As 2025 approaches, a critical debate over extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts that finally ended America…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Remains Too High

As 2025 approaches, a critical debate over extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts that finally ended America's inglorious status as the developed world's highest corporate tax rate looms.  Important in that debate is something that many people may find surprising:  America's corporate tax rate remains too high.  As our friends at the Tax Foundation highlight, at 25.8%, it stands above the worldwide average of 23.51%.  Something to keep in mind when opponents of tax reform and greater global competitiveness attempt to mischaracterize our current rate as somehow too low.

 

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="508"] U.S. 25.8% Corporate Tax Rate Remains Too High[/caption]

 …[more]

December 20, 2024 • 09:17 AM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Left-Wing Lockdown Print
By Betsy McCaughey
Wednesday, June 10 2020
Sadly, science is losing its luster as the profession puts politics ahead of the truth.

Three months ago, America was told to trust public health experts. Never again. Most of them have revealed themselves to be left-wing ideologues cloaked in the mantle of science. On their advice, states slammed their economies shut, put 40 million people out of work, sent school kids home and pushed businesses into bankruptcy.

These public health experts hardly blinked at the economic loss these lockdowns caused. Anyone who even expressed these concerns was denounced for putting dollars ahead of lives.

Now, these same public health experts are doing a 180-degree turn, saying the threat of the virus is less important than big marches against racial injustice. Even though they admit the marches will lead to more infections. Hypocrites.

Public health academics from the University of Washington, which created the virus forecasting model widely used by governors and the President's Task Force, are circulating a public letter declaring the marches a higher priority than containing the virus.

"This should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders," the UW health experts add. Translation: No funerals for your loved ones, no congregating for causes of your own choosing. Only theirs.

This isn't science. This is political advocacy.

Similarly, Jennifer Nuzzo, a Johns Hopkins epidemiologist, now claims the dangers of "systemic racism" exceed "the harms of the virus." Sorry, professor, but that makes you a political pundit, not someone to call the shots on ending a pandemic.

Remember that most public health experts didn't have to give up their paychecks during the lockdown.

Otherwise, they would have considered alternatives that spared most jobs and business failures. Vast swaths of the United States that had almost no infections were shut down, including upstate counties in New York.

Economists from the University of Chicago and Northwestern University have shown how a geographically targeted approach, even within New York City, could have lessened the economic toll by more than one-third and spared areas like Staten Island. If the virus resurges in the fall, that approach could allow 87% of city businesses to stay open.

In the scientific world, a drug is examined in clinical trials before it's prescribed. But public health experts prescribed statewide lockdowns though they were untried and untested.

A study published Monday in the journal Nature purports to show 60 million infections in the U.S. were prevented with these lockdowns. The Washington Post incorrectly calls that proof "the aggressive and unprecedented shutdowns" were the right call. Nonsense. The Nature study never considers how many infections could have been prevented with less draconian measures, including targeting nursing homes.

Sadly, science is losing its luster as the profession puts politics ahead of the truth. Last week, two prestigious medical journals, Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, which until recently set the gold standard for scientific publications, had to retract articles they had published on hydroxychloroquine.

Both had dispensed with rigorous peer review to rush out articles purporting to show that President Trump's favored COVID-19 drug, hydroxychloroquine, endangers patients. They were so eager to ridicule the president that they ended up discrediting themselves. Turns out the data in the articles was bogus.

No surprise. Lancet editors had published their own editorial a week earlier calling on voters to unseat Trump in November. As if a British medical journal should even have a position on the U.S. presidential election.

Americans have learned a powerful lesson. When politicians tell us to follow the science, it's not that simple. Many scientists have lost their legitimacy.

They proposed a draconian lockdown without assessing its side effects on the rest of us. They demanded rigorous adherence to it, until, suddenly, they decided marching against racism was more important than preventing virus deaths. Americans won't forget.

Even guidelines for reopening are arbitrary, reflecting these public health experts' fickle priorities. New York City residents have to wait until late June for sidewalk dining at restaurants. But it's OK, even laudable, for throngs of protesters to march down the street now, many maskless and shouting.


Betsy McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York. 
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

Notable Quote   
 
"The recently released White House report blaming computer software for the massive increases in rental prices that Americans have suffered over the past four years is best described as a self-serving whitewash.This report claims that algorithmic pricing software, used by property owners to set a market price for their rental properties, has artificially inflated rents. But this analysis conveniently…[more]
 
 
— Bay Buchanan, Former Treasurer of the United States Under President Ronald Reagan
 
Liberty Poll   

Elon Musk is quickly emerging as a worldwide force for unfettered public speech, government reforms, business aggressiveness and technological revolution. Do you regard him overall as a positive or negative influence on government, culture and business?