htm</guid><wfw:commentRss> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.20-how-washington-hammers-early-retirees.htm</wfw:commentRss><wfw:comment> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.20-how-washington-hammers-early-retirees.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</wfw:comment></item>
<item><title>TaxBytes 7.19: Cut to the Revolution</title><pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 16:21:19 -0500</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ The House Republican leadership has just announced You Cut <a href=http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/><strong>(http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/) </strong></a>where, along with a greeting by House Republican Whip Eric Cantor explaining the need to get federal spending under control, the public can &#8220;vote&#8221; on several potential cuts in the federal budget. Votes can be rendered either on the website or from a cell phone. <br /> <br />This week&#8217;s choices include, among other options: <br /> <ul> <li>$260 million for the presidential election fund. After singing the praises of government-financed elections, President Obama refused to take federal money because it would limit what he could raise. Eliminating this program would mean all presidential elections would be funded by private contributions.</li></ul> <ul> <li>$600 million for taxpayer subsidized union activities.]]></description><link>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.19-cut-to-the-revolution.htm</link><dc:subject>Economic Growth</dc:subject><dc:creator>Merrill Matthews, Jr.</dc:creator><comments>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.19-cut-to-the-revolution.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</comments><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.19-cut-to-the-revolution.htm</guid><wfw:commentRss> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.19-cut-to-the-revolution.htm</wfw:commentRss><wfw:comment> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.19-cut-to-the-revolution.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</wfw:comment></item>
<item><title>TaxBytes 7.17: A Short, Painful Lesson on ‘Benefits Cuts’</title><pubDate>Tue, 4 May 2010 15:14:58 -0500</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ On Fox News Sunday, anchor Chris Wallace asked Florida U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio, a Republican, if he still stood behind a statement he had made on the program a month earlier that he would support Social Security benefit cuts for people under the age of 55. <br /> <br />Rubio confirmed that he did, and went on to add that he believed all serious observers agreed that benefits would need to be cut. <br /> <br />We disagree, but more about that in a minute. <br /> <br />If we lived in a &#8220;post-partisan&#8221; political world, where ideas could be proposed and discussed in an intelligent manner, then we could have a rational discussion about benefits cuts. <br /> <br />But Washington&#8217;s political divisiveness has become a national embarrassment, with name calling, and scoldings and massive pieces of legislation being forced through without one single vote from the minority party. <br />]]></description><link>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.17-a-short-painful-lesson-on-‘benefits-cuts’.htm</link><dc:subject>Economic Growth</dc:subject><dc:creator>Merrill Matthews, Jr.</dc:creator><comments>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.17-a-short-painful-lesson-on-‘benefits-cuts’.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</comments><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.17-a-short-painful-lesson-on-‘benefits-cuts’.htm</guid><wfw:commentRss> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.17-a-short-painful-lesson-on-‘benefits-cuts’.htm</wfw:commentRss><wfw:comment> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.17-a-short-painful-lesson-on-‘benefits-cuts’.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</wfw:comment></item>
<item><title>TaxBytes 7.13: Free at Last, Free at Last</title><pubDate>Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:49:49 -0500</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ The phrase &#8220;free at last&#8221; is associated with spirituals and the emancipation movement. Today, physical slavery isn&#8217;t a threat; but economic slavery looms. And the economic shackles are growing heavier and tighter. <br /> <br />The Tax Foundation says that Friday, April 9, will be Tax Freedom Day. The organization defines Tax Freedom Day as &#8220;the date on which Americans will have worked long enough to have earned enough money to pay this year&#8217;s tax obligations at the federal, state and local levels.&#8221; <br /> <br />The Tax Foundation also tracks Tax Freedom Day by state. For Texas it was yesterday, April 5. It could be worse&#8212;and in a few years it WILL be a lot worse. It could also be a lot better. <br /> <br />Alaska was the first state to reach the goal this year, March 26. And Connecticut will be dead last, on April 27. <br />]]></description><link>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.13-free-at-last-free-at-last.htm</link><dc:subject>Economic Growth</dc:subject><dc:creator>Merrill Matthews, Jr.</dc:creator><comments>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.13-free-at-last-free-at-last.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</comments><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.13-free-at-last-free-at-last.htm</guid><wfw:commentRss> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.13-free-at-last-free-at-last.htm</wfw:commentRss><wfw:comment> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.13-free-at-last-free-at-last.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</wfw:comment></item>
<item><title>TaxByte 7.12: Obamacare and Obamaccounting</title><pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:06:35 -0500</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ I predict that one of the most common phrases in the American vocabulary over the next few years will be, &#8220;I didn&#8217;t know the health care bill would do that.&#8221; And Democrats will be saying it most.<br /> <br />Even as the president traveled to Iowa City to let everyone know Armageddon hadn&#8217;t happened, several large companies declared they would start health-reform-related write downs--AT&amp;T for $1 billion.<br /> <br />Here&#8217;s the back-story. In 2003, Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug benefit. There was a concern among legislators that including that benefit might encourage large employers that provided retiree coverage to phase it out.<br /> <br />Republicans, who controlled Congress, decided to provide those companies with a subsidy, spending about $665 per retiree to subsidize the employer&#8217;s plan, but saving $1,209 if the retiree had been dumped into Medicare.]]></description><link>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbyte-7.12-obamacare-and-obamaccounting.htm</link><dc:subject>Economic Growth</dc:subject><dc:creator>Merrill Matthews Jr.</dc:creator><comments>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbyte-7.12-obamacare-and-obamaccounting.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</comments><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbyte-7.12-obamacare-and-obamaccounting.htm</guid><wfw:commentRss> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbyte-7.12-obamacare-and-obamaccounting.htm</wfw:commentRss><wfw:comment> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbyte-7.12-obamacare-and-obamaccounting.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</wfw:comment></item>
<item><title>TaxBytes 7.11: Rethinking Earmarks</title><pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:17:12 -0500</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ Even as they force through massive new tax and spending increases, Democrats are trying to demonstrate their fiscal responsibility by proposing to eliminate congressional earmarks, except for nonprofit organizations (which is the majority of earmarks). <br /> <br />Their efforts would be more believable had they not pushed through, with zero Republican support, a pay-as-you-go, or "paygo," provision last February that requires Congress to pay for any new spending increases. Because just three weeks later they completely ignored their paygo rule to pass a $10 billion jobs bill--without a "payfor." <br /> <br />Actions belie words. <br /> <br />House Republicans have countered by proposing a moratorium on all earmarks. <br /> <br />Then Republican Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma piped up in The Wall Street Journal claiming earmark control was much ado about nothing. Earmarks only amounted to 1.5 percent of discretionary spending. <br /> <br />So who's right? <br />]]></description><link>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.11-rethinking-earmarks.htm</link><dc:subject>Economic Growth</dc:subject><dc:creator>Merrill Matthews Jr.</dc:creator><comments>http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.11-rethinking-earmarks.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</comments><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.11-rethinking-earmarks.htm</guid><wfw:commentRss> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.11-rethinking-earmarks.htm</wfw:commentRss><wfw:comment> http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.11-rethinking-earmarks.htm?opendocument&amp;comments</wfw:comment></item>

</channel></rss>
