MyGovCost News

The Government Cost Calculator has been recommended by Lee Doren at OpenMarket.org in “How Much Does Government Spending Cost.”

With never-ending increases in government spending, citizens are often curious how much government actually costs them. In response to this question, The Independent Institute has launched MyGovCost.org, that features the personal government cost calculator to render an account of your individual burden.

One of the best aspects of this calculator is that it will also estimate how much you could earn by privately investing your earnings in the stock market.

The website is directed by economist Dr. Emily Skarbeck, who should be commended for educating the American people on this important issue. Too often we hear talking points about government spending. But, when people really see how government impacts them individually, it may begin to persuade citizens on the need for limited government.

In Tribune Media Services, The Washington Examiner and Townhall.com

In his weekly, nationally syndicated column this morning, “GOP’s first order: Extend the Tax Cuts,” Cal Thomas encouraged voters to visit MyGovCost for a “handy” way of getting a clearer perspective on the implications that an expiration of the tax cuts will have on an individualized level:

To further personalize the cost of allowing the tax cuts to expire, visit a handy government cost calculator called www.mygovcost.org. Type in your level of education, age and current income and the calculator will reveal what future taxes are likely to cost (these are estimates as everyone’s circumstances differ).

You will also see how much your money could earn if you invested in the private sector instead of having it go to the federal government. The enormous interest figure should rebut arguments by Democrats who claim reforming Social Security by allowing money to be invested in the stock market would bankrupt the elderly.

Click here to read the full article...

Voting on Nov. 2nd? Find Out How Much Is Really at Stake

October 25, 2010— In 9 days, you will have the opportunity to walk into a voting booth and make a choice. The health of our economy and financial responsibility of our representatives in Congress are two of the largest concerns being addressed by candidates on both sides of the aisle. The Independent Institute’s latest initiative, MyGovCost.org, demonstrates that regardless of your level of participation in this process on November 2nd, it is important to be educated and informed. Prior to submitting that ballot, you should know—how much is Washington’s spending costing you?

The Government Cost Calculator is a tool developed at MyGovCost.org that enables you, the voter, to receive a personalized report on what Washington’s spending is costing you and how much you’ll be liable for in the growing national debt. MyGovCost Director, Emily Skarbek, encourages voters to utilize the Calculator to become informed about what federal spending programs are really costing. The calculator enables anyone to see how much of their tax dollar go towards funding specific programs so that voters can see what they are forgoing by voting for increased expenditures at the federal level.

For instance, a recent college graduate making $40,000 per year will be expected to pay $734,783 in federal taxes, and even then the federal government deficit and debt will continue to skyrocket. Interestingly, as demonstrated by the Government Cost Calculator, that same individual could have earned $5,042,961 if allowed to privately invest those dollars instead. Those hoping to enter retirement are also being faced with a similarly gloomy financial forecast. At 70 years old, those who are expecting to keep their spending in order during their retirement years face an average of $1, 207 in monthly taxes if current spending trends continue.

So, for those of you hoping to “make your vote count” on November 2nd, don’t go to the ballot box without first arming yourself with the facts. Use the Government Cost Calculator at MyGovCost.org to crunch the numbers with different scenarios depending on your stage in life. Break the spending down by projects. Most importantly, share your results with friends who want to be better informed about excessive federal spending on November 2nd.

To schedule an interview with MyGovCost.org Director, Emily Skarbek, please contact Lindsay Boyd, Director of Communications, at 202.225.7722 or lboyd@independent.org.

For More Information, please visit www.mygovcost.org. Also look for us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/my govcost and Facebook at www.facebook.com/mygovcost!

In this new article on United States transportation infrastructure and spending, Gabriel Roth explains the wasteful spending endemic to the central planning approach taken to transportation. Rather than a leaky bucket, Roth proposes using market forces based on local transportation needs:

“President Obama’s recent announcement of a $50 billion ‘up-front investment’ for ‘renewing and expanding our transportation infrastructure’ raises the obvious question: Why should government officials determine the amounts to be spent on roads, railroads, airport runways and air traffic control?

“It would be nice to have 150,000 miles of well-maintained roads, free of excessive congestion, but the Obama government provides no guidance on how to prioritize the required expenditure.

“Railways: Construct and maintain 4,000 miles of rail—enough to go coast-to-coast.”

“Why 4,000? Why not 1,000? Or 10,000? The administration has provided no rationale for spending anything on fixed-rail passenger service, a technology beloved by socialists everywhere for its easier control of trip origins and destinations.

“When provided by governments, transportation improvements have to compete for funds against other political priorities.

“On the other hand, under a market system, consumers themselves determine priorities by their willingness to pay for them. For example, many road users might prefer to spend less on vehicles and more on roads.

“It is easy to identify at least two types of expenditures to which transportation users would give high priority: First is upgrading unsafe facilities. In 2008, the Department of Transportation categorized 72,868 road bridges as being ‘structurally deficient.’ The National Transportation Safety Board has also questioned the safety of urban rail systems, such as the Washington Metro. Federal grants currently encourage states to extend unsafe systems rather than upgrade them.

“Instead of vying with Congress to determine expenditures on transportation infrastructure, the president should encourage Congress to leave these decisions to the states—which could employ market mechanisms to provide the transportation facilities users are prepared to pay for. . .”

For the full article, please click here.

Dr. Emily Skarbek, Director of the Government Cost Calculator was interviewed on the nationally syndicated web radio blog, “Taking Back America”. During the interview, Dr. Skarbek uses MyGovCost.org to explain the specific effects of rampant government spending for any individual in America. Dr. Skarbek illustrates how an individual can find out what their own personal costs imposed by government are, and what they could have earned instead. Taking action starts at MyGovCost.org

Listen to the audio here

Download the interview here

Dr. Emily Skarbek, Director of the Government Cost Calculator was interviewed on the nationally syndicated radio program, “The Jason Lewis Show” (Premiere Radio Networks). Using MyGovCost.org, Dr. Skarbek explains the effects of rampant government spending for any individual in America.

Listen to the interview here.

Download the mp3 file here.

In a recent article, the new TV, web and mobile media network RightNetwork recommends the Government Cost Calculator:

“A new website created by the Independent Institute—located at www.MyGovCost.org—enables U.S. taxpayers to calculate the cost to themselves of major federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and the economic stimulus package. . . .”

For the full article, please click here.

In a new article in the Washington Examiner, “For a frugal Gal, I have got a lot of debt,” Tina Korbe discusses the merits of the Government Cost Calculator at MyGovCost.org:

“Among my friends, I’m known for my frugality. I budget scrupulously, log every purchase I make in a ledger and often forego even the littlest luxuries. But according to the recently launched Government Cost Calculator on MyGovCost.org, I’m in major debt.

“Thanks to unprecedented federal spending, the current $13.4 trillion national debt will grow to more than $23 trillion by 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office. As a result, according to the Calculator, I face a lifetime tax burden of $633,835. That figure doesn’t even represent my full debt obligation—just the taxes I will likely pay based on my level of educational attainment, age and current income. A few minutes ago, I was excited to be a 22-year-old, recent college graduate with a reasonable annual salary. I’m not as excited now.

“But, according to its creators at The Independent Institute, including economists Emily Skarbek and Craig D. Eyermann, that’s the whole point of the Government Cost Calculator—to wake us up. . . .”

For the full article, please click here.

It must be a condition of employment that a journalist who writes about the current recession include in his article the statement, “consumption makes up more than two-thirds of the economy” or “consumption spending accounts for 70 percent of GDP.” This seemingly simple, factual statement, however, is nearly always intended to carry some explanatory weight, and on occasion the writer spells out this explanation by adding a statement such as, “unless consumers begin to open their wallets and spend more, recovery from the current recession will be impossible.”

At first glance, this journalistic commonplace appears to make sense. Anyone can understand that, say, a store at the mall will not hire additional employees unless its sales increase enough to justify the additional expense. Hence, would-be employees will remain unemployed; they will purchase fewer consumption goods than they would have purchased if they had jobs; and therefore the stores will not hire more workers; and so forth. The circle of a theory of income and employment seems to be closed, and thus an explanation provided for the lingering recession: consumers are not spending enough.

One does not need a Ph.D. in economics, however, to discover that something must be wrong with this way of thinking about prosperity and recession. Checking the national economic accounts produced by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (Table l.l.6), one finds, for example, that the most recent quarterly peak in real personal consumption expenditure occurred in the fourth quarter of 2007. This spending ($9,244 billion at an annual rate) equaled 69.2 percent of contemporary GDP ($13,364 billion at an annual rate) – where the data are expressed in dollars of 2005 purchasing power. Real GDP did not fall significantly until the third quarter of 2008. When it reached its trough in the second quarter of 2009, it had fallen to $12,810 billion, down about 4 percent. At that time, real personal consumption spending was $9,117 billion, down only 1.4 percent, and equal to about 71 percent of GDP. Thus, as usual over the course of a boom and bust, consumption spending varied proportionately less than GDP as a whole.

. . . .

For the full article, please click here.

It’s September, and election season is under way. Marching to the tune of President Obama’s class-based political rhetoric, some candidates for Congress are campaigning on promises to raise taxes significantly on electorally safe targets.

This year’s list of victims includes “the rich,” Wall Street and America’s oil companies.

Those three groups are in Washington’s cross hairs because politicians need ways to generate more revenue—without spoiling their chances at the polls—to pay for the spending spree they have been on since at least the administration of George W. Bush.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, baseline federal outlays have risen by $4.4 trillion (yes, trillion!) in just the past 31 months.

Demonizing Wealth

The rich and Wall Street are both easy targets. Wealth sparks images of Hollywood and corporate excess. Paris Hilton and Bernie Madoff, like Marie Antoinette, would probably advise us to eat cake. In contrast, most Americans cheer genuine economic achievement.

Individual tales of riches based on hard work and innovation rarely make headlines, however.

So when we hear that Washington is considering allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire at year-end, raising the burden on households earning more than $250,000, many think: “Why not?”

But the evidence shows that the top 5% of earners now contribute over 50% of the total income taxes collected by the IRS.

Households reporting incomes exceeding $1 million also contribute more than half of all the money donated to charitable organizations.

Moreover, those same rich Americans often start or run the companies that fuel economic growth. We love a good “Horatio Alger” story—individuals willing to take risks, start new businesses, create employment opportunities and reap profits if they succeed. The process is admired, but Washington now wants to punish the results.

. . . .

For the full article, please click here.