“With all due respect to my colleagues who voted “no”, no one is fooled by the “vote no, hope yes” culture. The domestic spending portion of the Omnibus is a classic example of that because no one will be championing that they voted against life, against saving border wall money, and against veterans’ programs. Further, livestock producers and the agriculture industry were rescued from burdensome Green New Deal requirements Democrats had insisted on pursing. While there is no such thing as perfect, we think this combination of conservative provisions allows us to continue the fight in the face of the dysfunction of the majority in the House, Senate, and White House.
“In this Omnibus package, there are some fundamentally-American results achieved by those of us who didn’t give up the fight, and as a result, produced several policy home runs despite being in the minority. Some of these provisions include:
“Another successful aspect of this bill is that several Democrat poison pill provisions were eliminated through the conference process between the House and Senate. While it is part of the “woke” agenda of the majority party to remove Hyde Amendment protections, this long-standing amendment was preserved in the Omnibus package, preventing taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions. Moreover, anti-energy provisions, which would dramatically further reduce domestic mineral production, and a provision demanded by progressives to cancel $1.9 billion in border wall funding, further fueling the border crisis, were also eliminated.
“And because multi-tasking is important, I was also glad to see the inclusion of several Nevada-specific wins that I directly advocated for over the fiscal year:
“As I’ve said repeatedly, the dysfunction of the majority party in Congress is off the charts. Although long overdue in its passage, now that Fiscal Year 2022 deck has been cleared with this vote, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to secure funding for many more Nevada priorities again in Fiscal Year 2023, all while pushing back against provisions that serve a far-left, political agenda.”
“In this Omnibus package, there are some fundamentally-American results achieved by those of us who didn’t give up the fight, and as a result, produced several policy home runs despite being in the minority. Some of these provisions include:
- An increase of $32.5 billion in funding for the Department of Defense (DOD), including a 2.7% pay raise for our troops;
- An increase of $400 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and an increase of $800 million for Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in part to address the crisis at our Southern border;
- A $211 million increase to Wildland Fire Management for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service;
- Allowing for continued domestic energy and mineral development by preventing sage grouse from being listed in the Endangered Species Act (ESA);
- Exempting farmers and ranchers from greenhouse gas permitting and reporting requirements;
- A prohibition on closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and transferring detainees; and
- A prohibition on the use of funds from being used to implement the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, which urges greater record-keeping of lawful firearm owners, moving closer to the left’s long-sought goal of a national firearm ownership registry.
“Another successful aspect of this bill is that several Democrat poison pill provisions were eliminated through the conference process between the House and Senate. While it is part of the “woke” agenda of the majority party to remove Hyde Amendment protections, this long-standing amendment was preserved in the Omnibus package, preventing taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions. Moreover, anti-energy provisions, which would dramatically further reduce domestic mineral production, and a provision demanded by progressives to cancel $1.9 billion in border wall funding, further fueling the border crisis, were also eliminated.
“And because multi-tasking is important, I was also glad to see the inclusion of several Nevada-specific wins that I directly advocated for over the fiscal year:
- All 10 submitted Community Project Funding designations, including funding to purchase emergency responder communications equipment for the cities of Sparks and West Wendover, upgrades to municipal water plants and sewer systems, and pedestrian improvements in Carson City, just to name a few;
- The largest ever appropriations package for Lake Tahoe, including $7 million specifically to improve waterline infrastructure on Highway 50 for wildfire response capabilities;
- Funding to support Nevada-based companies’ technology production, such as the Sierra Nevada Corporation and Rocky Research;
- Funding for the Desert Research Institute (DRI) to carry out studies preventing urban flood damage, hydrological and climate forecasting, and improved data sharing capabilities; and
- Funding to support research activities to improve geothermal and solar efficiency production, both of which have a strong presence in Nevada’s energy grid.
“As I’ve said repeatedly, the dysfunction of the majority party in Congress is off the charts. Although long overdue in its passage, now that Fiscal Year 2022 deck has been cleared with this vote, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to secure funding for many more Nevada priorities again in Fiscal Year 2023, all while pushing back against provisions that serve a far-left, political agenda.”
Economic Mobility Means American Dream Lives
11-16-2021
With Nevada’s Congressional delegates facing votes on President Joe Biden’s proposed income tax increases, questions of wealth and income distribution, tax fairness, economic growth and economic mobility have become central in public debate.
This column focuses on literature and empirical studies on economic mobility, showing there is still substantial economic mobility from generation to generation and within almost all individuals’ lives. It is not true, as so often claimed, that the rich reap all the gains from economic growth and the poor get left in the mud.
Three recent columns posted on the web site of the Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI; NevadaPolicy.org) address tax fairness and income and wealth distribution in the U.S. They show inequality has not increased over recent decades and American income taxes have become ever more progressive in this century, including with the 2017 Trump tax reforms.
Together with a forthcoming column on the impacts of income tax increases on economic growth and a final synthesis of the five columns, these articles provide a sound economic and policy basis for deciding on the proposed tax increases. In short, America will build back better by rejecting them.
Daniel J. Mitchell is an economist specializing in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform and the burden of government spending. November 26, 2018, he summarized the mobility literature in “Income Mobility Data Show America Still Very Much the Land of Opportunity,” published by the Foundation for Economic Education.
He begins, “I generally don’t write much about the distribution of income …, largely because that feeds the false notion that the economy is a fixed pie and that politicians should have the power to re-slice it if they think incomes aren’t sufficiently equal. I think growth is far more important, especially for poor people …”
Economist Robert J. Samuelson wrote “The myth of stagnant incomes” in the Washington Post November 18, 2018. He cited research by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that he called “arguably the most comprehensive tabulation of Americans’ incomes.” It showed, “most Americans had experienced clear-cut income gains since the early 1980s.”
He noted the CBO study showed the lowest- and highest-income fifths of Americans enjoyed real income gains of about 80 percent in 1979-2015. The other three-fifths experienced 50 percent income gains. These gains, especially for the poor, occurred after the turn of the century, as well as before it. The CBO data include after-tax incomes, government transfer payments (such as Medicare, food stamps, etc.), and employer-paid health insurance, as is correct.
An October 23, 2017 Economic Letter from the Federal Reserve Board of San Francisco, “Missing the Growth from Creative Destruction,” explains a systemic problem in most inequality studies also noted in two of the three papers posted at NPRI. Namely, they rely on “cross-section,” not “panel” data. Thus, they compare the experiences of different groups of people at the beginning and end years, instead of the actual differences for a single group of real people over the period.
Even studies by famed economist Raj Chetty are subject to this weakness. When this methodological error is corrected, income and wealth disparities and alleged trends of increases in disparities over time disappear.
In the October 23, 2018 paper “Do the Rich Get All the Gains from Economic Growth?” Professor Russ Roberts makes the same point about panel studies reflecting the actual experience of real people versus disparate groups at different times.
Data from Professor Mark Rank in an April 18, 2014 New York Times column showed 12 percent of people found themselves in the top income one percent at least once in 35 years. Likewise, 39 percent in at least one year in the top five percent; 56 percent in the top ten percent at least one year; and 73 percent in the top 20 percent at least one year.
U.S. economic mobility is great and America is indeed the land of opportunity.
Ron Knecht is a Senior Fellow at NPRI. Email [email protected].
This column focuses on literature and empirical studies on economic mobility, showing there is still substantial economic mobility from generation to generation and within almost all individuals’ lives. It is not true, as so often claimed, that the rich reap all the gains from economic growth and the poor get left in the mud.
Three recent columns posted on the web site of the Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI; NevadaPolicy.org) address tax fairness and income and wealth distribution in the U.S. They show inequality has not increased over recent decades and American income taxes have become ever more progressive in this century, including with the 2017 Trump tax reforms.
Together with a forthcoming column on the impacts of income tax increases on economic growth and a final synthesis of the five columns, these articles provide a sound economic and policy basis for deciding on the proposed tax increases. In short, America will build back better by rejecting them.
Daniel J. Mitchell is an economist specializing in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform and the burden of government spending. November 26, 2018, he summarized the mobility literature in “Income Mobility Data Show America Still Very Much the Land of Opportunity,” published by the Foundation for Economic Education.
He begins, “I generally don’t write much about the distribution of income …, largely because that feeds the false notion that the economy is a fixed pie and that politicians should have the power to re-slice it if they think incomes aren’t sufficiently equal. I think growth is far more important, especially for poor people …”
Economist Robert J. Samuelson wrote “The myth of stagnant incomes” in the Washington Post November 18, 2018. He cited research by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that he called “arguably the most comprehensive tabulation of Americans’ incomes.” It showed, “most Americans had experienced clear-cut income gains since the early 1980s.”
He noted the CBO study showed the lowest- and highest-income fifths of Americans enjoyed real income gains of about 80 percent in 1979-2015. The other three-fifths experienced 50 percent income gains. These gains, especially for the poor, occurred after the turn of the century, as well as before it. The CBO data include after-tax incomes, government transfer payments (such as Medicare, food stamps, etc.), and employer-paid health insurance, as is correct.
An October 23, 2017 Economic Letter from the Federal Reserve Board of San Francisco, “Missing the Growth from Creative Destruction,” explains a systemic problem in most inequality studies also noted in two of the three papers posted at NPRI. Namely, they rely on “cross-section,” not “panel” data. Thus, they compare the experiences of different groups of people at the beginning and end years, instead of the actual differences for a single group of real people over the period.
Even studies by famed economist Raj Chetty are subject to this weakness. When this methodological error is corrected, income and wealth disparities and alleged trends of increases in disparities over time disappear.
In the October 23, 2018 paper “Do the Rich Get All the Gains from Economic Growth?” Professor Russ Roberts makes the same point about panel studies reflecting the actual experience of real people versus disparate groups at different times.
Data from Professor Mark Rank in an April 18, 2014 New York Times column showed 12 percent of people found themselves in the top income one percent at least once in 35 years. Likewise, 39 percent in at least one year in the top five percent; 56 percent in the top ten percent at least one year; and 73 percent in the top 20 percent at least one year.
U.S. economic mobility is great and America is indeed the land of opportunity.
Ron Knecht is a Senior Fellow at NPRI. Email [email protected].
RSS Feed