Don't Expect Much Change Whoever Wins In Germany

• ABOUT US
• EVENTS
• EXPERTS
• AUTHORS
• DONATE
• ARCHIVES
• MEDIA CITATIONS
• CONTACT
• MOBILE WEBSITE

Germany: Angela Merkel Faces Challenge for Chancellorship Germany Heading for Four More Years of Pro-EU, Open-Door Migration Policies by Soeren Kern February 1, 2017 at 5:00 am https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9870/martin-schulz-angela-merkel Share132 Comment The policy positions of Schulz and Merkel on key issues are virtually identical: Both candidates are committed to strengthening the EU, maintaining open-door immigration policies, pursuing multiculturalism and quashing dissent from the so-called far right. Regardless of who wins, Germany is unlikely to undergo many course corrections during the next four years. Schulz has already called for tax increases on the wealthy and for fighting the AfD party. He has also threatened financial consequences for European countries that refuse to take in more migrants. "The chancellor's office is worried." – Der Spiegel. Martin Schulz, the former president of the European Parliament, has been chosen to challenge Chancellor Angela Merkel in Germany's general election on September 24. The policy positions of Schulz and Merkel on key issues are virtually identical: Both candidates are committed to strengthening the European Union, maintaining open-door immigration policies, pursuing multiculturalism and quashing dissent from the so-called far right. Time for a changing of the guard? Pictured: Then European Parliament President Martin Schulz meets with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Brussels, January 30, 2012. (Image source: European Parliament) Polls show Merkel, who heads the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), slightly ahead of Schulz, the new leader of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD). Regardless of who wins, Germany is unlikely to undergo many course corrections during the next four years. Schulz, who became a Member of the European Parliament in 1994, and has spent most of his political career in Brussels, unofficially took over the reins of the SPD on January 29, 2017, after the unpopular Sigmar Gabriel said he was stepping down. The move will become official at a party congress on March 19. SPD leaders said that as an "outsider," Schulz has a better chance of unseating Merkel, who has been in office since November 2005, and is running for a fourth term. The SPD has been the junior partner in a Merkel-run "grand coalition" (Große Koalition) government since December 2013. SPD leaders say that if the party wins at least 30% of the national vote, Schulz will become the next chancellor. In an interview with Der Spiegel, Schulz, 61, said he was the best candidate to replace Merkel, who is 62. "I have worked with Angela Merkel longer than almost anyone outside her party," he said. "I have studied her, gotten to know her." Schulz has eight months to persuade Germans to vote for him. The latest INSA poll shows the CDU (together with its Bavarian sister party, the CSU) with 32.5% of the vote, the SPD with 26%, and the anti-establishment party Alternative for Germany (AfD) in third place with 13%. If the CDU/CSU or the SPD fail to win a majority, they may join forces to form another grand coalition. Either party may also seek to form a coalition government with other smaller parties, particularly the Greens, but all have ruled out entering into a coalition with the eurosceptic AfD. The AfD, which is set to enter the Parliament (Bundestag) for the first time, is uniquely placed to attract voters who are angry about Merkel's decision to allow into Germany more than one million mostly Muslim migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The party, which polled as high as 15.5% in December 2016, has struggled to gain more traction due to internal power struggles and accusations of anti-Semitism. Schulz — a high school dropout whom The Economist magazine described as "pugnacious" and "impulsive" — is campaigning on a platform to unite an increasingly divided German polity. "Germany needs a new start and that cannot happen with the CDU," he said. "We have come to the end of what we can achieve with divided conservatives." The SPD will not unveil its election platform until a party congress in May. But Schulz has already called for tax increases on the wealthy and for fighting the AfD. He has also threatened financial consequences for European countries that refuse to take in more migrants. When a television presenter confronted Schulz about his lack of governing experience, he compared himself to Barack Obama: "I share the fate with Barack Obama. He also had no government experience when he became President of the United States." If elected, Schulz, an ardent Europhile who is committed to European federalism, is sure to work to strengthen the European Union. "I know what's going on in Europe," he said. "I know the strengths and also weaknesses of the European Union." He added: "European politics is German domestic politics and German domestic politics has a powerful effect in Europe. Whoever wants to play those against each other is committing a sin against the future of our children and generations to come." Schulz has argued that the EU must be preserved at any cost: "We are at a historical juncture: A growing number of people are declaring what has been achieved over the past decades in Europe to be wrong. They want to return to the nation-state. Sometimes there is even a blood and soil rhetoric that for me is starkly reminiscent of the interwar years of the past century, whose demons we are still all too familiar with. We brought these demons under control through European structures, but if we destroy those structures, the demons will return. We cannot allow this to happen." He has opposed the idea of holding national referendums on quitting the EU: "Referendums have always posed a threat when it comes to EU policy, because EU policy is complicated. They're an opportunity for those from all political camps who like to oversimplify things." Schulz has also said that the British decision to leave the European Union would facilitate the creation of a European Army: "In the fields of security and defense policy, although the EU loses a key member state, paradoxically such a separation could give the necessary impulse for a closer integration of the remaining member states." Playing the anti-Americanism card, Schulz has expressed his disdain for U.S. President Donald J. Trump, calling him "an obviously irresponsible man sitting in a position that requires the utmost sense of responsibility." He added: "Trump is not just a problem for the EU, but for the whole world." Schulz described Trump's order to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico as "a taboo breach that is intolerable." He also criticized Trump's temporary travel ban for citizens of seven countries deemed to be terrorist safe havens: "I'm sure when European politicians travel to Washington they will explain to the U.S. government that international law and human rights also apply for Donald Trump." Schulz has reserved his worst vitriol for the anti-immigration AfD, whose leaders he has described as "rat catchers" (Rattenfänger) who are "trying to profit from the plight of refugees." He has also called them "shameful and repulsive." Merkel, who up until recently vowed to continue her open-door migration policy, has now promised to consider an annual cap on the number of migrants allowed into Germany. In a rare moment of contrition, she said: "If I could, I would turn back the time by many, many years. If I knew what change in policy people wanted, I would be ready to consider it and to talk about it." In an interview with Welt am Sonntag, Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble admitted that the Merkel government made mistakes with its open-door migration policy. "We have tried to improve what got away from us in 2015," he said. "We politicians are human; we also make mistakes. But one can at least learn from them." Some in the German media are skeptical about Schulz. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote: "As a chancellor candidate, Schulz has announced an election campaign for social justice and the EU. He will not allow 'bashing' of the EU. Can Schulz score points? Like any other German politician, he stands for 'Brussels' as a cipher for a detached and bureaucratic European elite. The alienation between elites and large parts of the population is not only in America. In Germany as well, voters increasingly are turning away from established politics." By contrast, Der Spiegel published a sensational cover story entitled, "Saint Martin" which portrayed Schulz as a supernatural figure — similar to its adulation of Barack Obama eight years ago. The magazine added: "The chancellor's office is worried." Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. Follow Soeren Kern on Twitter and Facebook © 2017 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Internet Sales Tax--More Money For Washington?

Stop Washington’s Latest Tax Grabs

April 26, 2013 by Chip Wood 

PHOTOS.COM

Some 21 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court did us all a huge favor. It ruled that states don’t have the legal authority to tax purchases you made from an out-of-State retailer, unless the retailer had a “physical presence” in your State.

Back in 1992, most of us didn’t purchase all that much from out-of-State companies, so the loss in tax revenue wasn’t significant. But, boy, how times have changed. Today, we buy more than $250 billion worth of stuff from online retailers each year, and that number is expected to rise to $370 billion by 2017. On most of it, we pay no sales tax.

With local and State sales taxes averaging about 10 percent, that’s $25 billion that stays in consumers’ pockets now. Needless to say, there are an awful lot of politicians who want to get their greedy little hands on those funds. You won’t be surprised to learn that the Administration of President Barack Obama wants to make it happen.

In fact, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is so eager to get an Internet sales tax bill passed that he has skipped the normal committee process and is bringing the bill directly to the Senate floor. Word is that he’s lined up several moderate Republicans who will vote in favor of the measure so the big spenders can claim that it has bipartisan support.

And, of course, many State governors love the idea of collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes. Many State budgets are already perilously close to bankruptcy, thanks in large part to the incredibly generous pensions and other benefits that State and local government employees have extracted over the years.

In an editorial supporting passage of the Internet tax bill, USA Today complained that its lack “forces cash-strapped states to raise other taxes, or go into debt, to compensate for the $23 billion in annual uncollected e-commerce sales taxes.” Got that? Forget any nonsense about reducing spending. The only choices those poor States have if this measure isn’t passed is to “raise other taxes, or go into debt.”

But an Internet sales tax is just one of the schemes Washington has come up with to extract more money from you. Several others can be found in the new Federal budget proposal that the White House finally released this month.

The English newspaper the Daily Mail had the best description of Obama’s budget I’ve seen. It called it a mixture of “bad math, phantom revenues, imagined spending cuts and a middle-class tax hike.”

It’s all of that… and more. Among the budget’s optimistic forecasts is that Federal revenues will more than double over the next decade, rising 113 percent by 2023. During the same period, spending will go up “only” 60 percent. But even if both were to happen, deficits would not be eliminated. That’s why the budget calls for the debt ceiling to be raised by another $8 trillion, to $25 trillion.

While we were promised that the long-overdue White House proposals would be replete with “big ideas,” the sad truth is that they are the same old solutions we’ve heard for many years: bigger and bigger government, only partially paid for by higher and higher taxes. Rather than see any reduction in Federal debt, Obama wants to increase it by another $8 trillion.

When he released his budget, the President claimed, “I am willing to make tough choices that may not be popular within my own party, because there can be no sacred cows for either party.” What a bunch of baloney!

The White House claims that the budget contains $2 of spending cuts for every $1 in new taxes. But it’s all a bunch of smoke and mirrors. The so-called spending cuts are a cruel illusion. They are achieved by allowing minor reductions to previously proposed increases. Spending doesn’t go down one thin dime in Obama’s new budget. Instead, it will increase by at least $680 billion over the next five years.

Maybe figures don’t lie. But liars sure can figure.

Yes, there’s a lot not to like in Obama’s budget for fiscal 2014. One of the sneakiest proposals it contains is for the Federal government to change the way cost-of-living increases are calculated, by switching to something called a “chained CPI” (Consumer Price Index). Here’s how the Daily Mail describes the effect of this sleight of hand:

The chained CPI signals a shift in how the federal government will calculate everything from Social Security payouts and congressional pensions to college students’ Pell Grants and veterans’ benefits. Anything tied to cost-of-living increases would be subject to a new formula.

The White House’s budget blueprint suggests that these programs would see $230 billion in costs savings over 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office puts the number at $216 billion.

Does anyone believe that today’s calculations for the consumer price index are anywhere close to being correct? Most of us who live in the real world know that the prices we pay for most things are going up by a heck of a lot more than 2 percent a year.

Now Uncle Sam wants to change the formula to reduce the payouts even further. That doesn’t sound very fair to me. But wait, it gets worse. Switching to a chained CPI will also hit the middle class with a huge new tax increase.

How is that possible? Here’s how the Daily Mail explains it:

The money will come pouring in because the consumer price index also controls income tax brackets, tax filers’ standard deductions, nontaxable contribution limits for 401(k) retirement plans, and more.

So millions of individual Americans will see themselves moved involuntarily to higher tax brackets, and middle-class taxpayers in particular will lose some of the tax credits and deductions that they count on.

Forget all of Obama’s blarney about only the rich being hit by these higher taxes. The brunt of these increases will fall squarely on the middle class. And, of course, the same thing will be true of the costs of Obamacare, which will be fully implemented next year.

Do you remember when Nancy Pelosi said “we have to pass” the badly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to see what’s in it? Pretty soon, we’ll all get to see the higher costs and increased regulations this monstrosity will produce. It won’t be pretty.

So now Congress has three different budgets for 2014 to consider: one passed by Democrats in the Senate, one approved by Republicans in the House and one presented by the White House. All of them call for increased government spending next year. None of them will reduce the deficit by one penny over the next decade.

Margaret Thatcher famously observed that “the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” The big spenders in Washington seem determined to speed the day when that happens in this country.

It seems to me this could be a mighty good time to trade some of your rapidly depreciating dollars for assets of enduring value. I hope you noticed that gold and silver have been on sale recently.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.