Doomscroll News

Tag: Economy

  • Part III: Analyzing the “Big Beautiful Bill”: A Look at New Taxes, Fees, and Revenue Raisers

    The proposed “Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB) introduces a sweeping range of new taxes, fees, and revenue-generating measures that demand close scrutiny. This article examines key provisions, aligning with a vision that prioritizes American interests and fiscal responsibility.

    Measures to Potentially Bolster American Interests:

    Several proposed measures in the BBB could be seen as aligning with an “America First” approach:

    • Excise Tax on Remittance Transfers (Sec. 112104): This provision introduces a new tax on money sent abroad. Such a measure could be viewed as a way to retain capital within the country and generate revenue from outflows.
    • New Immigration-Related Fees (Title VII, Part 1): The bill imposes new fees for various immigration processes, including asylum applications, employment authorizations for certain non-citizens, and for sponsors of unaccompanied children who fail to meet court appearance requirements. These fees ensure that the immigration system is not an undue burden on the taxpayer and that those who use the system contribute to its costs.
    • Fee on Natural Gas Exports and Imports to Non-FTA Countries (Sec. 41002): This establishes a fee on natural gas trade with countries not part of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the U.S. This is a strategic move to favor trade with FTA partners and generate revenue from other international gas transactions.
    • Modification of Vessel Tonnage Duties (Sec. 100002): Changes to vessel tonnage duties (taxes on ships entering U.S. ports based on their cargo capacity) updates these fees to better reflect modern shipping practices and ensure fair contribution from international maritime commerce.
    • Termination or Restriction of Clean Energy Tax Credits (Title XI, Subtitle C, Part 1): The bill calls for ending or limiting various clean energy tax credits, such as those for electric vehicles, alternative fuel refueling property, and energy-efficient home improvements. This aligns with the perspective that such credits may represent market distortions or handouts and that their removal levels the playing field.
    • Increased Excise Tax on Private Foundation Investment Income (Sec. 112022): An increase in the excise tax on the net investment income of certain private foundations, based on asset size, is proposed. This is a way to ensure that large, tax-exempt foundations contribute more to public revenue, particularly if there are concerns about how these funds are being utilized or if they are perceived as benefiting from arrangements that do not primarily serve domestic charitable purposes.
    (more…)

  • Business Tax Devolutions: A Critical Dissection of Title XI, Subtitle B, Parts 1 & 2

    The recently proposed business tax measures under Title XI, Subtitle B, Parts 1 & 2, are presented as beneficial reforms. However, a closer examination reveals a series of provisions that range from questionably effective to deeply detrimental to American interests and fiscal responsibility.

    Sec. 111001: Extension of Special Depreciation Allowance (Bonus Depreciation) – A Recipe for Misallocation

    This section proposes extending 100% bonus depreciation for property acquired after January 19, 2025, and placed in service before January 1, 2030. This isn’t sound economic policy; it’s a blatant handout, likely to benefit well-connected insiders. Reports of companies already stockpiling assets suggest this will merely accelerate a pre-existing rush to capitalize on a temporary distortion. Such a policy actively encourages a misallocation of resources, incentivizing potentially unnecessary capital expenditure over more sustainable investments or debt reduction. It’s a short-sighted pump for certain sectors that will only exacerbate our national debt, not alleviate it.

    (more…)

  • Reforming Individual Income Taxes: A Focused Approach (Part I of a BBB Critique)

    The current discourse around individual income taxes is cluttered with temporary fixes, unpopular mandates, and provisions that miss the mark for many Americans. Instead of a sprawling bill, a more focused approach is needed, prioritizing permanent, common-sense changes while jettisoning controversial or ineffective measures. Here’s a look at what such a refined individual income tax bill should, and shouldn’t, include.

    Core Tax Provisions: Stability and Simplicity

    At the heart of a sensible tax reform should be the permanent extension of several key provisions initially from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). This includes making permanent the modified individual income tax rates, the increased standard deduction, and the termination of personal exemptions. These measures offer a baseline of stability for taxpayers.

    However, the idea of a temporary enhancement to the standard deduction, proposed for taxable years 2025-2028, should be rejected. Such short-term measures are often gimmicks, creating fiscal uncertainty and providing future leverage for increased government spending without addressing the immediate need for significant fiscal discipline now.

    (more…)
  • America’s Solar Achilles’ Heel: BRICS’ Dominance and the Path to Energy Insecurity

    America’s Solar Achilles’ Heel: BRICS’ Dominance and the Path to Energy Insecurity

    Here are key problems with relying heavily on solar energy, particularly when facing a dominant manufacturing bloc like BRICS:

    1. The BRICS’ Leverage (Supply Chain Manipulation): With BRICS, and overwhelmingly China, controlling over 80% of all solar panel manufacturing stages (and nearing 95% for crucial upstream components like polysilicon and wafers), they hold immense leverage. They can strategically restrict the export of panels, components, or raw materials, effectively throttling another nation’s ability to build, maintain, or repair its solar infrastructure. This creates a powerful tool for geopolitical pressure.
    2. Cost Competitiveness (Exploitable Dependency): China is the most cost-competitive location for manufacturing all solar PV components due to massive state investment and economies of scale. This makes it difficult for other nations to establish their own fully competitive domestic supply chains. BRICS could exploit this by manipulating prices—either by gouging during periods of high demand or undercutting nascent industries in other countries to maintain their dominance, making a dependent nation’s solar ambitions economically unviable or perpetually reliant.
    3. Quality Control Weaponization (Undermining Reliability): Given their control over manufacturing, BRICS nations could, in a conflict scenario, subtly degrade the quality or introduce hidden flaws (hardware or software backdoors) into solar components destined for adversaries. This could lead to premature failures, reduced efficiency, increased maintenance burdens, and a general loss of faith in the reliability of solar infrastructure, all while being difficult to detect upfront.
    4. Trade Vulnerability (Economic Weak Point): Heavy reliance on imported solar panels and components makes a nation’s currency and economy susceptible. Any devaluation of the importing nation’s currency would drastically increase the cost of these essential goods. Furthermore, the dominant bloc could impose targeted tariffs or engage in other trade actions that specifically penalize the solar sector of a rival, exploiting this dependency. The US, for instance, imported eight times the solar modules it manufactured in 2023, showcasing this vulnerability.
    5. Investment Chill (Perceived Risk): The clear and present risk of supply chain disruption, price manipulation, or sabotage by a dominant, potentially adversarial, manufacturing bloc would create significant uncertainty. This “investment chill” would deter both domestic and foreign investment in the solar sector of the vulnerable nation. Investors would be wary of committing capital to projects that could be easily undermined by geopolitical factors beyond their control, thus slowing down the transition to solar energy and reinforcing reliance on the dominant bloc or other energy sources.
  • This “Beautiful Bill”? A Recipe for Disaster.

    This “Beautiful Bill”? A Recipe for Disaster.

    The recent unveiling of the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” demands a critical eye, not a rubber stamp, especially from those who champion fiscal responsibility and effective governance. While packaged with appealing promises, a closer look reveals a proposal that misses the mark on several fundamental issues and unwisely bundles disparate policies into a take-it-or-leave-it behemoth.

    Let’s start with the much-touted tax cuts. The claim of putting more money in Americans’ pockets rings hollow when we consider the crushing weight of our national debt. As Rep. Thomas Massie has rightly pointed out, the annual federal interest burden alone equates to losing a full IRA for every citizen. This doesn’t even factor in the hidden tax of inflation, exacerbated by out-of-control spending and unfunded liabilities in states like California, which silently devalues every dollar we earn. Barking up the “tax cut” tree while the fiscal house is on fire is a distraction. Frankly, many Americans would likely pay more in taxes if it meant a serious crackdown on rampant fraud. Where are the arrests? We see endless talk, perhaps even obscure “DOGE research” initiatives, yet tangible results in holding fraudsters accountable are conspicuously absent. This needs to change.

    (more…)
  • Knauff Power: Tariffs + Trump Gold Card = America’s Double Whammy

    Knauff Power: Tariffs + Trump Gold Card = America’s Double Whammy

    Can the President act decisively on the Gold Card? The precedent set in Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950) suggests yes. The Supreme Court recognized an “inherent executive power” over immigration matters tied to foreign affairs and national sovereignty. While Congress typically legislates in this area, Knauff indicates the President possesses authority, especially when national security – including economic security – is at stake. Attracting billions in investment for critical technologies certainly qualifies. This inherent authority provides a pathway to implement the Gold Card program swiftly, complementing the national security objectives of the tariffs.

    America needs more than just a nudge to reclaim its industrial dominance and secure its future. We need a powerful, two-fisted approach: the strategic pressure of tariffs combined with the magnetic pull of high-value investment. It’s time for the “Double Whammy” – leveraging both Section 232 tariffs AND President Trump’s proposed “Gold Card” program to bring jobs, capital, and cutting-edge innovation roaring back to American soil.

    (more…)