Tag Archives: United States government

WichitaLiberty.TV: Journalist, novelist, and blogger Bud Norman on presidential politics

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Journalist, novelist, and blogger Bud Norman joins host Bob Weeks to discuss presidential election politics. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 108, broadcast February 7, 2016.

Shownotes

Abengoa, Kansas ethanol plant operator, may seek bankruptcy

A company that has a taxpayer-guaranteed loan may be entering bankruptcy. Will taxpayers have to pay?

(Updated November 30) Spanish energy giant Abengoa has taken preliminary steps that could lead to bankruptcy filing.

Of relevance to Kansas — and the country at large — is the Abengoa cellulosic ethanol plant near Hugoton. That plant received a $132.4 million loan guarantee from the United States government under the same program that benefited Solyndra. That company cost taxpayers over $500 million when it defaulted on its taxpayer-guaranteed loan.

Does a bankruptcy filing by Abengoa place U.S. taxpayers on the hook for the company’s guaranteed loan? If so, are taxpayers liable for the entire $132.4 million or some smaller portion?

The answer is this: We don’t know. I’ve asked for, and have received the loan guarantee agreement. It’s unclear to me what would happen if Abengoa entered bankruptcy.

Following, reporting from the Wall Street Journal. It mentions “debt-fueled expansion,” some of which is a liability of the U.S. taxpayer.

Spain’s Abengoa Files for Creditor Protection
The company’s debt-fueled expansion in the boom years is handicapping growth today

MADRID — Spanish renewable energy and engineering firm Abengoa SA said on Wednesday that it is filing for preliminary creditor protection, an initial step that could lead to the largest bankruptcy case in the country’s history.

The potential demise of Abengoa is an extreme example of a Spanish company whose debt-fueled expansion during the country’s boom years has handicapped its ambitions for growth today.

The company is one of the world’s top builders of power lines transporting energy across Latin America and a top engineering and construction business, making massive renewable-energy power plants in places from Kansas to the U.K.

Continue reading at Wall Street Journal.

WichitaLiberty.TV: Congressman Mike Pompeo

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Congressman Mike Pompeo talks about the Middle East, politics in Washington, and domestic issues. View below, or click here to view in high definition at YouTube. Episode 101, broadcast November 29, 2015.

Shownotes

WichitaLiberty.TV: Lack of information sharing by government, community improvement districts, and the last episode of “Love Gov”

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Do our governmental agencies really want to share data and documents with us? Community Improvement Districts and homeowners compared. And, the last episode of “Love Gov” from the Independent Institute. View below, or click here to view in high definition at YouTube. Episode 95, broadcast September 20, 2015.

WichitaLiberty.TV: Michael Tanner of Cato Institute on deficits, debt, and entitlements

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute talks about his new book “Going for Broke: Deficits, Debt, and the Entitlement Crisis.” View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 90, broadcast August 2, 2015.

Tanner’s page at Cato is here. Video of a book forum on “Going for Broke: Deficits, Debt, and the Entitlement Crisis” is here. Video of Tanner at the Wichita Pachyderm Club is here. A good discussion of the book on C-SPAN is here.

‘Love Gov’ humorous and revealing of government’s nature

A series of short videos from the Independent Institute entertains and teaches lessons at the same time.

Lov Gov trailer exampleThe Independent Institute has produced a series of humorous and satirical videos to present lessons about the nature of government. The Institute describes the series here:

Love Gov depicts an overbearing boyfriend — Scott “Gov” Govinsky — who foists his good intentions on a hapless, idealistic college student, Alexis. Each episode follows Alexis’s relationship with Gov as his intrusions wreak (comic) havoc on her life, professionally, financially, and socially. Alexis’s loyal friend Libby tries to help her see Gov for what he really is — a menace. But will Alexis come to her senses in time?

There are five episode (plus a trailer). Each episode is around five minutes long and presents a lesson on a topic like jobs, healthcare, and privacy. The episodes are satirical and funny. They’d be really funny if the topic wasn’t so serious. I recommend you spend a half-hour or so to view the series.

The link to view the video series is here.

Corporate income tax rates in U.S. and other countries

Over the past two decades most large industrial countries have reduced their corporate income tax rates. Two countries, however, stand out from this trend: France and The United States.

In Abolish the Corporate Income Tax economist Laurence J. Kotlikoff writes “I, like many economists, suspect that our corporate income tax is economically self-defeating — hurting workers, not capitalists, and collecting precious little revenue to boot.”

Top Marginal Corporate Income Tax Rate in G7 CountriesHigh taxes in America cause companies to invest overseas in order to escape these high American taxes. For example, Apple takes steps to minimize the income tax it pays, as do most companies. In Calculating Apple’s True U.S. Tax Rate law professor Victor Fleischer explains and estimates what rate Apple pays:

The whole point of the Senate hearing was to show how Apple shifts substantial amounts of its economic profits from the United States to Ireland, where they are taxed at a rate close to zero. Those profits are then sheltered in Ireland and untaxed unless Apple decides to bring the cash back to the United States.

These overseas profits create deferred tax liabilities that will not be taxed until the cash is repatriated. But Apple is reluctant to repatriate its overseas cash; it would rather lobby for another tax holiday and bring the cash back tax-free. An added benefit of a tax holiday for Apple is that it would provide a quick jump in reported earnings when the accounting entry for the deferred tax liability is reversed. …

Thus, Apple’s “true U.S. tax rate,” according to my own calculation, was 8.2 percent.

The corporate income tax rate in the United States is 35 percent. So how does Apple pay such a lower rate to the U.S? It locates operations overseas. It earns profits overseas, and pays taxes there.

Using the visualization.
Using the visualization.
If corporate tax rates were lowered, we’d see more economic activity here rather than overseas. That would help workers in America, as they can’t easily move their capital and investments overseas to take advantage of lower tax rates. But the wealthy — like Apple’s shareholders — can do that, and they have.

Using data gathered by Tax Policy Center at Brookings Institution, I’ve prepared an interactive visualization of corporate income tax rate trends over time. Click here to open the visualization in a new window.

WichitaLiberty.TV: United States Congressman Mike Pompeo

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Congressman Mike Pompeo talks about risks to America from overseas, Benghazi, congressional scorecards, the Grant Return for Deficit Reduction Act, and labeling food with genetically engineered ingredients. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 78, broadcast March 15, 2015.

Cato Institute scholars respond to the 2015 state of the union address

Cato Institute scholars Alex Nowrasteh, Aaron Ross Powell, Neal McCluskey, Mark Calabria, Bill Watson, Chris Edwards, Gene Healy, Chris Preble, Julian Sanchez, Pat Michaels and Trevor Burrus respond to President Obama’s 2015 State of the Union Address. View below, or click here to view in high definition at YouTube.

Video produced by Caleb O. Brown, Austin Bragg and Tess Terrible.

Corporate income tax rates in U.S. do not help our economy

Over the past two decades most large industrial countries have reduced their corporate income tax rates. Two countries, however, stand out from this trend: France and The United States.

In Abolish the Corporate Income Tax economist Laurence J. Kotlikoff writes “I, like many economists, suspect that our corporate income tax is economically self-defeating — hurting workers, not capitalists, and collecting precious little revenue to boot.”

Top Marginal Corporate Income Tax Rate in G7 CountriesHigh taxes in America cause companies to invest overseas in order to escape these high American taxes. For example, Apple takes steps to minimize the income tax it pays, as do most companies. In Calculating Apple’s True U.S. Tax Rate law professor Victor Fleischer explains and estimates what rate Apple pays:

The whole point of the Senate hearing was to show how Apple shifts substantial amounts of its economic profits from the United States to Ireland, where they are taxed at a rate close to zero. Those profits are then sheltered in Ireland and untaxed unless Apple decides to bring the cash back to the United States.

These overseas profits create deferred tax liabilities that will not be taxed until the cash is repatriated. But Apple is reluctant to repatriate its overseas cash; it would rather lobby for another tax holiday and bring the cash back tax-free. An added benefit of a tax holiday for Apple is that it would provide a quick jump in reported earnings when the accounting entry for the deferred tax liability is reversed. …

Thus, Apple’s “true U.S. tax rate,” according to my own calculation, was 8.2 percent.

The corporate income tax rate in the United States is 35 percent. So how does Apple pay such a lower rate to the U.S? It locates operations overseas. It earns profits overseas, and pays taxes there.

Using the visualization.
Using the visualization.
If corporate tax rates were lowered, we’d see more economic activity here rather than overseas. That would help workers in America, as they can’t easily move their capital and investments overseas to take advantage of lower tax rates. But the wealthy — like Apple’s shareholders — can do that, and they have.

Using data gathered by Tax Policy Center at Brookings Institution, I’ve prepared an interactive visualization of corporate income tax rate trends over time. Click here to open the visualization in a new window.

Kansas was an earmark donor state

The practice of federal earmark spending was not kind to Kansas, as data shows Kansas was an earmark donor state.

Detail of stairway in Kansas Capitol.
Detail of stairway in Kansas Capitol.
The former practice of earmarking federal spending was seen as a way for members of Congress to demonstrate their political prowess by bringing the federal bacon back home to the district or state. Data gathered and analyzed by Brandon Arnold of Cato Institute shows that states differ greatly in the dollars sent to Washington as federal income taxes and the earmarks received.

Data for 2009, one of the last years for earmarking, along with Arnold’s calculations of a earmark ratio, shows that the value of this ratio varies from 25 percent to 1,104 percent. This ratio is calculated by first determining the proportion of total federal income taxes paid by a state. Use that to calculate the state’s proportional share of earmark dollars. Then, compare to earmarks actually received.

For 2009, the earmark ratio for Kansas was 81.9 percent. Based on the state contributing 0.9 percent of total federal taxes paid, Kansas should have received $173 million in earmarks. It actually received $142 million.

Arnold’s article contains other interesting find, such as comparing a state’s earmark ratio with it having members on appropriations committees.

I’ve presented Arnold’s data in an interactive spreadsheet. View the data below, or click here to open it in a new window, which may work best in most cases. This is a spreadsheet in Google Docs format. You may manipulate and save the data as your own copy.

For Kansas Senator Roberts, earmark reform not worthy of his vote

Kansas Senator Pat Roberts promotes his fiscal conservatism, but failed to vote in favor of earmark reform in a recent close vote.

In 2012 an amendment to a Senate bill was offered that would have dramatically reformed the earmark process.

United States Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas.
United States Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas.
The vote was On the Amendment S.Amdt. 1472 to S.Amdt. 1470 to S. 2038 (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012).

The purpose of the amendment, according to Congress.gov, is “to prohibit earmarks.” Although offered in 2012, the short title of the amendment was “Earmark Elimination Act of 2011”

United States Senator from Kansas Pat Roberts voting with Democrats and against Republicans on earmark reform. 2012.
United States Senator from Kansas Pat Roberts voting with Democrats and against Republicans on earmark reform. 2012.
The nub of the amendment was “It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider a bill or resolution introduced in the Senate or the House of Representatives, amendment, amendment between the Houses, or conference report that includes an earmark.”

The amendment was rejected by a vote of 59 to 40. Among Democratic Party members, the vote was 44 to 7 against the amendment. For Republican Party members, the vote was 33 to 13 in favor of the amendment.

One of the 13 Republicans who voted against this reform-minded amendment was Pat Roberts of Kansas.

Corporate income tax rates in U.S. are self-defeating

Over the past two decades most large industrial countries have reduced their corporate income tax rates. Two countries, however, stand out from this trend: France and The United States.

In Abolish the Corporate Income Tax economist Laurence J. Kotlikoff writes “I, like many economists, suspect that our corporate income tax is economically self-defeating — hurting workers, not capitalists, and collecting precious little revenue to boot.”

Top Marginal Corporate Income Tax Rate in G7 CountriesHigh taxes in America cause companies to invest overseas in order to escape these high American taxes. For example, Apple takes steps to minimize the income tax it pays, as do most companies. In Calculating Apple’s True U.S. Tax Rate law professor Victor Fleischer explains and estimates what rate Apple pays:

The whole point of the Senate hearing was to show how Apple shifts substantial amounts of its economic profits from the United States to Ireland, where they are taxed at a rate close to zero. Those profits are then sheltered in Ireland and untaxed unless Apple decides to bring the cash back to the United States.

These overseas profits create deferred tax liabilities that will not be taxed until the cash is repatriated. But Apple is reluctant to repatriate its overseas cash; it would rather lobby for another tax holiday and bring the cash back tax-free. An added benefit of a tax holiday for Apple is that it would provide a quick jump in reported earnings when the accounting entry for the deferred tax liability is reversed. …

Thus, Apple’s “true U.S. tax rate,” according to my own calculation, was 8.2 percent.

The corporate income tax rate in the United States is 35 percent. So how does Apple pay such a lower rate to the U.S? It locates operations overseas. It earns profits overseas, and pays taxes there.

Using the visualization.
Using the visualization.
If corporate tax rates were lowered, we’d see more economic activity here rather than overseas. That would help workers in America, as they can’t easily move their capital and investments overseas to take advantage of lower tax rates. But the wealthy — like Apple’s shareholders — can do that, and they have.

Using data gathered by Tax Policy Center at Brookings Institution, I’ve prepared an interactive visualization of corporate income tax rate trends over time. Click here to open the visualization in a new window.

Voice for Liberty Radio: U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo on Benghazi, Ukraine, and Boko Haram and the continuing threat of Islamic terrorism

Voice for Liberty logo with microphone 150United States Representative Mike Pompeo of Wichita has been appointed to the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. I spoke with him today in his Wichita office on this topic and a few others.

On the composition of the committee — seven Republicans and five Democrats — Pompeo explained that the majority party usually has a majority on committees of this type. A “Select” committee like this has a very narrow charter. The committee will have staff and counsel, and will deliver a report. After that, the committee will disband.

Critics of this committee point to the several committees that have already held hearings on this matter and the thousands of documents produced. What can this committee accomplish? Pompeo said that despite all the previous activity, we do not know everything. The Ben Rhodes email that was supplied just last week is an example.

Pompeo said the administration has not been very cooperative. The committee wants to learn what decisions were made on September 11, 2012, how were the decisions made, and by whom.

While the committee operates in a political environment, Pompeo said that the six other Republicans on the committee (the Democratic members have not been named) are “workhorses,” who will work to come to a factual conclusion. It may be, he said, that conservatives will disappointed in the output of the committee, in that the facts show that there was no wrongdoing or malfeasance. If that is what the facts show, that’s what will be in the committee’s report, he said.

It is not known whether Democrats will boycott the committee. Pompeo said it’s important that Democrats participate in the committee proceedings, as this will best serve the American public interest. The decision will be made by Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader.

As for the committee being a “witch hunt” or simply a political operation, Pompeo reminded me that Speaker John Boehner was reluctant to call for the formation of this special committee. Pompeo said that the Republican members of the committee, except for chair Trey Gowdy, are members with low profiles, and not widely known by Americans.

On the situation in Ukraine, Pompeo said the situation remains incredibly intense. The Russians have fomented strife in the region, with a propaganda campaign to create the predicate for a Russian invasion. Western Europe has begun to recognize the risk and has started to implement a few more sanctions. Putin’s goal is to reconstruct Greater Russia, he said.

On the subject of Boko Haram, the radical Islamist group that has captured young girls in Nigeria, Pompeo said this is another example of how the war against Islamic terrorism is not over. He said that today there are 8,000 Al-Qaeda in Syria. In 2001, on September 10, there were 200 in Afghanistan. The threat today is far greater than it was 13 years ago, and the Obama administration has thrown in the towel, he said.

Shownotes

Mike Pompeo Congressional office.
Twitter at @RepMikePompeo
H.Res. 567: Providing for the Establishment of the Select Committee on the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi

Club for Growth scorecards

United States Capitol, July 2011
United States Capitol, July 2011
Organizations like Club for Growth produce scorecards of legislators. I’ve gathered results from Club for Growth for all years available and present them in an interactive visualization.

You may select which members to show. By clicking on a member’s name in the legend, their line will be highlighted from the others.

Scorecards such as these and others, including the ones that I’ve personally constructed, have caveats. For example, some members have not been in office very long. Issues in which you have an interest may not have been voted on during the member of interest’s tenure. Or, the vote may not have been a recorded vote, which is common. Also, the mere fact of a vote for or against a bill does not measure or account for leadership on the issue, or intensity of interest and involvement. I’ve not seen scorecards that incorporate work and votes in committees, which is an important part of legislating.

Using the visualization.
Using the visualization.
Further, the selection of votes to be included is an issue. Organizations that create scorecards generally have issues that are important to them, and may focus on a subset of issues to the exclusion of all others.

To use the visualization I created, click here to open it in a new window. A nearby illustration shows how to use it.

Alternative measures of unemployment

visualization-example

Besides the official unemployment rate that is the topic of news each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (part of the U.S. Department of Labor) tracks and publishes five other series. These are called alternative measures of labor underutilization.

BLS defines the six measures as follows, along with the seasonally adjusted value for February 2014:

  • U-1, persons unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force, 3.5%
  • U-2, job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force, 3.5%
  • U-3, total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (this is the definition used for the official unemployment rate), 6.7%
  • U-4, total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers, 7.2%
  • U-5, total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other marginally attached workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers, 8.1%
  • U-6, total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers, 12.6%

As the above definitions indicate, U-3 is the “official” or most often mentioned unemployment rate. Those who fit the profile of U-4, U-5, or U-6 are called “discouraged workers.” In particular, those in category U-6 are called “involuntary part-time workers.” The rate for this category, 12.6 percent, is 1.88 times the level of U-3, the official unemployment rate.

Alternative measures of unemployment in the United States, from Bureau of Labor Statistics
Alternative measures of unemployment in the United States, from Bureau of Labor Statistics

Special interests defend wind subsidies at taxpayer cost

man-digging-coinsThe spurious arguments made in support of the wind production tax credit shows just how difficult it is to replace cronyism with economic freedom. From October, 2012.

We often see criticism of politicians for sensing “which way the wind blows,” that is, shifting their policies to pander to the prevailing interests of important special interest groups. The associated negative connotation is that politicians do this without regard to whether these policies are wise and beneficial for everyone.

So when a Member of Congress takes a position that is literally going against the wind in the home district and state, we ought to take notice. Someone has some strong convictions.

This is the case with U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican representing the Kansas fourth district (Wichita metropolitan area and surrounding counties.)

The issue is the production tax credit (PTC) paid to wind power companies. For each kilowatt-hour of electricity produced, the United States government pays 2.2 cents. Wind power advocates contend the PTC is necessary for wind to compete with other forms of electricity generation. Without the PTC, it is said that no new wind farms would be built.

Kansas wind turbinesThe PTC is an important issue in Kansas not only because of the many wind farms located there, but also because of wind power equipment manufacturers that have located in Kansas. An example is Siemens. That company, lured by millions in local incentives, built a plant in Hutchinson. Employment was around 400. But now the PTC is set to expire on December 31, and it’s uncertain whether Congress will extend the program. As a result, Siemens has laid off employees. Soon only 152 will be at work in Hutchinson, and similar reductions in employment have happened at other Siemens wind power equipment plants.

Rep. Pompeo is opposed to all tax credits for energy production, and has authored legislation to eliminate them. As the wind PTC is the largest energy tax credit program, Pompeo and others have written extensively of the market distortions and resultant economic harm caused by the PTC. A recent example is Puff, the Magic Drag on the Economy: Time to let the pernicious production tax credit for wind power blow away, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal.

The special interests that benefit from the PTC are striking back. An example comes from Dave Kerr, who as former president of the Hutchinson/Reno County Chamber of Commerce played a role in luring Siemens to Hutchinson. Kerr’s recent op-ed in the Hutchinson News is notable not only for its several attempts to deflect attention away from the true nature of the PTC, but for its personal attacks on Pompeo.

There’s no doubt that the Hutchinson economy was dealt a setback with the announcement of layoffs at the Siemens plant that manufactures wind power equipment. Considered in a vacuum, these jobs were good for Hutchinson. But we shouldn’t make our nation’s policy in a vacuum, that is, bowing to the needs of special interest groups — sensing “which way the wind blows.” When considering everything and everyone, the PTC paid to producers of power generated from wind is a bad policy. We ought to respect Pompeo for taking a principled stand on this issue, instead of pandering to the folks back home.

Kerr is right about one claim made in his op-ed: The PTC for wind power is not quite like the Solyndra debacle. Solyndra received a loan from the Federal Financing Bank, part of the Treasury Department. Had Solyndra been successful as a company, it would likely have paid back the government loan. This is not to say that these loans are a good thing, but there was the possibility that the money would have been repaid.

But with the PTC, taxpayers spend with nothing to show in return except for expensive electricity. And spend taxpayers do.

Kerr, in an attempt to distinguish the PTC from wasteful government spending programs, writes the PTC is “actually an income tax credit.” The use of the adverb “actually” is supposed to alert readers that they’re about to be told the truth. But truth is not forthcoming from Kerr — there’s no difference. Tax credits are government spending. They have the same economic effect as “regular” government spending. To the company that receives them, they can be used — just like cash — to pay their tax bill. Or, the company can sell them to others for cash, although usually at a discounted value.

From government’s perspective, tax credits reduce revenue by the amount of credits issued. Instead of receiving tax payments in cash, government receives payments in the form of tax credits — which are slips of paper it created at no cost and which have no value to government. Created, by the way, outside the usual appropriations process. That’s the beauty of tax credits for big-government spenders: Once the program is created, money is spent without the burden of passing legislation.

If we needed any more evidence that PTC payments are just like cash grants: As part of Obama’s ARRA stimulus bill, for tax years 2009 and 2010, there was in effect a temporary option to take the federal PTC as a cash grant. The paper PTC, ITC, or Cash Grant? An Analysis of the Choice Facing Renewable Power Projects in the United States explains.

Astonishingly, the wind PTC is so valuable that wind power companies actually pay customers to take their electricity. It’s called “negative pricing,” as explained in Negative Electricity Prices and the Production Tax Credit:

As a matter of both economics and public policy, no government production tax subsidy should ever be so large that it creates an incentive for a business to actually pay customers to take its product. Yet, the federal Production Tax Credit (“PTC”) for wind generation is doing just that with increasing frequency in electricity markets across the United States. In some “wind-rich” regions of the country, wind producers are paying grid operators to take their generation during periods of surplus supply. But wind producers more than make up the cost of the “negative price” payment, because they receive a $22/MWH federal production tax credit for every MWH generated.

In western Texas since 2008, wind power generators paid the electrical grid to take their electricity ten percent of the hours of each day.

Once we recognize that tax credits are the same as government spending, we can see the error in Kerr’s argument that if the PTC is ended, it is the same as “a tax increase on utilities, which, because they are regulated, will pass on to consumers.” Well, government passes along the cost of the PTC to taxpayers, illustrating that there really is no free lunch.

Kerr attacks Pompeo for failing to “crusade” against two subsidies that some oil companies receive: Intangible Drilling Costs and the Percentage Depletion Allowance. These programs are deductions, not credits. They do provide an economic benefit to the oil companies that can use them (“big oil” can’t use percentage depletion at all), but not to the extent that tax credits do.

Regarding these deductions, last year Pompeo introduced H. Res 267, titled “Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should end all subsidies aimed at specific energy technologies or fuels.”

In the resolution, Pompeo recognized the difference between deductions and credits, the latter, as we’ve seen, being direct subsidies: “Whereas deductions and cost-recovery mechanisms available to all energy sectors are different than credits, loans and grants, and are therefore not taxpayer subsidies; [and] Whereas a deduction of costs and cost recovery with respect to timing is not a subsidy.”

Part of what the resolution calls for is to “begin tax simplification and reform by eliminating energy tax credits and deductions and reducing income tax rates.”

Kerr wants to deflect attention away from the cost and harm of the PTC. Haranguing Pompeo for failing to attack percentage depletion and IDC with the same fervor as tax credits is only an attempt to muddy the waters so we can’t see what’s happening right in front of us. It’s not, as Kerr alleges, “playing Clintonesque games of semantics with us.” As we’ve seen, Pompeo has called for the end of these two tax deductions.

If we want to criticize anyone for inconsistency, try this: Kerr criticizes Pompeo for ignoring the oil and gas deductions, “which creates a glut in natural gas that drives down the price to the lowest levels in a decade.” These low energy prices should be a blessing to our economy. Kerr, however, demands taxpayers pay to subsidize expensive wind power so that it can compete with inexpensive gas. In the end, the benefit of inexpensive gas is canceled. Who benefits from that, except for the wind power industry? The oil and gas targeted deductions also create market distortions, and therefore should be eliminated. But at least they work to reduce prices, not increase them.

By the way, Pompeo has been busy with legislation targeted at ending other harmful subsidies: H.R. 3090: EDA Elimination Act of 2011, H.R. 3994: Grant Return for Deficit Reduction Act, H.R. 3308: Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act, and the above-mentioned resolution.

I did notice, however, that Pompeo hasn’t called for the end to the mohair subsidy. Will Kerr attack him for this oversight?

Finally, Kerr invokes the usual argument of government spenders: Cut the budget somewhere else. That’s what everyone says.

Creating entire industries that exist only by being propped up by government subsidy means that we all pay more to support special interest groups. A prosperous future is best built by relying on free enterprise and free markets in energy, not on programs motivated by the wants of politicians and special interests. Kerr’s attacks on Pompeo illustrate how difficult it is to replace cronyism with economic freedom.