Reason.tv - Topics

Tim Cavanaugh Talks CA Budget Deal on Fox News

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 00:00:00 EDT

On June 28, 2012, Reason's Tim Cavanaugh discussed California's fiscal problems, the state budget deals and Jerry Brown on Fox 11 News.

Approximately 3 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable iPod and audio versions.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel and receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Washington's Parasitic Economy with The Weekly Standard's Andrew Ferguson

Fri, 22 Jun 2012 00:00:00 EDT

Washington, D.C. "is basically a parasitic economy," says author and Weekly Standard Senior Editor Andrew Ferguson. "It sucks up the money from the rest of the country and puts people to work here."

In a recent Time magazine article titled "Bubble on the Potomac," Ferguson argues that D.C.-area residents are growing ever richer at the expense of the rest of the country, which has created a cultural disconnect that results in bad laws.

Ferguson sat down with ReasonTV Correspondent Kennedy to discuss his article, and the various ways in which D.C.'s riches are hurting the nation.

Ferguson is also the author of Crazy U: One Dad's Crash Course in Getting His Kid Into College and Land of Lincoln: Adventures in Abe's America. For more on those books and the author, visit http://www.andrewfergusonbooks.com/ .

Approximately 4:50 minutes.

Camera by Jim Epstein, Meredith Bragg and Joshua Swain. Produced by Bragg.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to our YouTube channel for automatic notifications when new material goes live.

In 2011 Reason's Nick Gillespie interviewed Ferguson and his son, Gillam, about Crazy U.

Independent Run by Ron Paul Would Pull 17 percent of Presidential Vote: New Reason-Rupe Poll

Wed, 28 Mar 2012 09:00:00 EDT

As Mitt Romney looks to sew up the Republican presidential nomination, the just-released Reason-Rupe Foundation poll shows that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) could play the spoiler if he mounted an independent campaign by making it virtually impossible for the GOP candidate to beat Barack Obama.

"Ron Paul would probably take about 17 to 18 percent of the national vote," says Reason Polling Director Emily Ekins. While Paul would pull votes from both candidates, he would take more from Romney. The newest version of the quarterly Reason-Rupe Public Opinion Survey of 1,200 U.S. adults was conducted March 10-20, 2012. Full results and discussion are online here .

The poll shows that Romney has pulled well ahead of GOP rivals Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul among Republican voters. President Obama maintains an edge over Romney in a head-to-head matchup, but both are below 50 percent, says Ekins, with the incumbent beating Romney by 46 percent to 40 percent. And in a three-way race among Obama, Romney, and Paul running as an independent, the totals change to Obama with 41 percent, Romney with 30 percent, and Paul with 17 percent.

In an interview with Reason's Nick Gillespie, Ekins also talked about how Americans are wary of war with Iran (only 37 percent support military intervention if such actions will cause "a war that is similar in length and costs to the war in Iraq") and support for an overhaul of tax policy (45 percent support a shift to a flat tax versus 41 percent opposed).

In a previous interview, Ekins talked about the unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act. Watch that here and read full poll results here.

4.30 minutes. Filmed by Jim Epstein & Meredith Bragg. Edited by Joshua Swain.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live and go to http://reason.tv for downloadable versions of our videos.

Governor Luis Fortuno on How Puerto Rico Avoided Becoming "America's Greece"

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 00:00:00 EST

"Things were so bad that I had to fly up to New York to meet with ratings agencies before being sworn in, to avoid a guaranteed downgrade to 'junk' status," says Puerto Rico's governor Luis Fortuño. "We should have been America's Greece."

Fortuño spoke at Reason Weekend 2012, Reason Foundation's annual donor event, which took place in San Juan, Puerto Rico. He discussed the importance of making bold, quick cuts to government, his plans to incentivize capital investment in Puerto Rico, and his desire to see Puerto Rico be admitted as the 51st state in the union.

About 25 minutes. Filmed by Joshua Swain and Anthony Fisher. Edited by Zach Weissmueller.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Why is the Economy Growing So Slowly?

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 10:15:00 EST

"Considering that we had this big Tea Party movement in 2010, there has been very little talk about actually cutting spending," says American Enterprise Institute's James Pethokoukis, "except that Mitt Romney doesn't want a lunar colony."

Pethokoukis is a former Reuters columnist and widely read blogger, who covers economics, politics, and fiscal policy. He sat down with Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie to talk about tax reform, cutting spending, and why slow growth is the biggest problem facing the U.S. economy.

Approximately 6 minutes.

Shot by Joshua Swain and Meredith Bragg; edited by Jim Epstein.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Will More Federal Money Help Our Schools? Peter Suderman on Fox Business

Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:00:00 EST

President Obama wants more federal tax-dollars going to teachers as a way of improving education. Reason associate editor Peter Suderman appeared on Fox Business' Power and Money says the problems are not in spending but in heavy-handed bureaucracy and regulation. Airdate Feb 7, 2012.

Aproximately 4 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions. Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Why Geezers Are Occupy Wall Street's True Enemies

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:00:00 EST

"When you look at government policies, there's a massive transfer of wealth from the young and relatively poor members of society toward the old and relatively members of society," says Veronique de Rugy, a Reason magazine columnist and economist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

In 1970, de Rugy notes, transfers from the young to the old took up about 20 percent of the federal budget. In a few years, that figure will break the 50 percent barrier as the population ages and Social Security and Medicare ramp up. Those programs are paid for by payroll taxes that suck up around 15 percent of every dollar most workers will ever make.

Yet the #Occupy movement spends most of its energy railing against "the 1 Percent" richest Americans, whose wealth is not gained at the expense of the "99 Percent." Rather, it comes from providing goods and services that people want to consume.

As transfer payments to elderly Americans - irrespective of wealth or need - increase in absolute and relative terms, de Rugy argues that we should scrap entitlements and replace them instead with a "social safety net" that helps poor Americans of whatever age. "There's absolutely no reason to continue paying for lots of people who have accumulated wealth their entire lives," de Rugy tells Reason's Nick Gillespie.

About 3.40 minutes. Shot by Meredith Bragg and Joshua Swain and edited by Swain.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions of our videos. And subscribe to this channel to get automatic updates when new material goes live.

There is Hope for Education in America! Andrew Campanella Tells Us Why

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

"We can't do this to kids. We are paying far too much money for a public education system that isn't working," says Vice President of National School Choice Week Andrew Campanella.

Everyone knows that the U.S. education system is in trouble. Campanella offers a few words on how school choice week can help with promoting "access to better options and empowering parents and kids."

According to Campanella, the U.S. ranks 35th in the world in math and literacy.

"Other countries are not just nipping at our heels educationally, they've lapped us," Campanella says.

Campanella contends that school choice offers real solutions to raising the bar and educating the next generation, and that it's not just empty words.

Reason on education.

About 3 minutes. Produced by Sharif Matar and Tracy Oppenheimer.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason's YouTube Channel to get automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Follow Reason on Twitter.

California Taxes Rank Worst in US: Tim Cavanaugh Discusses on Good Day LA

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

Tim Cavanaugh, Managing Editor of Reason.com, talks to FOX 11 Los Angeles about Governor Jerry Brown's push for higher taxes despite California's dismal national tax ranking. Air date: January 27, 2011.

Approximately 3 minutes.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel.

Matt Welch Discusses the Buffett Rule and His Favorite Beatles Songs on Varney & Co.

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

Reason magazine Editor in Chief, Matt Welch appeared on Varney & Co. to discuss Warren Buffett's confusion between income tax and capital gains tax and why debt is not a revenue problem but a spending problem. Welch also reveals his favorite Beatles' songs. Air date: January 26, 2012.

Approximately 2.34 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Anthony Randazzo Discusses Warren Buffet, taxes, and SOPA with Judge Napolitano

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

"The whole point [of the internet] is that you have free access," says Reason's Director of Economic Research Anthony Randazzo. Randazzo appeared on Freedom Watch to discuss the consequences of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Warren Buffet's tax fued with GOP member of Congress. Air Date: January 19, 2012.

Approximately 6.36 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Ranking Economic Freedom with The Heritage Foundation's James Roberts

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:00:00 EST

"Economic Freedom peaked about seven or eight years ago in the U.S. and has been dropping since then," claims James Roberts, Heritage Foundation Research Fellow and co-author of the 2012 Index of Economic Freedom.

For over a decade the Heritage Foundation has been ranking countries based on a number of indices, including open markets, regulatory efficiency, and the size and scope of government. Due primarily to costly regulations and rapid government expansion, the tenth-place United States’ declined in the rankings for the fourth straight year, behind Hong Kong (#1), Australia (#3), Switzerland (#5), Canada (#6) and Ireland (#9). Even Maruritius, a small island off the coast of Africa, was seen as a more economically free.

Roberts sat down with Reason’s Matt Welch to discuss the Index, the state of free enterprise in the world, and the decline of economic freedom in Europe and North America.

About 6:30 minutes. Shot by Meredith Bragg and Joshua Swain and edited by Bragg.

Scroll down for downloadable versions, and subscribe to our YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

Blueseed: The Googleplex of the Sea

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 12:00:00 EST

"Right now the US visa immigration system does not allow for entrepreneurs [from overseas] to come here and test out their ideas and create the new jobs and create the new companies of tomorrow," says Blueseed co-founder Max Marty, "its system was designed for a bygone era."

Marty believes that his seasteading venture Blueseed "is the solution to a problem" created by the archaic U.S. visa system, which he and co-founder Dario Mutabdizja say is starving Silicon Valley of the best and brightest international entrepreneurs.

As a "visa-free technology incubator for startups" situated on a ship 12 miles off the coast of Silicon Valley, Blueseed aims to be the "Googleplex of the Sea," a vibrant workplace for innovative industries to bloom, unencumbered by onerous regulations on new technology-sector businesses. The project has attracted investors such as Paypal co-founder, venture capitalist and noted libertarian Peter Thiel (who once made an early investment in a little startup company called Facebook).

About 2.30 minutes. Produced By Anthony L. Fisher. Interview by Julian Morris.

Scroll Down for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.

Adrian Moore Discussing How California Wants Kim Kardashian To Help Tax The Rich

Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:00:00 EST

Adrian Moore, vice president of research at the Reason Foundation, discusses the Golden State's plan to get Kim Kardashian to help raise taxes on the wealthy. He also explained California's budget problems and how some workers can "game the system" with pensions on Varney & Co. on the Fox Business Network on December 27, 2011.

Approximately 4.50 minutes.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel.

Nick Gillespie Discusses Libertarianism, Ron Paul, & Changing Politics on C-SPAN

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 00:00:00 EST

Reason's Nick Gillespie appeared on C-SPAN's Washington Journal to discuss the 2012 GOP campaign, libertarianism in mainstream politics, and Ron Paul's rise. Gillespie also responded to Q&A from callers. Air Date: 12/27/2011.

45 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Nick Gillespie Talks Payroll Tax Cut and Social Security on Freedom Watch

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 00:00:00 EST

Reason's Nick Gillespie appeared on Freedom Watch and asks "why not get rid of the payroll tax all together?". He explains that temporary tax reductions and political theater will never help our economy. Gillespie also noted that Social Security is already insolvent and that any revenue that is supposed to sure it up will just be wasted. Air Date: 12/22/2011.

Approximately 5 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Nick Gillespie Discusses Payroll Tax Cuts, Social Security, and the GOP on Fox Business Network

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 00:00:00 EST

Reason's Nick Gillespie discusses on Fox Business Network how payroll tax cut will not reduce costs nor spur spending unless Congress cuts social security as well. Airdate: December 6, 2011.

4.10 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Matt Welch Talks Treament of OWS Protesters and Grades the TSA on Freedom Watch

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST

Reason Magazine Editor in Chief Matt Welch appeared on Freedom Watch With Judge Napolitano to discuss the treatment of what guest host Elizabeth MacDonald calls, "OWS pests", the economics of security surrounding the TSA and how the super committee's failure may jeopardize payroll tax cuts. Air Date: November 22, 2011.

Approximately 20 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Peter Suderman Talks Taxing Rich People, TSA, and Online Piracy on Freedom Watch

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST

Reason Associate Editor Peter Suderman appeared on Freedom Watch to discuss California's newest plan to tax the rich, TSA scanner safety, and the Stop Online Piracy Act. Air date: November 21, 2011.

Approximately 14 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

3 Reasons We Shouldn't Bail Out Student Loan Borrowers

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:00:00 EST

"3 Reasons We Shouldn't Bail Out Student Loan Borrowers" is written and narrated by Nick Gillespie and produced by Meredith Bragg.

About 3.33 minutes long. Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason's YouTube channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

As the cumulative total of student loan borrowing approaches $1 trillion dollars, calls to forgive some or all of that debt are mounting. Federally guaranteed student loans make up more than half that total and Barack Obama is pushing to cap the amount any borrower must pay back in a given year and forgive outstanding balances after 20 years.

Among Occupy Wall Street protesters, calls to bail out student loan holders are arguably the single-most voiced demand and sites such as Forgive Student Loan debt beat the drum for immediate and widespread relief.

But forgiving student loan debt is a very bad idea for at least three reasons.

1. These loans are voluntary. All borrowers are excrutiatingly well-informed of how much they’re borrowing and how much they’re going to have to pay back.

About half of all college students take out loans and when they do, every lender clearly spells out exactly how much you’re on the hook for and what your monthly payments are going to be after you leave school.

Critics say that 18-year-olds don’t understand what they’re getting into and shouldn’t be held accountable for their decisions. But that’s an argument against letting kids attend college, not against letting them borrow against future earnings to get a degree that will increase lifetime earnings by somewhere between about $280,000 and $1 million.

2. The amounts being borrowed are hardly overwhelming. While the cumulative total of all college-related debt is huge – approaching a trillion dollars, it’s bigger than credit-card debt – it’s not so big for individuals. The typical college graduate who borrowed money to attend graduatesowing about $25,000. They’ve got a minimum of 10 years to pay back that amount and the repayment schedule can be extended and modified for a wide variety of reasons.

The monthly payment for $25,000 in student loans at going rates comes to around $290 a month. That’s not chump change. But given that the that college grads have unemployment rates that are less than half the national average and that the average salary offer for graduating seniors is almost $50,000, the loan amount isn’t so bad either.

3. Bailouts are never a good idea. Like Tea Party activists, Occupy Wall Street protesters are right to rail against bailouts for big banks and financial institutions that are politically connected. But student loan forgiveness advocates are wrong to perpetuate yet another cycle of bailouts. It’s never right to socialize losses while privatizing gains. That’s what the banks did – they risked their money on stupid investments and then got made whole at the expense of taxpayers. Student loan forgiveness is simply another version of the same swindle. And it offloads the costs of other people’s decisions onto taxpayers, who guarantee federally backed student loans.

College is an important decision – and it’s made even more expensive by heavily subsidized loans. But letting people off the hook for loans they made with full knowledge of the costs will not only dissuade anyone from lending to students with no collateral other than their future work output. It will make it that much harder to argue against the next call for bailouts from the next group of special interests.

Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason.com and Reason.tv and the co-author with Matt Welch of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong with America. Follow him on Twitter by going here.

Peter Suderman Talks Budget Cut Truths on Freedom Watch

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 00:00:00 EST

Reason Associate Editor Peter Suderman appeared on Freedom Watch to discuss misconceptions about budget cuts and why the Department of Defense's funding will remain untouched. Air date: November 4, 2011.

Approximately 3 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Peter Schiff Discusses His Time Talking with the "99%" on Fox & Friends

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EDT

"They should be frustrated with the government; that's what's wrecked the economy, not capitalism," says Peter Schiff on Fox & Friends. Schiff says he sympathizes with the Wall Street Occupiers' outrage but his understanding of the free market tells him anger should be directed toward Washington DC instead. Air Date: October 28, 2011.

About 4 minutes.

Go to Reason.tv for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live

Matt Welch Talks Elizabeth Warren and Calls for Robin Hood Tax on Freedom Watch

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Reason Magazine Editor in Chief Matt Welch appeared on Freedom Watch With Judge Napolitano to talk about a newly proposed "Robin Hood" tax, as well as Elizabeth Warren's comments about how individuals are only successful because of the government and therefore owe the government for their success.

Air Date: October 28, 2011.

Approximately 5:30 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Occupy Wall Street, Obamacare, & Bailouts - Peter Schiff on Huckabee

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Peter Schiff joins European Parliament Member Daniel Hannan on Huckabee to discuss how increasing government regulation, oversight, and taxes has set back America's economy and created the Occupy Wall Street movenment. Air Date: October 28, 2011.

About 15 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live

Occupy Wall Street Protester: "I got some money and I should be taxed more."

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:00:00 EDT

"I'll tell you a secret. I got some money and I should be taxed more."

That's what an Occupy Wall Street protester told Republican presidential candidate and former two-term Gov. Gary Johnson (R-N.M.) as he toured Manhattan's Zuccotti Park on the evening of Tuesday, October 18.

"I actually inherited money when George W. Bush decided to have no estate tax," the protester continues, "and I think that is totally outrageous. So I decided to keep 20 percent for myself and give 80 percent away. But I think if we rely on the kindness of strangers that the poor will keep getting screwed, so civil libertarians don't work for me for the poor."

Video produced by Reason.tv's Anthony Fisher.

About 30 seconds long. Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions of our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel for automatic notification when new material goes live online.

For Reason's coverage of the Occupy movement in New York, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and elsewhere, go here.

Adrian Moore Talks Robo-Signing Scandal on Freedom Watch

Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Reason Vice President of Research Adrian Moore appeared on Freedom Watch to discuss the latest robo-signing revelation and the ever-increasing IMF bailout fund. Air date: September 26, 2011.

Approximately 8 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions of this video. Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel for automatic updates when new content is posted.

Matt Welch Talks Buffett Tax and Failed Tax Hikes on Freedom Watch

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Reason Magazine Editor in Chief Matt Welch appeared on Freedom Watch With Judge Napolitano to talk about the potential consequences of the Buffett tax, the ineffectiveness of stimulus on state economies and the failure of tax hikes to compensate for these inefficiencies.

Air Date: September 19, 2011.

Approximately 9 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

By the Gallon Or By the Mile? - Adrian Moore and Johanna Zmud Discuss Transportation Infrastructure

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 00:00:00 EDT

By the Gallon Or By the Mile?

On August 10, 2011, Reason Vice President Adrian Moore and Rand Corporation Transportation, Space, and Technology Program Director Johanna Zmud talk about the pros and cons and tricky issues of replacing fuel taxes with per mile road pricing as the main way to fund transportation infrastructure.

The event was held at Reason's DC office by the Transportation Research Forum, Young Professionals in Transportation, and Women's Transportation Seminar (WTS).

Approximately 43 minutes. Filmed and edited by Joshua Swain.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Matt Welch Discusses Online Gambling on Bulls and Bears

Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch appeared on Bulls and Bears to discuss the legalization of online gambling as a way to bring in revenue to the federal government. Air Date: August 17, 2011.

Approximately 3.39 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Anthony Randazzo Talks Wall Street Regulation and Gas Tax on Freedom Watch

Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Reason's Director of Economic Research Anthony Randazzo appeared on Freedom Watch to discuss if Wall Street regulation hurts jobs and if the gas tax will be reinstated. Air Date: 8/2/2011.

Approximately 8 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Remy: Raise The Debt Ceiling Rap

Sat, 30 Jul 2011 00:00:00 EDT

We may not be able to address our current debt ceiling woes, but we can at least put them to a good beat.

"Raise the Debt Ceiling" is the third of a series of collaborations between Remy and Reason.tv. To watch Remy's other videos, go to http:youtube.com/goremy

Visit the links below for more Reason coverage on the debt, deficit and government spending:
Five Facts About the Debt
The Facts About the Debt Ceiling
Reason.com Topics: Government Spending

Music and lyrics by Remy. Video shot and produced by Meredith Bragg.

Download the mp3 and HD versions at http://reason.tv, the video channel for Reason magazine and http://reason.com

Author Nancy Rommelmann on Her New Novel 'The Bad Mother' and the Myth of Hollywood

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 09:00:00 EDT

Author and journalist Nancy Rommelmann says that Hollywood sends this message to people: "If you show up, I'm going to deliver your destiny. But you've got to stay, you've got to believe in me."

The death of the Hollywood dream runs through Rommelmann's new novel, The Bad Mother . The work follows teenagers living on the streets on and around Hollywood, Blvd, a place that combines a seedy reality with the enduring Tinseltown dream.

Rommelmann sat down with Senior Editor at Reason Tim Cavanaugh to discuss the book.

Topics include: Why city money can't save Hollywood; Why readers mistake The Bad Mother for a work of non-fiction; and why Spiderman is really just a 60 year old out-of-work actor.

Book Trailer courtesy of Softbox, LLC. Watch the full version of the trailer here.

Shot by Alex Manning, Zach Weissmueller and Hawk Jensen. Edited by Paul Detrick.

About 8:30 minutes. Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Veronique de Rugy: The Facts About Stimulus Spending

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Editor’s Note: Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy appears weekly on Bloomberg TV to separate economic fact from economic myth.

Myth 1: Stimulus spending can jump start the economy and fix unemployment.

Fact 1: Recent experience suggests stimulus spending won’t help.

There’s no question President Barack Obama inherited a lousy economy. Yet even many prominent Democrats, including Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin and Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, now acknowledge that after two and a half years in office, the president owns the economy. Unfortunately for him, things still aren’t looking so so good. That’s why the president called on Congress last week to pass a series of spending measures that he said would boost the economy, including additional infrastructure spending and an extension of the payroll tax cut for another year.

With this in mind, I thought it would be interesting to update my chart on the level of stimulus spending and unemployment rates since 2009.

The chart is based on the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Center for Data Analysis. As you can see, the administration’s promise that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) would keep unemployment rates from reaching 8.8 percent and would create some 3 million jobs—90 percent of them in the private sector—did not materialize.

The unemployment rate started at 7.6 percent when President Obama took office and peaked at 10.2 percent in October 2009. Since the enactment of the stimulus bill in February 2009, the unemployment rate has not approached pre-ARRA levels, even though $382 billion has been made available by government departments and agencies (on top of tax credits and other tax-related items). In fact, unemployment recently edged up, from 9 percent in April to 9.1 percent in May.

Based on this data, it is hard to make the case that doing more of the same will help. Yet that is precisely what New York Times columnist Paul Krugman think we should do. In his view, these dire results are due to a stimulus that was too small. It’s difficult to imagine what level of stimulus spending would be large enough for Krugman. What I do know is that we have spent $666 billion to date, yet unemployment remains above 9 percent. And under even the rosiest of assumptions, which claim 2.4 million jobs created, each of those jobs cost $278,000 (see here).

Myth 2: Additional infrastructure spending is an effective way to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Fact 2: In theory, infrastructure spending injects more money into the economy than other types of government spending. In reality, however, politicians rarely include infrastructure spending in stimulus bills. Instead, they spend money on items like transfers and tax cuts. Only 3 percent of the last stimulus went to infrastructure.

Economists on both sides of the aisles argue that one reason why the stimulus failed is that it wasn’t designed properly. Stanford University’s John Taylor, for instance, has argued that although much money was spent, very little stimulus money was spent in the form of actual government purchase. In a paper with he co-authored with John Cogan, Taylor finds that, out of the total $682 billion package, federal infrastructure spending was just $0.9 billion in 2009 and $1.5 billion through the first half of 2010—or less than four-tenths of 1 percent.

Taylor and Cogan also noted that most of the money generated by tax cuts was saved, not spent, and that the money that went to state governments was spent to reduce the states’ reliance on borrowing and on other “non-purchase” items, such as transfer payments, subsidies, and interest payments. In other words, the additional money that went to states and taxpayers didn’t change a thing. Taylor claims that a better-designed stimulus would have probably been more effective.

But experience tells us that the next stimulus won’t be any better. As the chart above shows, only 3 percent of the last stimulus went to infrastructure spending. Why? Because such programs are not political winners. For one thing, they take too long to produce results. Therefore they always take a back seat to politically-popular tax credits and transfers to the states.

Furthermore, while it may be true that additional infrastructure spending would have proved more effective than the current stimulus, that doesn’t change the fact that once the stimulus money goes away, the jobs and increased demand also disappear, and the government is left holding the debt.

Myth 3: Tax rebates will stimulate the economy.

Fact 3: The evidence says they don’t. First, people usually save the extra money. Second, even if tax rebates did increase consumption, companies don’t hire employees or build new plants because of a one-time boost.

This chart shows how personal disposable income jumped thanks to the 2008 tax rebate, the tax credits in the stimulus, and the 2010 payroll tax cut. It also shows that personal consumption did not increase noticeably as a result of these government actions. In fact, formal statistical work by Joel Slemrod, a professor of tax policy at the University of Michigan, has shown that rebates generally produce no statistically significant increase in consumption. Basically, tax credits and rebates produce greater savings, not greater consumption.

The theory that tax rebates and payroll tax cuts will result in an increase in consumption suffers from several serious problems. First, it assumes people don’t realize that the extra cash flow is temporary and that businesses don’t realize that the new consumption won’t last. Tax rebates, for example, assume that if people get extra money to increase their consumption, businesses will then expand production and hire more workers. But this is not true. Even if producers notice an upward blip in sales after the rebate checks go out, they will know it's temporary. Companies won't hire more employees or build new factories in response to a temporary increase in sales. Those who are foolish enough to do so will go out of business.

Contributing Editor Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Ranking Freedom in the 50 States

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Which state is most free when it comes to personal, social, and economic issues?

"Freedom in the 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom" provides one answer to just that question. Political scientists Jason Sorens (University at Buffalo) and William P Ruger (Texas State) looked at everything from drug policy to civil union statutes to business regulations and tax rates to rank each state across multiple dimensions.

Published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University appraise each state in the union on their economic, social and personal liberty to come up with their final ranking. Maybe Jean-Paul Sartre was right about hell being other people: At the top of the list are a lot of states where almost nobody lives and at the bottom are states where just about everybody lives.

Reason Magazine senior editor Katherine Mangu-Ward sat down with Sorens and Ruger, to talk about their results, their methodology and why New York City may not be as free as New Yorkers believe.

Shot by Josh Swain, Jim Epstein and Meredith Bragg; Edited by Meredith Bragg.

Approximately 9:20 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions of the video and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Veronique de Rugy: The Facts about the Alternative Minimum Tax

Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Editor's Note: Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy appears weekly on Bloomberg TV to separate economic fact from economic myth.

Myth 1: The Alternative Minimum Tax targets millionaires.

Fact 1: While the Alternative Minimum Tax was originally created to target millionaires, today it falls most heavily on non-millionaires.

The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was created in 1969 to prevent 155 wealthy taxpayers from using deductions and credits to avoid paying any federal income taxes.

Here’s how it works. Taxpayers who are subject to the AMT must calculate their tax liability twice, once under regular income tax rules and again under AMT rules. If liability under the AMT proves higher, taxpayers pay the difference as an add-on to the regular tax. The difference paid is their AMT.

However, mainly due to the failure to index the AMT for inflation in 1981 when the regular income tax was indexed, the reach of the AMT has expanded over time to hit middle-income people it was never intended to tax. As a result, the AMT impacts a growing share of the population. According to the Congressional Budget Office, last tax season 4.5 million taxpayers were affected by the alternative minimum tax, an increase of over 4 million taxpayers since 1970.

Until 2000, less than 1 percent of taxpayers paid the AMT in any given year; by 2008, 3 percent of taxpayers were subject to the AMT. And its costs go far beyond increased tax liabilities.

This chart shows the composition of taxpayers affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax in 2009 by adjusted gross income (AGI), using data from the 2010 CBO Brief, “The Individual Alternative Minimum Tax.”

As you can see, the AMT hits far more than the highest-income individuals. In fact, only 10 percent of AMT revenue came from taxpayers making above $500,000 and only a fraction of those people are millionaires.

Also, the majority of AMT revenue came from taxpayers in the $200,000-$500,000 (in 2009 dollars) income range while some 5 percent of taxpayers making less than $100,000 were liable for the AMT as well.

As we see, 23 percent of taxpayers with income between $100,000 and $200,000 have AMT liability.

This evidence stands in sharp contradiction with the original purpose of the AMT, which was to prevent 155 millionaires from using deductions and credits to avoid paying any federal income tax.

Myth 2: The AMT is family friendly.

Fact 2: Households with three or more children are four times more likely to pay the AMT than households with zero children.

The AMT disallows certain tax breaks, especially state and local tax deductions and the personal exemption. As a result, the AMT hits some taxpayers harder than others. Married couples with children and taxpayers in high-tax states are disproportionately hit by the AMT.

This chart compares AMT liability among taxpayers based on the number of children in their households in 2010, using data from the Tax Policy Center’s “Characteristics of AMT Taxpayers.” The number of children is defined as the number of exemptions taken for children living at home. As the numbers show, an increase in the number of children in a household was accompanied by an increase in the AMT liability. Thus 8.6 percent of households with three or more children had liability under the AMT. Essentially, if you have three or more children you pay over four times the amount of people who have no children.

Myth 3: The Republicans are the only party strongly opposed to the AMT.

Fact 3: While Republicans would be happy to repeal the AMT, Democrats are also opposed to it. That’s because almost 50 percent of AMT revenue comes from four Democratic strongholds: California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.

The AMT hits some taxpayers harder than others, especially those who would otherwise claim large deductions for their state and local taxes.

This chart illustrates the proportion of AMT payers in various states using data from the Tax Policy Center (“Alternative Minimum Tax by State, Tax Year 2008”). Nearly 48 percent of the total revenue from the AMT is collected from just four states--California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York--amounting to one-twelfth of all states. The remaining 52 percent is shared by the rest of the country.

Nearly half of all states pay less than 0.7 percent of total AMT revenues each, but in California taxpayers who paid the AMT made up 22 percent of total AMT revenues, while 15.5 percent of AMT revenues came from New York, 7 percent from New Jersey, and 3.5 percent from Massachusetts. The bottom line is that the AMT hits people in some states harder than others.

This is why Democrats such as Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), are so upset about the AMT. The tax hits liberal states the hardest.

In addition, taxpayers also have to deal with what’s called the “real bracket phenomenon.” Bracket creep occurs when people experience an increase in wages, salary, or other income that moves them from one tax bracket to the next highest bracket. For instance, because the AMT isn’t indexed for inflation, growth in nominal income tends to raise the AMT liability more than regular income tax liability. This phenomenon is especially pernicious in places with a high cost of living like New York City, where some employers offer generous salaries to offset sky-high rents and other city-related costs. Since the inflation index used to set the brackets does not appropriately take these localized costs into account, the more people earn to make up for the high cost of living, the more likely they are to be hit by the AMT.

Contributing Editor Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Three Reasons Not to Fund Art With Taxes

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 08:00:00 EDT

A few weeks back, Hollywood movie stars and groups such as the Creative Coalition stormed Washington, D.C. to lobby for increased taxpayer funding of the arts. Most memorably, Oscar-winning actor Kevin Spacey told Hardball's Chris Matthew that Abraham Lincoln was a huge theater fan who "understood that he needed the arts to replenish his soul." (Not surprisingly, Spacey didn't mention where Lincoln was assassinated or the profession of his killer).

But funding the arts with taxapayer dollars is a bad idea for at least three reasons.

1. Publicly financed art is easily censored art. Last December, the National Portrait Gallery almost immediately pulled a four-minute video called "A Fire in My Belly" after complaints from the Catholic League and politicians such as Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who objected to images of ants crawling over a crucifix. It's hard to imagine a private museum so quickly and cravenly pulling an offending piece. But when the taxpayer is footing the bill, the most easily aggrieved among us yields a thug's veto. Indeed, in February, scandalized Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) even called for getting rid of a 1922 statue in New York City due to what he says is its sexist portrayal of women.

2. We're broke. Advocates of public funding for the arts routinely argue that the budget of groups such as the National Endowment for the Arts comes to just pennies per citizen and the cost of just one Pentagon bomber is comparatively huge. But government at every level is flat broke, so it's all money we don't have. Defense spending, which has jacked up by over 70 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars since 2001, should be cut drastically. But that doesn't mean smaller items should get a pass or that taxpayers should pony up for another season of Dr. Who reruns on PBS.

3. It's unnecessary. NEA head Rocco Landesman has defended grants to groups such as the San Francisco Mime Troupe on the grounds that it is a world-famous outfit that has contributed mightily to the stage. Which is another way of saying it should have little to no trouble finding private patrons to help it out. Americans give around $13 billion a year in private donations to the arts. That's a lot of money and if it's not enough to fund every request, groups such as the San Francisco Mime Troupe will just have to figure out how to better work the crowd.

About 2.45 minutes.

Produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie, who also hosts.

Scroll down for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Veronique de Rugy: The Facts About Taxes & Entitlements

Fri, 27 May 2011 13:00:00 EDT

Editor’s Note: Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy appears weekly on Bloomberg TV to separate economic fact from economic myth.

Myth 1: Millionaires who favor of an income tax increase are fiscal heroes.

Fact 1: No, they’re not. Many of the rich get the majority of their income in the form of capital gains and dividends rather than ordinary income. They are essentially advocating a tax increase on those making much less money than they do.

On its face, raising the top income tax rate seems like an effective way to make our (already progressive) federal tax system more progressive. Yet the rationale underlying this policy recommendation ignores the complexities of the United States federal tax system. As you can see from the chart above:

• As income increases, the proportion of Americans’ earnings coming from wages and salary decreases (red). Meanwhile, wealthy Americans draw much of their income from dividends, interest payments, and capital gains (blue).

• Federal income tax rates are progressive, but they are not shared equally among high earners. Federal income taxes fall disproportionately on those wealthy enough to face the highest income tax rates, yet not wealthy enough to draw a large proportion of their income from non-wage sources -- those filers making $100,000 to $200,000.

So when Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg—following in the footsteps of billionaires like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Ted Turner—declared that he was “cool” with the idea of paying more income tax, it doesn’t really mean he’s personally going to be paying more money.

Indeed, if Zuckerberg really wants to pay more taxes he can simply send a check to the Treasury Department instead of asking for a tax increase on other people’s incomes.

Jakina Debnam of the Mercatus Center calculated the average tax rate on the non-wage and salary earnings of the wealthy using SOI data from the Internal Revenue Service. As she writes: “There is some rounding error incorporated from the SOI data. However, if you assume that all high income earners face the highest tax bracket on their income (that they make more than $373,651 in wage and salary income), then you get the tax rates illustrated below.

As you can see, these rates are all lower than the individual tax rate on income for single earners making more than $34,500 but less than $83,600, which is 25 percent.

Myth 2: Big government means more redistribution to the poor.

Fact 2: Large governments tend to have less progressive taxation than smaller ones.

This chart by University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan shows estimates of the income shares paid by French earners and American earners in various taxes by different income deciles.

Two things are immediately apparent from the chart: 1) French workers pay higher proportions of their income in taxes than their American counterparts at every earnings level and 2) counterintuitively, the American tax system is more progressive than the French system.

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, most taxpayers in Western European countries—countries known for their relatively generous welfare states—pay a smaller fraction of their income in individual income tax than Americans do.

France’s individual income taxes, which are progressive like ours, bring in less than 4 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) to public treasuries, compared with 10 percent for individual income taxes in the United States.

The regressive payroll tax is France’s biggest tax, bringing in more than 17 percent of GDP (plus another 4 percent from its flat-rate contribution sociale généralisée), compared with the 6 percent of GDP the United States gets from its payroll tax. Customs, excise, and sales taxes amount to 11 percent of GDP in France, but only 4 percent in the United States.

Myth 3: The doomsday projections about unfunded Social Security and Medicare obligations are overstated.

Fact 3: The unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare exceed one full year of the United States’ gross domestic product. That’s on top of the spending that’s supposedly funded.

The net present value of the long term cost of Social Security is $17.9 trillion. The figure for Medicare is $3 trillion. (These are very conservative figures.) Together, that’s $20.9 trillion for which we need to cover the difference between the payroll tax and other taxes dedicated to funding the programs and benefits that have been promised. The total size of the U.S. economy is roughly $15 trillion.

The above chart shows the size of the unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare and contrasts that number with the size of the economy today. As you can also see, if we were to put 100 percent of the yearly production of every stock, building, and company in America in a bank account or trust fund, that figure would still not be enough to pay off all of the benefits that have been promised.

Contributing Editor Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Anthony Randazzo Discusses if the GOP is Serious on Cutting Spending with Judge Napolitano

Wed, 11 May 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Director of Economic Research at Reason Foundation Anthony Randazzo appeared on Judge Napolitano's Freedom Watch to discuss if the GOP is serious about cutting spending and the debt or whether these are empty promises to keep Tea Party support. Air Date: May 9, 2011.

Approximately 5 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Matt Welch Discusses Poll Results from the Reason-Rupe Survey on Freedom Watch

Mon, 09 May 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Reason Magazine editor in chief Matt Welch appeared on Judge Napolitano's Freedom Watch to discuss poll results from the new Reason-Rupe Survey measuring the public's view on reducing the debt and cutting spending and what effect this will have on the next election. Air Date: May 6, 2011.

Approximately 3.28 minutes.

Go to Reason.tv for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Veronique de Rugy: The Facts About the Corporate Income Tax

Thu, 05 May 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Editor’s Note: Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy appears weekly on Bloomberg TV to separate economic fact from economic myth.

Myth 1: We can collect more revenue by raising the tax rate on corporations or by increasing the top bracket.

Fact 1: The wealth of the economy is a much better indicator of corporate tax revenue than tax rates and tax brackets.

This chart shows the corporate tax collection as a share of the economy side by side with the top marginal corporate rate since 1981. During that time, the U.S. corporate tax rate has been as high as 46 percent and has gone down to 34 percent. Since 1993, the top rate has been 35 percent. The level of income covered by the top tax bracket has varied a lot too: from $100,000 in 1981 to $1.4 million in 1984, down to $335,000 in 1987 and up again to $18 million since 1993 (all dollar amounts in nominal terms).

This chart makes clear that the general state of the economy is a much better indicator of the tax collection than rate levels and the top bracket. It is particularly visible since 1993, since the rate and top bracket haven’t changed and yet tax collection varied a great deal, falling during recessions and rising during recoveries.

Myth 2: Corporations pay the corporate income tax.

Fact 2: First, corporations do not pay taxes, only individuals pay taxes. More importantly, economists have shown that a majority of the corporate income tax is borne by labor mainly in the form of lower wages rather than borne by shareholders.

This chart (overly simplified for the Bloomberg discussion) is based on academic work done by Aparna Mathur and Kevin Hassett in December 2010 and shows the link between corporate tax rates and the average manufacturing wage (in U.S. dollars) for 65 countries between 1981 and 2005. It shows a negative link between tax rates and wages, suggesting that higher corporate tax rates lead to lower worker wages. Mathur and Hassett test this point by using regressions controlling for other factors. They find that a 1 percent increase in the corporate income tax leads to almost a 0.5-0.6 percent decrease in hourly wages.

Interestingly, a chart from their original 2006 paper shows that when the sample of countries is restricted to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries, the negative slope is much more pronounced. That implies that higher corporate taxes have a stronger negative impact on wages in developed economies.

This is consistent with a growing body of work [see Arulampalam et al. (2007), Mihir A. Desai, C. Fritz Foley, and James R. Hines (2007), and Felix (2007)] that analyzes actual payroll data to see who in fact is bearing the corporate income tax. Such work finds a large impact of corporate income tax on labor—as high at 200 percent. The theoretical studies that followed found a lower but still large impact on wages from the corporate income tax. These studies show that from 45 to 75 percent of the cost of the corporate tax is borne by labor rather than shareholders, as has long been believed.

Here is the Congressional Budget Office’s William Randolph (2006) for instance:

Burdens are measured in a numerical example by substituting factor shares and output shares that are reasonable for the U.S. economy. Given those values, domestic labor bears slightly more than 70 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax. The domestic owners of capital bear slightly more than 30 percent of the burden. Domestic landowners receive a small benefit. At the same time, the foreign owners of capital bear slightly more than 70 percent of the burden, but their burden is exactly offset by the benefits received by foreign workers and landowners.

Myth 3: The United States is a friendly country for businesses.

Fact 3: Not really. While there is good access to capital, the U.S. has the top corporate income tax rate among OECD nations and a worldwide tax system.

In 2010, the top national corporate tax rates among the 31 members of the OECD ranged from 8.5 percent in Switzerland to 35 percent in the United States. Hence, within the OECD countries, the United States has the highest statutory tax rate at the national level. The picture changes only slightly when we add subnational or state-level corporate tax rates to the national rate. In the United States, the average top statutory rate imposed by states in 2010 added a bit over 4 percent (after accounting for the fact that state taxes are deducted from federal taxable income) for a combined top statutory rate of 39.2 percent. Among all OECD countries in 2010, the United States had the second-highest top statutory combined corporate tax rate, after Japan’s rate of 39.5 percent.

Interestingly, the U.S. corporate income tax raises little revenue compared with other taxes and this share has decreased over the years. It's not surprising, then, that the U.S. raises less revenue from the corporate tax than the OECD average. Corporations, like individuals, can and do use tax breaks to lower their tax burdens and, as a result, the effective tax rate is lower than the top rate.

However, these breaks shouldn’t be looked at independently of the corporate tax system. As it turns out, the U.S. not only imposes high rates, it also taxes corporations on a worldwide basis. So, for example, profits made by an American-owned computer plant are subject to U.S. taxes whether the plant is located in Texas or Ireland. Most major countries don’t tax foreign business income. In fact, about half of OECD nations have “territorial” systems that tax firms only on their domestic income.

As I explained a few years ago in Reason magazine, the combination of high rates, the worldwide tax system, and a competitive global marketplace makes the U.S. corporate tax system more punishing than it seems even on first glance.

Contributing Editor Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Veronique de Rugy Tells the Truth About Taxes and the Rich

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Editor’s Note: Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy appears weekly on Bloomberg TV to separate economic fact from economic myth.

Myth 1: Wealthy people pack up and move when their taxes increase.

Fact 1: High taxes generally do not cause the wealthy to move.

As governors and state legislatures consider tax increases to fix state fiscal issues, concern over the potential flight of wealthy residents has surfaced again. For a given state, wealthy residents provide both a greater proportion of that state’s income tax revenue and a disproportionate share of the charitable donations made within that state. According to the Survey of Consumer Finances, sponsored by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, on a national basis households with a net worth of at least $1 million, headed by a person age 60 or older, comprised 4 percent of all households but donated approximately 25 percent of all household charitable contributions made in 2007 (the most recent year for which data is available). It is obviously in each state’s interest to keep these wealthy residents around.

A number of studies in the economic literature explore the impact of taxes on the migration behavior of households in the United States. What these papers have generally shown is that taxes have little impact on cross-state migration. Instead, the migration impacts of unemployment are much greater. Overall, the results suggest that taxes do not cause out-migration, but they do influence the choice of destination for some migrating households, such as retirees.

The above chart uses data from a study by the Boston College Center on Wealth and Philanthropy to illustrate the effect of a tax increase on New Jersey residents making greater than $500,000 per year. Following the tax increase, the authors conservatively estimate that net out‐migration in this income bracket rose by about 350 out of 44,000 people, or by about 0.8 percent of New Jersey’s taxpayers making more than half a million dollars a year. This is a small, but noticeable effect. However, the study also claims that the rate of out-migration by higher income earners was in line with the out-migration rate of people who weren’t subject to the tax. In other words, the behavior of the rich is consistent with the behavior of the rest of the population.

According to a regional household survey conducted by the Metropolitan Philadelphia Indicators Project at Temple University in 2004, just 27 percent of respondents in Philadelphia cited tax concerns as a reason they moved to their current location. Compare this to the 59 percent of survey respondents who said their residential choice was motivated by housing costs, the 47 percent who were motivated by good schools, and the 44 percent who wanted to be closer to family and friends. On the list of reasons for moving, tax concerns ranked ninth.

When respondents were asked whether they had ever considered moving in order to pay lower taxes, 73 percent of Philadelphia residents said no. Within the subsection of respondents living in affluent suburbs, the number climbed to 83 percent. (Interestingly, those who had considered moving because of tax concerns were more likely to move within the next two years than others in the group surveyed.) Similarly, a 2003 study in the Journal of Gerontology found that while tax burdens are the most important fiscal characteristic affecting the location choice of retirement-age individuals, factors such as climate, general economic conditions, and housing costs are still much more important.

Why? Because while location matters, taxes are one of the factors that define how desirable a location is. Among the factors that keep people in high-tax places are jobs, family, friends, and city amenities (few New Yorkers would agree to pack up and move to North Dakota no matter how low the taxes there might be).

In addition, there is the fact that moving is usually a costly hassle, and most people’s social lives are grounded in their community and their workplace. Relocating often results in a longer commute for those still employed, causes disruption to the children who are still in school, and often means giving up on your social network and friends.
Presumably there is a level of taxation that will prompt more high-income individuals to move or change their behavior radically. However, it is also likely that the wealthy already have fairly well-developed tax sheltering strategies in place.

The general conclusion is that moderate tax increases on the rich, even if no neighboring jurisdictions follow suit, is unlikely to lead to much in the way of emigration.

That being said there are other reasons not increase taxes on the very rich. Higher taxes do slow down the rate of business development and job growth. In turn, high taxes reduce the number of wealthy people a given state may attract.

Myth 2: Blue states are big government states and red states are small government states.

Fact 2: Blue states are net payers, meaning residents pay more in income tax than they get back from the federal government, while red states are net recipients. Only one red state pays more into the system than it gets.

Only 10 blue states are net recipients of federal subsidies, as opposed to 22 red states. Only one red state is a net payer of federal taxes, as opposed to 16 blue states. Another blue state pays in as much as it gets.

This chart uses data from the Tax Foundation documenting the amount of federal spending in each state per dollar of federal taxes paid with states classified as red or blue according to their respective voting results in the 2008 presidential election. As you can see, red states receive more in benefits from the federal government than they put in; the opposite tends to be true for blue states. Only one red state receives less from the federal government than it pays in; compare this to the 17 blue states that receive less in benefits than they pay in federal taxes. Conversely, 21 red states are net recipients of federal funding, while only 11 blue states are.

The top 10 recipients of federal money are New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Kentucky, and Virginia. The top 10 payers are New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, and Colorado. Rhode Island breaks even.

With a few notable exceptions, the Northeast, the Upper Midwest, and the West Coast bankroll the South and Great Plains. That pattern also looks like a red and blue state map from any recent presidential election. While the differences between the red and blue states are often exaggerated, it remains an interesting proxy to some heartfelt differences between rural and urban states.

There is a very strong correlation, then, between a state voting for Republicans and receiving more in federal spending than its residents pay to the federal government in taxes (the rust belt and Texas being notable exceptions). In essence, blue state residents are subsidizing those in red states. Both red and blue states appear to be acting politically in opposition to their economic interests. Blue states are voting for candidates who are likely to continue the policies of red state subsidization while red states are voting for candidates who profess a desire to reduce federal spending (and presumably red state subsidization).

Myth 3: The federal income tax may be progressive but the rest of the tax system is not, particularly the payroll tax.

Fact 3: The entire tax system is progressive.

We hear this argument all the time: While the federal income tax may be progressive, the rest of the tax system isn’t, particularly the payroll tax, since Social Security taxes are capped. However, the thing to keep in mind is that Social Security taxes, at least for now, are funding Social Security benefits. As Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute explains:

Analysts of this system consider them together in order to determine whether the program is or isn’t progressive. One way they do it is by calculating what’s called the “net tax rate”—that is, the statutory 12.4 percent Social Security tax paid by workers minus the benefits they receive from the program. If you receive benefits equal to your taxes, then your net tax rate is zero. If you pay more in taxes than you receive in benefits, your net tax rate is positive; likewise, if you receive more benefits than taxes your net tax rate is negative.

Based on Biggs’ data I made the following chart:

As Biggs explains:

This is for the 1940 birth cohort; I take the PV of lifetime taxes, benefits and earnings for the earnings quintiles as a whole and then calculate the net tax rate (taxes-benefits)/earnings. If you do it a the individual level you get a lot of people with zeros in either the numerator or the denominator and so it screws things up. These are pretty similar to the earlier numbers but lack the odd path. These were calculated with the Policy Simulation Group models and they should match up well with what SSA or CBO puts out. These are Social Security only; Medicare would be more progressive than this, since it’s basically a flat benefit for everyone.

As we can see, while Social Security taxes are much less progressive than the income tax, they too are progressive.
However, here is something to consider: Based on income distribution data, we know that the fourth quintile is made up of households whose income is above $55,000 per year. What that means is that households making more than $55,000 are likely to pay more into Social Security than they get back. Now, $55,000 is more than the median income (which is roughly $49,000), yet I suspect most people making that amount wouldn’t think of themselves as wealthy. They also probably do not realize they are paying into a system only to get the illusion they are getting something in return for their old age.

Contributing Editor Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Veronique de Rugy Tells the Truth about Taxes on Bloomberg

Fri, 22 Apr 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Editor’s Note: Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy appears weekly on Bloomberg TV to separate economic fact from economic myth.

Myth 1: The wealthy aren’t paying their fair share.

Fact 1: The wealthy disproportionately fund the United States federal government.

As you can see, the top earning 1 percent of Americans (or 1.4 million returns making more than $380,000) paid 38 percent of federal personal income taxes. However, they made only 20 percent of income. The top 5 percent of income earners pay almost 60 percent of income taxes and make almost 35 percent of all personal income. The Americans at the lower half of the income spectrum (or 70 million returns) paid 2.7 percent of the total. This chart also shows that roughly half of taxpayers pay for almost all of the federal personal income taxes.

It means that the income tax in America is extremely progressive.

This week, E.J. Dionne's Washington Post column quoted writer David Cay Johnston: "The effective rate for the top 400 taxpayers has gone from 30 cents on the dollar in 1993 to 22 cents at the end of the Clinton years to 16.6 cents under Bush. So their effective rate has gone down more than 40 percent.”

In fact, the top 400 aren't a static group. There's lots of income mobility in and out of the "top 400" every year, and most of their income is due to highly fluctuating capital gains (which is taxed lower than ordinary income). IRS data for the top 400 over a 15-year period show that 72 percent of them appeared only once. A little more than 12 percent appeared twice and a little over 15 percent appear three times or more. Trying to fine tune tax policy to attack the "top 400" will only tax different people tomorrow than are there today.

Myth 2: Top earners in the United States are millionaires.

Fact 2: Only 2% of the top 10% of earners are millionaires.

When Americans think of the top earners in the United States, they often overstate the earnings of those with the highest reported earnings. The top 10 percent of United States tax returns report $114,000 in earnings, the top 5 percent of households report $169,000 in earnings, and the top 1 percent report $380,000.

Furthermore, these earnings should be taken in their geographic context. This chart shows what a worker would need to earn in each of 5 different cities in order to maintain the same standard of living as a person living in DC making $250,000.

As we can see, it takes roughly $170K in Kansas or Georgia to have the standard of living of someone making a $250,000 in Washington DC. However, to have that standard of living in New York, you need almost $400,000.

Myth 3: All Americans pay income taxes.

Fact 3: An estimated 45% of Americans will pay no federal income taxes this year.

According to the Tax Policy Center, this tax season, an estimated 45 percent of tax units will pay no federal income taxes. In 2009, federal non-income taxpayers were distributed throughout the earnings spectrum, with 26.3 percent of tax returns reporting less than $10,000 paying no income tax, 29.1 percent of those making between $10,000 and $20,000 paying no income tax; the remaining 44.6 percent of Americans not paying income taxes were distributed throughout all cash income levels.

Myth 4: The key to our deficit problems rests in our ability to increasing the top marginal tax rates leads to increased tax revenues

Fact 4: From 1930 to 2010, tax revenue collection in the United States has never topped 20.9 percent, averaging 16.5 percent of GDP over these 80 years - despite drastic fluctuations in the rate of taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

This chart shows the historical path of federal taxation as a percentage of GDP using the earliest records available from the Office of Management and Budget and top marginal tax rate data from the Tax Policy Center. In red, the historical path of the highest marginal income tax rates (right axis), in green, historical federal revenues as percentages of GDP (left axis). From 1930 to 2010, tax revenue collection in the United States has never topped 20.9 percent of GDP, averaging 16.5 percent of GDP over these 80 years.

This comes despite the drastic historical fluctuation in the rate of taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

During the time period examined above, the rate of income taxation on the highest earning Americans has fluctuated drastically, from 25 percent of income in 1930 to 92 percent of income in the early 1950’s. Despite these vast differences in these top marginal rates, the total percentage of GDP the federal government has collected in revenue has changed little.

The bottom line is that any claim that the revenue problems could be solved by raising revenue as a percentage of the economy above 19 percent is unrealistic. Also, raising the top marginal rates has never proven to generate sustainable increase in revenue.

Contributing Editor Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

47 Ways to Say "IRS" ... What do those initials really stand for?

Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:00:00 EDT

The "Internal Revenue Service" is such a bland name for an agency that stirs so much passion.

With Tax Day just around the corner, the time is right to consider what the initials "IRS" really stand for.

WARNING: Immature Subject Matter. Viewer discretion is advised.

Approximately 1.40 minutes

Produced by Ted Balaker. Written by Balaker, Meredith Bragg, Tim Cavanaugh, Paul Feine, Nick Gillespie, Hawk Jensen, Damon Root, Peter Suderman, Josh Swain, Zach Weissmueller, and Matt Welch

Related videos:

44 Ways to Say TSA

Why Aren't the Rich Paying 50% in Taxes?

Scroll down for downloadable versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

Why Aren't the Rich Paying 50 Percent in Income Taxes?

Fri, 08 Apr 2011 10:00:00 EDT

Tax Day (April 18) is fast approaching, which means anxiety and night sweats for about 99 percent of us.

And bitching and moaning by those at the top of the income pyramid about how they aren't forced to pay even more in taxes. (The top 1 percent of filers pay about 40 percent of income taxes).

Secretary of State and cattle-futures queen Hillary Clinton, super-investor Warren Buffett, and best-selling author Stephen King have all recently carped about how rich folks like them should be paying more in taxes. King recently told a Florida rally, "As a rich person, I'm paying 28 percent in taxes. What I want to ask you is, why am I not paying 50?"

But when it comes to the country's balance sheet, the U.S. doesn't have a revenue problem or a tax-rate problem. We've got a spending problem. Since 1950, revenue from all sources has averaged around 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product, despite top tax rates that have fluctuated from over 90 percent to the high 20-percent range. Regardless of all efforts to jack up revenue (or reduce it), that's what the government can expect to work with.

Yet spending has averaged about 20 percent of GDP - and is currently at a whopping 25 percent of GDP, a figure not seen since World War II. President Obama's budget plan forecasts spending at 23 percent of GDP over the next decade while Rep. Paul Ryan's GOP plan calls for 20.5 percent. There's your deficit right there, folks.

But King, Clinton, and Buffett - and you, too - can always pay more to retire federal debt held by the public. Just go to Treasury Direct and make a voluntary donation to reduce the national debt held by the public. So far in calender 2011, Treasury has pulled in an $125,000! Which means there's only about $8.99 trillion to go.

Written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie. About 2 minutes.

Go to http://reason.tv for links, downloads, and other videos. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when new material goes live.

What We Saw At The "Our Communities, Our Jobs" Labor Rally

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:00:00 EDT

On March 26, 2011, the Our Communities, Our Jobs Rally in Los Angeles brought together the Teamsters, AFL-CIO, SEIU, the United Teachers of Los Angeles, and many, many more to protest a local Ralph's grocery store and to show solidarity with public-sector unions in Wisconsin.

Reason.tv was on hand to document the rally and speak with some of the thousands present. While the protest ostensibly targeted various businesses such as Ralph's and Chase Bank, there was a continuity in the overarching message: Collective bargaining rights are under attack, and they must be saved—both for private-sector and public-sector workers. According to participants in the rally, enemies of organized labor include big business, foreign labor, Republicans, the Koch brothers, and the capitalist system itself.

Approximately 4 minutes long. Shot and edited by Zach Weissmueller. Interviews by Tim Cavanaugh.

For Reason.tv coverage of other rallies (inlcuding Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor Rally, the 9/12 Freedom Works Rally, and One Nation Working Together Rally), go here.

Scroll down for downloadable versions of this video. Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Anthony Randazzo Discusses the Politics of Budget Cuts on Freedom Watch

Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:00:00 EDT

Director of Economic Research at Reason Foundation Anthony Randazzo appeared on Judge Napolitano's Freedom Watch talks about the politics of budget cut negotiations and whether the IRS has started an inappropriate new campaign of targeting the wealthy with tax audits. Air date: March 23, 2011.

Approximately 7 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Remy: Why They Fought

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 08:00:00 EDT

As American warplanes patrol the skies of Libya and American boots win the peace in Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, Spain, Cuba, the Netherland Antilles, and more than 140 other countries, the international Interwebs recording sensation Remy unveils this timely song reminding all of us back on the home front about why they fight.

"Why They Fought" is the first of a series of collaborations between Remy and Reason.tv. To watch Remy's other videos, go here.

Download the mp3 here.

Music written and performed by Remy. Video produced by Austin and Meredith Bragg.

About 2 minutes.

Read Reason's foreign policy coverage here.

Scroll down for HD, iPod, and audio versions, and subscribe to Reason.tv's You Tube Channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

"Why They Fought"

Since the birth of this great nation
Men and women have fought and died
To protect the very freedoms
In which we all have so much pride

And as they spilled their blood at Gettysburg
Saving freedom's what they sought
And if you asked a dying patriot
He'd tell you that they fought...

For random screenings at the airport
With the TSA all nagging
While we place our toiletries out in
Transparent plastic baggies

And if you asked them why they fought and died
They'd all give the same answer
So you could get pics taken of your junk
While slowly getting cancer

Ask any single one of them
it won't be no surprise
That's why they fought and died...

They braved the cold at Valley Forge
Facing sacrifice and pain, yeah
There was typhoid, measles, dysentery
Plus being in Pennsylvania

But they went off to fight the British
To save this independent nation
And with their final words they'd say
They died so our taxation

Could be on property and income
With withholding of our wages
With a silly complex tax code
Over 16,000 pages

And if you ask them why they gave their lives
They'd say their only wish is
So you could fill out seven forms
To prove that pencil was for business

Ask any single one of them
it won't be no surprise
That's why they fought and died...

Well they gave their lives
So we could save up for a mortgage, woo!
And they stormed that sandy beach
So we could pay our neighbors' too!

They fought and died in fields with pride
And gave us all we'd hope for
To save us all from tyranny--
And also from 4 Loko

Ask any single one of them
it won't be no surprise
That's why they fought and died...

Shikha Dalmia Talks Public Sector Contracts on Freedom Watch

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 02:22:00 EST

Senior policy analyst at Reason Foundation Shikha Dalmia appeared on Jude Napolitano's Freedom Watch to discuss public sector workers and their contracts. Air Date: March 10, 2011.

Approximately 4 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Peter Suderman Talks Debt and Monetary Policy on Freedom Watch

Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:00:00 EST

Associate Editor of Reason Magazine Peter Suderman appeared on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano to talk about government debt and monetary policy at the Federal Reserve. Air date: 3/2/2011.

Run time approximately 10 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Why It's So Hard to Make a Movie: Q&A with Filmmaker Joe Gressis

Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:00:00 EST

This Sunday's Academy Awards ceremony will be held in Hollywood as usual, but it's increasingly common for Hollywood films to be produced outside California or even outside the United States.

Filmmaker Joe Gressis isn't surprised when Hollywood productions leave the Golden State. He's surprised when they stay. “The fact that we remain here is kind of ridiculous," says the three-time Emmy-nominated Gressis.

Reason.tv’s Tim Cavanaugh sat down with Gressis, a founding partner of Secret Handshake Productions, to talk about runaway film production and the headaches of making movies in California (or anywhere else, for that matter).

Topics include: tax incentives, the benefits of shooting in Hong Kong, and why Gressis admires Michael Bay.

Approximately 10 minutes.

Shot by Zach Weissmueller, Paul Detrick, and Alex Manning. Edited by Detrick.

Scroll down for downloadable versions of this and all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

Nick Gillespie Debates Cutting Government Spending on Parker Spitzer

Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:00:00 EST

Reason.tv editor in chief Nick Gillespie debates editor of The Nation Katrina vanden Heuvel about how to reduce the federal deficit and what exactly needs to be cut on CNN's Parker Spitzer. Air Date: February 16, 2011.

About 12 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

3 Reasons This Budget (and the GOP Response) Won't Win the Future

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 00:00:00 EST

President Barack Obama's proposed budget for 2012 outlines $3.7 trillion in spending during the next fiscal year and $8 trillion in new debt over the next decade. All without even a notion of how to pay for any of it.

What could possibly go wrong? Or right?

3 Reasons Obama's Budget (and the GOP Response) Won't Fix Anything is written and produced by Meredith Bragg, Austin Bragg, and Nick Gillespie, who also hosts. Approx 2 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions of this and all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

This video is based on this piece for AOL News by Veronique de Rugy and Nick Gillespie, reprinted below.

Opinion: This Is No Way to Win the Future

In his State of the Union address delivered just a few weeks ago, President Barack Obama pushed the banal conceit of "winning the future." To great partisan applause, the president channeled the reality show "Survivor" (slogan: "Outwit, Outplay, Outlast") and proclaimed that the United States needs to "out-innovate, out-educate and out-build the rest of the world."

With the release of his budget proposal for fiscal year 2012, we now know exactly what the president meant: We need to out-spend the world.

Sure, the United States government is already wracked with debt -- to the tune of about $9 trillion or 62 percent of gross domestic product -- and government spending is at or near post-World War II highs, about 25 percent of GDP using 2010 numbers. Obama's bold plan is to spend yet more without any ability to cover such new largess.

Far from winning the future, Obama has decided to punt on first down. Instead of dealing with federal spending that has ballooned by more than 60 percent in constant 2010 dollars over the past decade -- spending pushed by Republicans and Democrats alike -- the president has decided to stick with a status quo that is leading us to fiscal ruin.

In the broadest outlines, Obama proposes spending $3.7 trillion in 2012 (about the same as this year). Over the course of the coming decade, he claims that his spending plan would trim the deficit by about $1.1 trillion, with about two-thirds of theoretical savings coming from spending less than expected (such as a five-year freeze on non-security-related discretionary spending) and one-third from tax increases (on high-income earners).

Another way of putting this is that the president's plan for the next decade does nothing to balance spending and revenue; over 10 years, it adds about $8 trillion to the national debt.

The key reality here is that outlays keep growing from $3.5 trillion in FY 2010 to $5.7 trillion in FY 2021. If all goes according to plan, in 2021, debt held by the public will equal a whopping 77 percent of GDP. Of course, to that debt you have to add the money that the federal government has borrowed to various trust funds, like Social Security and Medicare, and also the trillions of dollars in unfunded promises made to the American people.

But there's absolutely no reason to believe that scenario. When he submitted his first budget, for fiscal year 2010 (ironically titled "A New Era of Fiscal Responsibility"), Obama promised that he would cut the deficit to $912 billion in 2011 and to $581 billion by 2012. The reality in just that short window of time is totally different.

Obama's original estimates were way off for the same reason his current scenario can't be trusted: He grounds most deficit reduction in the fantasy world of increased revenues.

Indeed, the president decrees that revenue will increase by $1.6 trillion over the next decade. Theoretically, this will come from two basic sources: ending the Bush tax rates on high-income earners and from an economy that the president believes will increase in real terms by 3.6 percent in 2012 and 4.4 percent in 2013. Those estimates are far sunnier than most private and governmental projections.

While rosy scenarios are great to project higher revenue, they are also useful on the spending side. Higher growth rates allow the president to foresee a reduction in unemployment from its current 9.3 percent to 8.6 percent next year. That means less unemployment benefits to pay out and it explains half of the projected reduction in spending from 2011 to 2012.

Yet even if the president's growth and revenues do materialize, we're still in deep trouble. We are still left with a $1.1 trillion deficit in 2012 and with a cumulative $7.2 trillion deficit over 10 years. That's $7.2 trillion that the federal government will have to borrow in the best-case scenario. And that explains why the debt held by the public is set to double in the next 10 years from $9 trillion in 2010 to over $18 trillion in 2020.

Nothing in Obama's budget addresses the nation's short- and long-term budget problems. He simply isn't serious about addressing the spending overload that is piling up debt at greater and greater velocity, and he has shown no interest in even discussing serious entitlement reform.

Sadly, there's little reason to believe that the Republican response will be any more substantive. Prior to the election, GOP leaders released their Pledge to America, which was both vague and uninspired, showing only the slimmest difference in spending than the president. Since winning a majority in the House of Representatives, Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has allowed that, as he said on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, "We're broke."

Yet neither he nor his fellow Republicans have laid out any way of addressing the shortfall, either by seriously cutting spending or by raising taxes. Instead, House Republicans continue to dilly-dally whether to cut a measly $100 billion for the remainder of fiscal year 2011.

This is no way to fix a bipartisan budget mess that was many years in the making. Worse still, it looks as if it will get much worse before either Democrats or Republicans are moved to real action.

Saving Social Security with Personal Retirement Accounts

josh.swain@reason.tv (Josh Swain) — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:00:00 EST

There are two crises facing Social Security. First the program has a gigantic unfunded liability, largely thanks to demographics. Second, the program is a very bad deal for younger workers, making them pay record amounts of tax in exchange for comparatively meager benefits. This video explains how personal accounts can solve both problems, and also notes that nations as varied as Australia, Chile, Sweden, and Hong Kong have implemented this pro-growth reform.

www.freedomandprosperity.org

Grading the Governors in 2010

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 00:00:00 EST

How would you grade your governor?

Chris Edwards, the CATO Institute’s director of tax policy studies, has analyzed and graded the fiscal records of 45 state governors. The only A Students: S.C.’s Mark Sanford (R), La.’s Bobby Jindal (R), Minn.’s Tim Pawlenty (R), W.Va.’s Joe Manchin (D). Otherwise there were 15 B’s, 8 C’s, 11 D’s and 7 F’s.

CATO has been releasing its Fiscal Policy Report Card for over the past 20 years, tracking state and local budget’s ballooning from the 1990’s to the 2000’s and an increase of A’s and F’s as governors struggle to find the best way to recover from years of overspending and mismanagement.

Approximately 9.30 minutes.

Shot by Jim Epstein and Meredith Bragg. Edited by Bragg.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Slashing Spending in Post-Soviet Slovakia

Thu, 06 Jan 2011 00:00:00 EST

Since the end of communism in 1989, Slovakia has experienced rapid economic growth by privatizing industries and liberating its markets, allowing its citizens to enjoy the same standard of living as their Western European neighbors. However, government spending is still out of control.

Richard Durana, director of the Slovakia Institute for Economic and Social Studies and the project The Price of the State, sat down with Reason.tv to explain how his group is working to educate Slovaks that many services currently provided by the government could be delivered more efficiently by the private sector.

Approximately 5.03 minutes.

Interviewed by June Arunga. Camera by Jim Epstein and Josh Swain. Editing by Swain.

Scroll down for HD, iPod, and audio versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

Nick Gillespie Discusses Obama's Tax Cut Deals on CNN's Parker Spitzer

Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST

Editor in chief of Reason.tv and Reason.com Nick Gillespie debates Mother Jones' David Corn about Obama's recent tax cut deal how the adminstration's role in the economy has made recovery all the more difficult on CNN's Parker Spitzer. Air date: December 9, 2010.

Approximately 6.08 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Matthew Elliot on Britain's Burgeoning Tax Revolt

Thu, 09 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST

Americans have more of a penchant for tax revolts than the British, but that may be changing. After thirty years of unchallenged tax increases, The Taxpayers’ Alliance formed in 2004 to advocate for lower taxes across the United Kingdom.

Co-founder and Chief Executive of The Taxpayers’ Alliance Matthew Elliott sat down with Reason.tv to discuss the rising frustration with taxes in Britain and how TPA grew from a small group that met in coffee shops to a national media player.

Approximately 5.43 minutes.

Interviewed by June Arunga. Camera by Jim Epstein and Josh Swain. Editing by Swain.

Scroll down for HD, iPod, and audio versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

Veronique de Rugy Joins Parker Spitzer to Discuss Obama's Tax Cut Deal

Thu, 09 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST

Reason monthly columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy appeared on CNN's Parker Spitzer to discuss Obama's deal on tax cuts and how his presidency is continuing Bush-era policies. Airdate: December 8, 2010.

Approximately 8.23 minutes.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel and receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Kurt Loder Discusses Congressional Gridlock and Censure on CNN's Parker Spitzer

Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:00:00 EST

Reason Magazine's contributing film critic Kurt Loder joins a panel on CNN's Parker Spitzer to discuss political deadlock and censure in the post-election Congress. Airdate: December 3, 2010.

About 7 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Porkers of The Month for November 2010: Sens. Tom Carper and George Voinovich!

Tue, 23 Nov 2010 15:00:00 EST

Reason.tv presents Citizen's Against Government Waste’s Porkers of the Month for November 2010:

Senators Tom Carper (D-Del) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio)!

After spending gasoline tax revenue meant for infrastructure repair on pork projects, and diverting portions of the $862 billion stimulus meant for infrastructure repair to special interests, these two have proposed raising the federal gasoline tax more than 135% to pay for—you guessed it—infrastructure repair.

Congratulations Tom and George, you are Citizen's Against Government Waste's Porkers of the Month for November, 2010!

"Porker of the Month" is written and produced by Austin Bragg. Approximately 1.2 minutes.

For more info on Citizens Against Government Waste and the Porker of The Month, visit cagw.org.

Scroll down for downloadable versions of all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Adrian Moore Discusses GM's IPO and the Proposed Federal Sales Tax

Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:00:00 EST

The Reason Foundation's Adrian Moore appeared on Freedom Watch to discuss the fallout from the General Motors bailout and a propoposed 6.5% value-added tax aimed at deficit reduction. Air date: November 17, 2010.

About 11 minutes.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Prop 21: Why Californians don't need a car tax to save their state parks

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:00:00 EDT

Once considered the best in the nation, California's state parks are falling apart due to chronic underfunding and mismanagement. The park system has a backlog of $1 billion in deferred maintenance and, last year, 150 of California's parks closed part-time or suffered service reductions.

What's the solution? Supporters of Prop 21 believe that the answer lies in a new car tax. If Prop 21 passes in November, California drivers will have to pony up an additional 18 bucks when they register their cars. In exchange, California drivers will be able to use state parks during the day without paying an entrance fee.

Does it make sense to tax drivers to subsidize park users? What's the alternative?

We went to Sedona, Arizona and met with Warren Meyer of Recreation Resource Management. As Meyer explained, California doesn't need a car tax to save its parks. Instead, California should contract with private park management companies that can manage parks more efficiently than public agencies while actually paying rent to the government for the right to do so.

Approximately 7.5 minutes. Produced by Paul Feine and Alex Manning.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

The Big Government Conspiracy: Q&A with Steve Malanga of the Manhattan Institute

Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:00:00 EDT

Today’s Tea Party movement germinated from local taxpayer groups focused on issues like school spending and property taxes, says Steve Malanga, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the new book, Shakedown: The Continuing Conspiracy Against the American Taxpayer.

Malanga’s work focuses on how national trends often grow out of local ones. In his last book, The New New Left, he looked at how a coalition of public-sector unions and government-backed social activists came to control the machinery of local governments. In Shakedown, he shows how this group continued its march all the way to the White House.

Reason.tv’s June Arunga sat down with Malanga to talk about how this coalition has pushed government at all levels to the brink of bankruptcy and what reforms are needed to combat its vast influence.

Approximately seven minutes. Shot by Jim Epstein and Meredith Bragg. Edited by Josh Swain.

Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Obama vs. Reagan: Ray Griggs on His New Film, 'I Want Your Money'

Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:00:00 EDT

"It's beyond what you can think of as bankruptcy," says documentary filmmaker Ray Griggs of the current state of U.S. debt. "In our world, you go bankrupt. In the government world, they just keep writing checks."

 In his new documentary, I Want Your Money , which opens nationwide in more than 400 theaters on October 15, Griggs examines the fiscal crisis the U.S. faces today by comparing two iconic presidents—Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan—and their views on the proper role of government.  

Griggs talked with Reason.tv’s Ted Balaker about our nation’s mounting debt, his controversial iPhone app, Bobble Rep , and the difficulties he faced making a conservative documentary in Hollywood.  

Run time approximately 7:30 minutes.

Interview by Ted Balaker. Shot by Alex Manning, Paul Detrick, and Zach Weissmueller. Edited by Weissmueller.

  Scroll down for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Tim Cavanaugh Discusses "Creative Accounting," the CA Budget, and Gov. Schwarzenegger's Legacy on Fox 11

Mon, 11 Oct 2010 11:00:00 EDT

Tim Cavanaugh, Reason columnist and Hit & Run contributor, discusses the California budget, passed 100 days late and featuring questionable remedies to the deficit. He also talks about Gov. Schwarzenegger's unlikely legacy--pension reform, which may save the state in the long term. He appeared on FOX 11 Los Angeles. Air date: Oct. 5, 2010 on KTTV.

Approximately three minutes.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel.

Katherine Mangu-Ward Discusses Choosing Firefigther Protection on Russia Today

Mon, 11 Oct 2010 00:00:00 EDT

Reason Magazine Senior Editor Katherine Mangu-Ward argues that people should be able to pick and choose (and pay for) the services they want, including fire protection, on Russia Today's The Alyona Show on October 5, 2010.

Approximately 9.16 minutes.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel and receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Tim Cavanaugh Discusses CA Budget Delays on Fox 11

Fri, 08 Oct 2010 11:00:00 EDT

Tim Cavanaugh, Reason columnist and Hit & Run contributor, talks about the California state budget delays and puts them in historical context. He appeared on FOX 11 Los Angeles. Air date: Oct. 6, 2010 on KTTV.

Approximately 2:46.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel.

Tim Cavanaugh Talks Borrowing to Balance the Budget on Fox 11

Thu, 07 Oct 2010 11:00:00 EDT

Tim Cavanaugh, Reason columnist and Hit & Run contributor, discusses the details of the new California budget, which may rely heavily on borrowing despite the wishes of the voters. He appeared on FOX 11 Los Angeles. Air date: Oct. 6, 2010 on KTTV.

Approximately 2:39.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel.

Tim Cavanaugh Talks Budget Fight On Fox 11 LA KTTV

Wed, 06 Oct 2010 12:00:00 EDT

Tim Cavanaugh, Reason columnist and Hit & Run contributor, discusses the recent battles between Republicans and Democrats trying to pass the California budget. He appeared on FOX 11 Los Angeles. Air date: Oct. 5, 2010 on KTTV.

Approximately 4:08.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel.

3D Fiscal House of Horrors!

Thu, 30 Sep 2010 06:30:00 EDT

As the United States grapples with the grisliest economic downturn in decades, many politicians seem strangely unable or unwilling to stop their zombified shuffling toward a full-blown fiscal FUBAR.

President Barack Obama pushes for yet more stimulus spending and the Republican leadership pledges to stay mum on the prospect for serious spending entitlement reform until at least election day.

Given the decade-long spending binge that started under George W. Bush and a Republican Congress and has accelerated under Obama and the Democrats, America's balance sheet hasn't been this scary since World War II.

The only way to tell this story is in 3D: Debts, Deficits, and Despair!

Spending has reached has record highs. So have deficits and national debt. And public-sector compensation at all levels continues to rise like the living dead at the witching hour. The worst part? If current trends continue, we ain't seen nothing yet!

The following videos lay out in gory detail just how heart-stopping the situation is. So watch the warning video first, check your pulse, and continue on - if you dare!

To experience the full horror, subscribe to Reason magazine now and receive our special 3D November issue, which includes a pair 3D glasses and, more important, practical plans to cut spending now.

These videos are best viewed in high-definition. Immediately after clicking play, click on the 360p button on the lower-right hand corner of each video and select 720p for the best resolution.

A Warning from Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska)

Out of a sense of common decency - and a court order - former Alaska senator, I Like Mike star, and recidivist presidential candidate Mike Gravel warns viewers prone to seizures, high blood pressure, and politically induced rage to exit their browsers now. If you do choose to continue and feel your head about to explode at any time, he counsels, don't be afraid to scream with everything you've got. The life you save may be your own. And your country's.

I Spend on Your Grave!

How did the federal budget become more terrifying than Rahm Emmanuel in a locker-room shower? It's not complicated. Since World War II, government revenues have averaged about 18 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Government expenditures, alas, have rarely kept close to that number (this year alone, it will be close to 26 percent of GDP). The result is as predictable and grisly as a curvaceous college co-ed entering the last house on the lane: red ink that threaten to drown us all.

Night of The Living Debt

What's spookier than Sen. Harry Reid guest-starring in The Vagina Monologues? The balance sheet from hell better known as the national debt. In 2009, the federal deficit was $1.4 trillion, or over 12 percent of GDP and the highest level since World War II. The federal debt, which is made up of all the annual deficits plus interest on borrowed money, is around 45 percent of GDP and is projected to be 90 percent of GDP by 2020. Which means the government will be sucking more money out of your pocket and the larger economy to pay for bailing out GM and Citigroup today.

Attack of The Killer Compensation

Here's a tale more fear-inducing than Michelle Obama at a fat farm. Chew on this: In more than eight of 10 occupations, federal workers make more in straight salary than their private sector counterparts. A federal janitor makes $6,000 more than his private-sector counterpart and a federal nurse makes $11,000 than her counterpart. And federal workers on average get four times more in benefits such as health care and retirement. At the state and local level, public-sector workers take home more than their private-sector equivalents, too (Michigan public-sector workers, for instance, take home 47 percent more in total compensation than their private-sector analogues). The result of such taxpayer-funded largess? An economic living death on the installment plan!

The End?

Is this the end of the American experiment? Certainly, the trend lines are as difficult to change as they are unsustainable. Yet the situation can be reversed. Reason's November issue - also in 3D! - contains true tales of budgetary restraint and right-sizing.

Subscribe to Reason now and read how the U.S., New Zealand, and Canada all cut spending quickly and effectively. Read how to spin off the government-sponsored money-sucks Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And read Reason staffers' recommendations for slashing ineffective, redundant, or wasteful government programs.

For a taste of the issue, read Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch's essay, appropriately titled "Scary Monsters." And for copies of the charts presented in the videos above, go here now.

Reason.tv's 3D Fiscal House of Horrors is written and produced by Meredith Bragg, Austin Bragg, and Nick Gillespie.

Progress Party Leader Siv Jensen on Norway's Myths and Realities

Wed, 29 Sep 2010 00:00:00 EDT

In a country of exceptionally high rates of personal taxation and home to one of the world's most generous welfare states, Norway's Progress Party, which describes itself as a "classical liberal" organization committed to "personal freedom," is something of an anomaly. But it is an increasingly powerful anomaly, now ranking as the country's second biggest political party.

In August, Progress Party leader Siv Jensen sat down with Reason senior editor Michael C. Moynihan and explained that Norwegians are growing tired of "regulation, bureaucracy, and high taxes" and why the Scandinavian health care model is bad for America—and Scandinavia.

Approximately 5 minutes. Shot by Jim Epstein and Meredith Bragg. Edited by Josh Swain.

Scroll down for downloadable HD, iPod, and audio versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.

Afraid to Create Jobs: Brian Calle on Why Businesses Aren't Hiring

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:00:00 EDT

"It's scary when the ones who are going to drive the economic recovery and put people back to work are saying, 'We're going to hold off a bit because we don't know what our government is going to do.'" So says Brian Calle.

The columnist and editorial writer for the Orange County Register got fed up with public-sector jobs programs and sluggish private-sector job growth, so he decided to ask business owners why they weren't hiring. The result is an ongoing, multimedia project called "The CEO Solutions Series," in which business owners diagnose the problem and propose solutions.

Reason.tv's Ted Balaker sat down with Calle to discuss what should be done to spur private-sector growth, the role uncertainty plays in hiring decisions, why business leaders are often afraid to complain about public policy, and the myth of the laissez-faire CEO.

Approximately 10 minutes.

Interview by Ted Balaker. Shot by Hawk Jensen, Alex Manning, and Zach Weissmueller. Edited by Jensen

Scroll down for HD, iPod, and audio versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Protest in Bell: City Residents Say "Enough!"

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:00 EDT

Should a city manager from one of Los Angeles County's poorest cities earn twice as much as President Obama?

Residents from the working-class town of Bell erupted in outrage after learning that their city pays its officials some of the highest local-government salaries in the nation, including City Manager Robert Rizzo who takes home nearly $800,000 per year.

Rizzo has resigned, as have some of Bell's other top-earning government officials. But on Monday evening frustrated residents gathered at a city council meeting to demand more resignations and an end to what they regard as widespread corruption.

Reason.tv spoke with protesters furious with high taxes, cronyism, and inflated public-sector compensation.

Approximately 3 minutes. Produced by Ted Balaker and Tim Cavanaugh, who also hosts. Camera by Zach Weissmueller and Sam Corcos. Edited by Weissmueller.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Lessons From LeBron: What Clevelanders Should Really Be Pissed About

Fri, 09 Jul 2010 00:00:00 EDT

LeBron James has decided to move to Florida and play for the Miami Heat rather than bear another season with the Cavaliers.

Everybody is piling on: How could a dude with a tattoo of the word loyalty on his chest abandon "the mistake on the lake?"

But LeBron is only doing what more than half of Cleveland's population has done over the in the last 60 years: Getting the hell out of the place.

He didn't leave because of money, though some analyses show that he can take home more in pay in Florida despite a lower salary. Ohio used to be one of the lowest-tax states in the country. Now it's one of the highest.

That's what Clevelanders should be outraged about. Their economy has enough to deal with already without being put in a full court press by high taxes.

Cleveland needs to get rid of its savior complex. LeBron James could never have saved Cleveland--no single sports star or entrepreneur or bailout can--but there are definite, proven steps that any city can take to improve
life for its citizens.

Reason.tv highlighted a whole host of possible steps in our series "Reason Saves Cleveland" available at www.reason.tv.

"Don't Blame LeBron" was produced by Dan Hayes and Nick Gillespie. Production Assistant Joshua Swain.

Go to http://reason.tv for downloadable versions of this and all our videos, and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Nick Gillespie on Fox Business' Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:00:00 EDT

On June 16, 2010 Reason's Nick Gillespie appeared on Fox News Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss estate taxes, Barack Obama's green-energy agenda, and the BP oil spill.

Approximately 11.30 minutes.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel and receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Is Hillary Clinton Right That The Rich Aren't Paying "Their Fair Share" in Taxes?

Sat, 29 May 2010 20:00:00 EDT

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently said that "the rich are not paying their fair share" of taxes in the United States and other developed countries.

Is she right? It depends on what you consider fair. Using 2006 data, The New York Times found that the richest 20 percent of households were paying 26 percent of their income to the federal government in the form of income, payroll, corporate, and excise taxes. The average for all familes? 21 percent.

And there's this: "In 2006, the top quintile of households earned 55.7 percent of pretax income and paid 69.3 percent of federal taxes, while the top 1 percent of households earned 18.8 percent of income and paid 28.3 percent of taxes."

Paying in a lot more than you get out? That doesn't seem fair.

The rich are different than you and me; they've got more money. And they pay more taxes.

Politicians are different too--they rarely say what they really mean. Perhaps what Secretary Clinton means is that the rich can always pay more than they're already paying.

That would explain why she and the president are lobbying to let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year, a policy that would raise all sorts of taxes on all sorts of people.

Which doesn't sound all that fair either.

Produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie.

Go here for documentation and graphs.

Adrian Moore Discuss California's Proposed Tax Hike on Varney & Co.

Tue, 25 May 2010 12:20:00 EDT

On May 25, 2010, Adrian Moore, Vice President of Research at the Reason Foundation, discusses the newly proposed tax hike in California on Varney & Co.

Approximately 3.19 minutes.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube Channel.

Tony Williams: A Pro-School Choice, Pro-Business Democrat...

Mon, 17 May 2010 07:00:00 EDT

"You either pay the $16,500 now for our children's public education or you pay the $35,000 or $40,000 later for public assistance, sitting on grandma's couch or in prison," says Anthony H. Williams.

Williams is a long-time Philadelphia-area state senator who is running for the Democratic Party nomination in the Keystone State. Williams is also an ardent supporter of school choice and pro-business in a way that few Democrats (or even Republicans, for that matter) seem to be these days.

A vocal supporter of public funding for the arts, Williams is no doctrinaire libertarian, but he remains an all-too-rare figure in contemporary politics: an individual not completely defined by his party affiliation.

Approximately 10 minutes long. Interview by Nick Gillespie; camera and editing by Dan Hayes. Go to Reason.tv's YouTube channel for embed code.

Fixing San Diego: A Conversation with Councilman Carl Demaio

Thu, 13 May 2010 07:00:00 EDT

“What I’d like to do is create a city government that is as beautiful as the city of San Diego has become. And we aren’t going to stop until we get that,” says city councilman Carl DeMaio.

DeMaio has his work cut out for him. City employee compensation has gotten out of hand, the city pays millions to subsidize its convention center each year, and in the midst of this fiscal crisis, other San Diego politicians are pushing for new legacy projects like a brand new downtown library.

DeMaio is a former fellow at Reason Foundation who is now working as a city councilman trying to make the San Diego city government more transparent and accountable. He was elected to the San Diego City Council in 2008, winning by the highest margin of any non-incumbent in a San Diego city council race ever.

"Fixing San Diego” is produced by Paul Feine, shot by Alex Manning, and edited by Paul Detrick and Hawk Jensen. Approximately 10 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Sweden's March Towards Capitalism

Wed, 12 May 2010 06:28:00 EDT

In The Capitalist Welfare State, Lund University economist Andreas Bergh explains how Sweden has managed to increase economic productivity despite its large public sector.

Bergh says that despite popular mythology, Sweden is not a socialist success story but instead owes its economic growth to the lowered tax rates and deregulation of the early 1990s, which allowed innovation and investment to flourish. Bergh also discusses how Sweden's national voucher program revitalized the country's educational system and warns that Americans who are hoping to emulate Swedish success by growing the public sector are learning the wrong lessons from Sweden.

Produced by Ted Balaker and Daniel B. Klein; filmed by Jonathan Liberman and Henrik Devell; edited by Zach Weissmueller; with special thanks to Niclas Berggren, Martin Borgs, Nils Karlson, and the Ratio Institute .

Approximately 10 minutes long.

Scroll down for downloadable iPod, HD, and audio versions.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel and receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Is The Tea Party Movement Racist?

Wed, 05 May 2010 14:00:00 EDT

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that the Tea Party movement is "struggling to overcome accusations of racism," some of which has been perpetuated in its editorial pages. Yesterday's New York Times, home to the most obsessively anti-Tea Party editorial page in America, was stunned to discover that "at least 32 African-Americans are running for Congress this year as Republicans, the biggest surge since Reconstruction, according to party officials."

Previously, The Times reported that Tea Partiers are, on average, people with a high levels of education and higher than average incomes. So it would seem that they aren't, as some editorialists and pundits contend, simply a gang of subliterate militia men or, as actress Janeane Garofalo recently told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, a subsection of the white power movement.

Wandering the recent Tax Day tea party in Washington DC with Reason.tv's Meredith Bragg, we saw some stupid signs--though none that could be considered offensive or racist. We talked to some people that claimed President Obama was both a Czarist and Bolshevik. We spoke to a former star of Saturday Night Live who has previously claimed that president might, in fact, be the anti-Christ. Or a communist. Or both. There were those who fretted that the United States were morphing into a Stalinist state. And there were countless protesters concerned that the Obama administration was spending recklessly, interested in auditing the Federal Reserve, and seething about the General Motors bailout.

So did we find that the Tea Party was motivated by race, by the fact that we now have a black president? Did it seem as if their stated concerns about health care reform and a ballooning national debt simply a smokescreen, designed to concealing a racist agenda? Here is what we found.

Produced by Michael C. Moynihan and Meredith Bragg. Edited by Meredith Bragg. Approximately 2 mins.

Taxes: The Price We Pay For Civilization

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:30:00 EDT

"Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society," said legendary Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

As students of Buck v. Bell could tell you, Holmes had a habit of being monstrously wrong, but if he's right about taxes and civilization, it's certainly worth asking whether we're getting what we pay for.

Approximately 1.06 minutes. Written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie.

For iPod, HD, and audio versions, scroll down.

To watch on YouTube, go here.

More Taxes or More Jobs? California Shows We Can't Have Both

Mon, 12 Apr 2010 06:30:00 EDT

It's hard to find a politician who isn't eager to "do something" about high unemployment. Turns out California has found one way to save and create certain kinds of jobs—spend like mad and raise taxes.

That job-creation strategy has worked quite well for government-sector workers. Problem is the statewide unemployment rate is still among the highest in the nation, and many private-sector employers are heading to states like Texas, where taxes are lower and regulations are lighter.

"I would love to have companies calling me saying, 'We'd like to move to California, can you help us with that relocation?' I get none of those calls," says business relocation coach Joe Vranich. "The calls I do get are, 'Hello, we want to move out of California, can you help us do that?'"

Vranich says there's no one reason why businesses leave. He calls it "death by a thousand cuts," where job creators get fed up with everything from high taxes to traffic gridlock and legal hassles.

Take Rick and Jack Newcombe, the father-son team that runs Creators Syndicate. A long legal battle with the city of Los Angeles might end up being their company's final cut. The Newcombes say the city arbitrarily stuck the company into a higher tax category and officials are applying the hike retroactively. City officials are demanding $400,000 in back taxes, but Rick Newcombe calls the whole episode "legalized theft," adding that a tax penalty of that size would force the company to lay off 10 employees.

It's ironic that such drama unfolds in a city where Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is always doing something—transit projects! green jobs!— he hopes will stimulate the economy. And steep statewide unemployment persists long after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger eagerly accepted billions in federal stimulus funds. In fact, the Bush-Obama scatter shot of bailouts, stimuli, and rescue plans has fallen well short of proponents' promises.

Want to create and save jobs? Maybe it's time for politicians to stop doing so much and start undoing some of their worst blunders.

"More Taxes or More Jobs?" is written and produced by Ted Balaker, who also hosts. Camera-Animation: Hawk Jensen; Associate Producer: Paul Detrick; Additional Photography: Alex Manning.

Approximately seven minutes. Scroll down for downloadable iPod, HD and audio versions of this and all our videos.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube page and receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

The Flat Tax: How it Works and Why it is Good for America

dan.hayes@reason.org (Dan Hayes) — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:00:00 EDT

This Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation video shows how the flat tax would benefit families and businesses, and also explains how this simple and fair system would boost economic growth and eliminate the special-interest corruption of the internal revenue code. www.freedomandprosperity.org

Take Care of Business: Reason Saves Cleveland With Drew Carey, Episode 4

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 06:55:00 EDT

After World War II, Cleveland was booming, thanks to its leadership role in heavy industry and a business-friendly climate. Today, the city’s high taxes and onerous regulatory demands make it nearly impossible for new businesses to set up shop while choking the life out of existing companies. While relatively laissez-faire cities such as Houston are growing even during the current recession, Cleveland remains stuck in a rut. How can city officials make the city a more welcoming place for entrepreneurs to thrive?

Reason Saves Cleveland with Drew Carey is written and produced by Paul Feine; camera and editing by Roger Richards and Alex Manning; narrated by Nick Gillespie; music by the Cleveland band Cats on Holiday. This is the fourth of six episodes that will air March 15-19, 2010.

Approximately 10 minutes long. Scroll down for iPod, HD, and audio versions of this video.

Subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel and receive automatic notification when new videos go live.

Hasta La Vista, Arnold!

Thu, 14 May 2009 08:00:00 EDT

He was the perfect political superhero, sent to rescue California from spend-happy politicians at just the right time. And yet Arnold Schwarzenegger’s reign as governor has turned into a disaster flick that could spell catastrophe for the Golden State—and the whole nation.

In 2003's historic recall election, the former Mr. Olympia pummeled dozens of candidates—from incumbent Gray Davis to former child actor Gary Coleman to porn star Mary Carey—on the road to Sacramento. He promised to abolish the odious car tax hike implemented by Davis. And to balance the budget, cut taxes and spending, and make California more business-friendly.

"He promised to stop the crazy deficit spending, cut up the credit cards, live within our means. And he did exactly the opposite. Schwarzenegger increased spending faster than we saw under Gray Davis," says Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.), who was a state senator—and one of Arnold's challengers—six years ago.

Now the Golden State faces yet another spending-induced catastrophe. California could simply go broke by July. Sacramento reacted to the latest crisis by passing a massive tax increase in February, squeezing another $1,100 from the average family. Even the dreaded car tax, the issue that catapulted Arnold to office, is back.

How could it all have gone so horribly wrong, especially after it looked so wonderfully right? Well, it turns out there's a force in California politics that's much more powerful than the Governator: a culture of spending pushed by public-employee unions, money-grubbing corporate-welfare cases, and more.

Sadly, California and Schwarzenegger are hardly alone in spending well beyond their means. As many as 40 states face whopping deficits that are only going to get worse as the recession continues.

If country-wide trends do start in California, Rep. McClintock worries about what's in store for our nation. "As high taxes, high borrowing and high spending destroy California’s economy, Californians are moving to those 49 other states. If we allow the same policies to destroy our country where are we going to go?"

"Hasta La Vista, Arnold" is written and produced by Ted Balaker. Director of Photography is Alex Manning and Associate Producer is Paul Detrick.

CNBC Larry Kudlow shows Tax Facts ReasonTV Video

Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:00:00 EDT

CNBC's Larry Kudlow shows a ReasonTV Tax facts Video.

Air Date: 04/15/209

About 2 minutes.

Scroll down for iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's Youtube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

W2-WTF?!

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:00:00 EDT

Is it patriotic to pay taxes? And if so, who the most patriotest Americans? Who are the least? How many words are in the tax code? How much do patriotic Americans pay to prepare their taxes? How long do you have to work in a year to earn enough to pay your taxes?

The answers to these and other questions add up to one big W-2 WTF.

Produced by Meredith Bragg. Written by Bragg and Nick Gillespie.

Go here for embed code.

Reason on taxes here and here.

And watch "3 Great Reasons to Pay Your Taxes (Or Else!): A friendly reminder from the IRS":

3 Great Reasons to Pay Your Taxes (or Else)!

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:00:00 EDT

As April 15 approaches, Reason.tv is proud to present a little-seen IRS public-relations video that explains the benefits of paying your taxes—and underscores the dire outcomes for tax evaders and tax cheats.

Approximately 1.30 minutes. Produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie.

The Reason.tv Talk Show, Episode 13

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:30:00 EDT

Reason.tv's Michael C. Moynihan and Nick Gillespie sit down with Kristina Rasmussen, Director of Government Affairs for the National Taxpayers Union, and Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, to the prospects of ending the drug war, the Obama administration's policy towards medical marijuana, the stimulus plan, and the Bush tax legacy.

Approximately 20 minutes. Shot and edited by Dan Hayes.

Click here for an archive of previous episodes of the Reason.tv talkshow.

How the Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed Page Gets Made: Q&A with Robert Pollock

Mon, 12 May 2008 15:00:00 EDT

Former reason intern Robert Pollock has been the editorial features page editor at The Wall Street Journal for more than a year. The Buffalo native sat down recently with reason.tv to talk about how he came to his libertarian beliefs; how the mainstream media is toeing the Journal's line on capital gains taxes; why The Washington Post is the Journal's competition and why The New York Times' editorial pages have a "hectoring" tone; how the GOP turned its back on its small-government philosophy; why America needs more immigrants; and much more.

This 10-minute interview was conducted by reason.tv Editor Nick Gillespie and filmed by reason.tv's Dan Hayes.

"I'm Bitter and Frustrated": Taxpayers Sound Off!

dan.hayes@reason.org (Dan Hayes) — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:08:00 EDT

On April 15, reason.tv videographer Dan Hayes hit the streets of Washington, D.C. and staked out a Dupont Circle-area Post Office to talk with tax filers on a deadline with the IRS. Approximately 4 minutes.

School House Rock! Tax Man Max

paul.feine@reason.tv (Paul Feine) — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:47:00 EDT

Happy Tax Day!

Wartime Propaganda from Disney

paul.feine@reason.tv (Paul Feine) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:50:00 EDT

April 15 is just around the corner, so don't waste your money on pleasurable pursuits; instead, save your money so you can pay your taxes to help our war efforts (waging war, it turns out, is expensive ). It's what Donald would do.

War, Wine, and Taxes

gillespie@reason.com (Nick Gillespie) — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:04:00 EDT

Why do the British drink beer and the French drink wine? In his new book, War, Wine, and Taxes, George Mason University economist John V.C. Nye debunks the myth that Britain was a free-trading nation during and after the Industrial Revolution by revealing how the British used tariffs—especially on French wine—as a mercantilist tool to weaken France and to appease domestic brewers and other politically connected special interests. It's a boldly revisionist account of economic history and one whose relevance to contemporary trade policy is all too troubling.

Nye spoke with Reason Editor-in-Chief Nick Gillespie at a reception in Reason's Washington office on October 9.