Medtronic Moves Corporate HQ from Minnesota to Ireland, why?
Funny how businesses make decisions based on economic opportunity and freedom. The sad fact is that Minnesota is one of the most business-hostile communities in the world, not just in the U.S. See http://www.taxpayersleague.org/medtronic?utm_campaign=medtronic&utm_medium=email&utm_source=taxpayersleague

“The reason we have these chronic budget crises is PARTLY that taxes are just too low. That was where the crisis started in 2002. The other part is that entitlements are too high… We need higher taxes and lower entitlements.  It can be done.”

- Ben Stein, The American Spectator, October 28, 2013

I like Ben Stein, and I usually agree with his views. Ben is an outspoken conservative on many issues; isn't afraid to confront stupidity with reason, and clearly articulates the case for liberty, in most cases. However, in the above quote, Ben shows that he is vulnerable to the "big government can solve your problems" trap, and he is wrong.

Louis Woodhill outlines an excellent case in Forbes (http://onforb.es/Ig5sK3) that Stein's "grand bargain" above is wrong-headed, and contrasts Stein's perspective with Senator Ted Cruz's recent arguments in an Oct 23rd speech that focus on economic growth. Cruz said, "I’m going to tell you my view, which is I think that we ought to be relentlessly, tirelessly, exclusively focused on growth, because every other priority we have depends on growth."

Cruz is right, and Stein is wrong.

Stein's arguments focus on the conventional idea (parroted in the mainstream press) of using taxes to "raise money" in order to somehow fix the economy by using tax dollars to retire debt. The only problem with this argument is that it isn't so. History shows that lowering taxes, not raising them, stimulates the economy to the point where (absent other governmental economic influence) tax revenues actually increase. It happened under JFK, Reagan (who was much maligned for his "supply-side theories" or "Reagonomics"), Clinton (when he was compelled to lower taxes by Newt Gingrich's GOP-led House of Representatives and the Contract With America), and yes, even with George W. Bush.

Bush 43 stimulated the economy? Woodhill complains that the U.S. economy from 2000 - 2012 grew at a near-stagnant rate of 1.75%, but overlooks the huge economic challenges faced by the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks. Any other economy in the world would have collapsed into immediate recession if not depression after the spike in federal spending that occurred when the U.S. ramped up the Iraq war effort, created the TSA as a federal agency instead of letting private companies compete to do the job, and then compounded the felony with huge education programs (No Child Left Behind, wildly endorsed by Sen. Ted Kennedy) and Medicare Part D, a new entitlement program worthy of a big government Democrat. 

Meanwhile, banks were being coerced by the government to lend mortgage funds to unqualified customers, with the threat of the government lowering the bank's CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) rating if they did not, thanks to the "adjustments" in the CRA during the Clinton administration and the tireless efforts of that world-renowned economist, Barney Frank. 

It's amazing that the U.S. didn't enter into depression in 2006, especially after Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House and set her sights on the largest government entitlement program ever devised by humans, the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", a.k.a. ObamaCare. This was the equivalent of ignoring the fact that you're in a huge sink hole, and calling for explosives and a steam shovel to dig deeper.

With all of those challenges, a U.S. economic growth rate of 1.75% is a miracle. However, Woodhill lends perspective by pointing out, "During its first 181 years (1790 – 1971), the U.S. averaged 3.95% growth (with less than 1.0% average annual inflation)."  Some analysts including Stein envision a 2% growth rate as an acceptable goal, accompanied by an increase in taxes. This would constrain the U.S. economy to an anemic rate of growth (as seen so far this century) and set up a period of stagflation, or stagnant inflation, where the economy is stagnant while prices slowly (at first) increase. This would be disasterous.

What you tax you get less of, and what is suffering with all of these governmental efforts is not just growth, but that which growth measures: liberty. America was founded on the principles of private property, freedom to open a business and engage in commerce in a free market (not manipulated by government; but the Federal Reserve is another topic for another day), and the pursuit of happiness (again, unrestrained by government, with the obvious exception of criminal activity). It is liberty that has suffered from so many of the above efforts: the impact on Americans to choose their health insurance from a world-wide marketplace, for example, not just those companies artificially constrained within each state. I remember someone saying that they could buy car insurance from a lizard in Arizona, but health insurance had to come from within their state.

Why? Government interference, which distorts the market, and infringes on liberty.

What is needed, Mr. Stein, is a sharp reduction in government spending, the closing of federal programs that have no valid role (such as ObamaCare, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Education, and the EPA, for beginners), a simple flat tax of about 12% (if Russia can have a 13% flat tax, we should be able to make a 12% rate work), and a top-to-bottom review of federal regulations that are preventing free markets from working, such as the Keystone Pipeline and shale harvesting and processing that could make the U.S. energy independent in short order. Couple the above with the closure of about 90% of the IRS after simplifying the tax code for both business and individuals (as above), and stop the FTC and other federal organizations from interfering with businesses through unnecessary (and in some cases unconstitutional) regulations. While you're at it, stop the government from buying up huge quantities of private land, and make existing federal land not needed for park reserves available for economic development.

The net result of the above would be a huge increase in liberty for Americans, and once again the world would flock to America's shores to participate in commerce in a unique, free, vibrant marketplace.

Ted Cruz is right. A relentless focus on economic growth is the correct focus. It is also the single best way to restore liberty to Americans.

Here is some perspective on the looming economic crash: government spending over the years. See the hockey stick? That one's real (unlike Al Gore's threats on global warming).  http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoX7Z.ixSclwAtvuJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTFyODR2ZGc2BHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZAM5Yjk4NjRkOTAzNWE1Yjc0OGNkMWU1YzI5NjVlMWYwMgRncG9zAzMy?back=http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images%3Fp%3DFRED%2Bmoney%2Bsupply%2Bchart%26_adv_prop%3Dimage%26va%3DFRED%2Bmoney%2Bsupply%2Bchart%26fr%3Dcrmas%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D32&w=630&h=378&imgurl=research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/M1SL_Max_630_378.png&rurl=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2700486/posts&size=17.6KB&name=Reserve%26%2339;s+policy+to+expand+the+M1+%3Cb%3Emoney+supply%3C/b%3E%3F+The+following+%3Cb%3Echart+%3C/b%3E...&p=FRED+money+supply+chart&oid=9b9864d9035a5b748cd1e5c2965e1f02&fr2=&fr=crmas&tt=Reserve%26%2339;s+policy+to+expand+the+M1+%3Cb%3Emoney+supply%3C/b%3E%3F+The+following+%3Cb%3Echart+%3C/b%3E...&b=31&ni=96&no=32&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11mclu3jj&sigb=14crdr36e&sigi=11nuc2l9s&.crumb=8idnYyFVGuJ&fr=crmas

Oh good: now China has downgraded our credit rating from A to A-, after Congress voted to "reopen" the government. http://www.france24.com/en/20131017-chinese-agency-downgrades-us-credit-rating

Does the debt matter? Ask your friends. If they think it doesn't matter, point them to this page.
http://www.defeatthedebt.com/understanding-the-national-debt/econ-101-research/