The Death Tax Makes No Economic Sense

 by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – September 23, 2021

 

Years ago, some Washington wag rather aptly renamed the estate tax as the death tax. Sure, it was meant to gain an edge politically, but it also had the added virtue of being more accurate. After all, the “estate tax” name originally was used to score political points as well.

 

The death tax ranks as one of the strangest levies imposed by government. 

 

The current death tax was imposed in 1916. Previous measures went back to the earliest days of our country – but were temporary. The 1797 Stamp Act, imposed to help pay for undeclared war with France, included taxes on the assets of the deceased, wills and bequests. Death taxes were inflicted during the Civil War, but were gone by 1872. And the Spanish-American War saw a death tax instituted from 1898 to 1902. 

 

But the current death tax emerged from the Progressive movement’s emphasis on envy and class warfare, which always run contrary to sound economics.

 

As of September 2021, the death tax imposes a top rate of 40 percent with an exemption level of $11.7 million, and there are efforts afoot to increase taxes at death.

 

So, what’s the problem? There are several.

 

First, there is a basic issue of fairness. After paying many, many taxes over a lifetime, the death tax means that government shows up at death in order to impose a tax on total assets. 

 

Second, a tax on total assets is not exactly good for investment and job creation. The levy discourages efforts to build up businesses, while also increasing the likelihood that firms will have to be sold or even closed. And consider that family businesses can be particularly vulnerable at the time of an owner’s death.

 

Third, resources are diverted away from productive efforts, and wasted on accountants and lawyers to find and set up ways to avoid death taxes.

 

Fourth, many studies have spelled out the broad negative economic effects of death taxes on investment, economic growth and job creation, and in turn also point out that once all of the costs and economic negatives are factored into the equation, the death tax winds up providing no benefit – that is, no net revenue – to the federal government.

 

Given these ridiculous realities of death taxes, we are left with returning to the idea that these levies are imposed simply out of the unsavoriness of envy and class warfare. Indeed, economics makes clear that death taxes shouldn’t exist at all.

 

_________

 

Ray Keating is a columnist, novelist, economist, podcaster and entrepreneur.  Keating has three new books out. Vatican Shadows: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel is the 13ththriller/mystery in the Pastor Stephen Grant series. Get the paperback or Kindle edition at Amazon, or signed books at www.raykeatingonline.com. Past Lives: A Pastor Stephen Grant Short Story is the 14th book in the series. Get the paperback or Kindle edition at Amazon, or signed book at www.raykeatingonline.com. And order the 15^th book in the series What’s Lost? A Pastor Stephen Grant Short Story.

 

The views expressed here are his own – after all, no one else should be held responsible for this stuff, right?

 

You also can order his book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York  from Amazon or signed books  at RayKeatingOnline.com. His other recent nonfiction book is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know. 

 

One of the best ways to enjoy Ray Keating’s Pastor Stephen Grant thrillers and mysteries is to join the Pastor Stephen Grant Fellowship! For the BEST VALUE, consider the Book of the Month Club.  Check it all out at https://www.patreon.com/pastorstephengrantfellowship

 

Also, check out Ray’s podcasts – the Daily Dose of Disney, Free Enterprise in Three Minutes, and the PRESS CLUB C Podcast.

 

Check out Ray Keating’s Disney news and entertainment site at www.DisneyBizJournal.com.

Free Enterprise in Three Minutes with Ray Keating – Episode #84: What Government Needs to Get Right to Help the Economy

 Ray Keating explains what limited government needs to do so that the economy functions properly.

Free Enterprise in Three Minutes with Ray Keating – Episode #60: 5 Policy Promises Needed for Post-Coronavirus Economy

Ray Keating considers what the economy will need once we have the coronavirus at a manageable stage in terms of economic policymaking.

Tune in here, or click the graphic above.

This Economist’s 4 Top Coronavirus Concerns

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – March 31, 2020

Coronavirus concerns continue to mount in terms of illnesses, deaths, and the economy. And unfortunately, it promises to get much worse, before it gets better.

As for those who have been touting this as not a big deal – you know, saying it’s not as bad as the flu, and/or asserting that U.S. businesses and the economy will get back to work in a couple of weeks – they’ve proven to be more grossly ill-informed than the rest of us who are trying to navigate these uncharted waters.

Some of the politics have reached new depths of, well, stupidity – and that’s saying something. It’s been sad to see so many people peddling the idea that the warnings about the coronavirus had nothing to do with science and the track record of the virus in other nations, but instead, claimed that it was some kind of political conspiracy. By the way, one almost has to admire the steadfastness among some of them, as they continue to make such bizarre claims even as the cases mount in the United States. (Geez, just how deep does this conspiracy run?)

Looking ahead, here are my 4 top concerns as an economist and a human being:

1) The top concern and priority – and the reason that so much of the economy has been shut down – remains working to limit and stop the spread of the coronavirus, and its impact in terms of those infected, the numbers needing hospitalization, and of course, the tragic deaths. If you’re not operating from that as a first principle, then there’s something wrong with you. Unfortunately, even as the virus continues to spread in the U.S., an assortment of commentators callously emphasize the need for businesses to re-open now and for people to get back to work immediately, with some even questioning why state and local government officials have taken the actions they have. Yes, there are concerns about what the government is doing, but those are legitimate worries over the longer haul – as I will note in a moment – not in terms of the largely necessary steps that have been taken so far in the name of saving lives.

2) As the coronavirus continues to spread across the globe, the broader move into developing countries could turn into something far worse than what’s been seen in assorted developed nations, given how weak – or nearly nonexistent – health care systems and services are in those countries. The work for all of us will not stop when matters are brought down to manageable levels in the U.S.

3) The immediate drop in the U.S. economy promises to be historic. The government’s call to shut down large swathes of economic activity was the right one, and the massive aid bill (CARES Act) that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump was necessary (though certainly not everything in it was needed or even related to what’s going on) to limit some of the short-term pain. But the downturn in the economy that started in March promises to be historic, and likely will last at least into the third quarter of this year – no matter the short-run aid doled out by the government.

4) The same short-run aid provided by government will serve as a longer run negative for the economy. Anytime government drains resources from the private sector (as is the case with this massive federal package), whether via borrowing or taxes, it will serve as an economic negative. So, while the CARES Act will help many in the short run (assuming government executes matters quickly – a big assumption), the same measure promises to restrain on any economic recovery. 

And the economic recovery/expansion that hopefully starts late this year or early next will be further hampered if the current expansion of government controls are not rolled back fully. The surest path to a slow recovery – or even a double-dip recession – would involve politicians feeling empowered to spend, regulate, borrow and tax more, along with the Fed continuing to believe in its nonexistent ability to manage the economy. That’s a recipe for long-run economic decline. Indeed, this very phenomenon coming out of the late-2007-to-mid-2009 recession meant that the subsequent recovery/expansion period turned out to be grossly under-performing in terms of economic growth.

Our focus currently needs to be on saving lives, and when things are under control at home, helping those in other countries. This is what the United States does. That’s all vital from a love-our-fellow-man perspective, as well as, secondarily so, an economic viewpoint. Looking a bit further down the road, our humanitarian and economic concerns further coalesce in that we need government to then step back, and allow the private sector to invest, recover and grow, and trade to flourish – thereby creating businesses and jobs, driving up incomes, and creating the wealth that will allow us to aid others around the world and be better prepared for future crises.

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, an economist, a novelist (his latest novels are The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^thbook in the series, and the second edition of Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel with a new Author Introduction), a nonfiction author (among his recent works is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know), a podcaster, and an entrepreneur. You can also order his forthcoming book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York– signed books or for the Kindle. The views expressed here are his own.

State of Liberalism in 2020: Still Advancing, Still Incoherent

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – March 27, 2020

What is it about liberalism (that is, modern-day, not classical, liberalism) that it continues to advance on the policy front, even though it’s intellectually incoherent?

I asked pretty much the same question when I wrote an assessment of liberalism twenty years ago. At that time, I pointed out that most liberal thinkers – whether in academia, or penning essays – chose to ignore serious inquiry in favor of shilling for Democrats and appealing almost purely to emotion.

That wasn’t always the case, but it’s hard to seriously argue otherwise in terms of where liberalism stands today. 

Think about it for just a moment. What serves as the foundation for many prominent positions widely accepted on the Left, such as partial-birth abortion; Supreme Court justices free to redefine the U.S. Constitution as they see fit; ever-expansive government without concern about how higher taxes, for example, might affect the economy; the growing acceptance of and advocacy for socialism even though it is undermined by economic common sense and history; treating government regulation as costless; blind acceptance of nearly everything served up by environmental activists; opposition to free trade; buttressing the spread of group victimhood with little regard for personal responsibility; participating in a naïve revision of history whereby anyone or any entity in the past that undertook anything that isn’t seen as pure in terms of 2020 left-wing preferences must be entirely condemned (with apologies and compensation sought out, somehow); perpetuating Marxist drivel regarding workers being exploited by and pitted against business owners; establishing a belief system, to the extent it might exist, that transforms Christianity, for example, into nothing more than a vehicle for “social justice;” and supplanting exploration of right, wrong and truth with a lazy relativism?

There really are four possible answers that I can think of in terms of what undergirds this shallow hodge-podge. The first is that true liberal thinkers have become nearly extinct; replaced by left-wing writers, professors and think tanks that simply take their cues from the special interests that dominate the Democratic Party, such as environmentalists, radical feminists, and so on. Political talking points have replaced thoughtful analysis.

The second possibility is that liberal “thinkers” have become far more radicalized, but continue to serve as the intellectual foundation, such as it is, of the Democratic Party. 

Third, this kind of liberalism is rooted in feelings and emotions, rather than serious thought and reflection, and therefore, fits our times quite neatly. Indeed, this seems to me to be the most powerful factor in play in terms of the current state of liberalism. While liberalism has been moving down this feelings/emotions track for quite some time – in fact, for decades – it has reached a level that it now almost completely dominates the Left.

There’s also the question of how much liberalism led to the spread of a feelings-over-thinking culture, and/or how such a culture impacted liberalism.

Either way, liberals have moved from trying to think through ideas, philosophies and policies in a quest for the best answer or (dare I write it?) the truth (albeit, though, often coming up with the wrong answers), to trying to formulate arguments that support an increasing preference for feelings over truth, thinking and analysis.

Liberalism today boils down to asking: How do you feel about this or that? And then liberal professors, thinkers and writers work to dress up or legitimize those feelings for more “intellectual” consumption. Those feelings also are or become a political movement that often finds a home in the Democratic Party, and is manifested in people like President Barack Obama and all of the Democratic presidential contenders who were in the 2020 race.

Coherent? No. Politically effective? It’s hard to argue with in terms of the results.

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, an economist, a novelist (his latest novels are The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^thbook in the series, and the second edition of Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel with a new Author Introduction), a nonfiction author (among his recent works is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know), a podcaster, and an entrepreneur. You can also order his forthcoming book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York– signed booksor for the Kindle. The views expressed here are his own.

2008, Obama, Trump and 2% Growth

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – March 11, 2020

Amidst banter over the economy on Fox Business News early this week, reporter Susan Li asked, “What’s wrong with two percent growth?” Well, actually, a heck of a lot.

Now, I’m not picking on Ms. Li, in particular, as many of her colleagues in the financial news business think that two percent real economic growth is just dandy. Indeed, in the political world, it apparently depends on who happens to be sitting in the Oval Office as to whether or not two percent growth is good or bad. For example, Republicans criticized a recovery/expansion period under President Obama in which economic growth averaged 2.2 percent, but Democrats argued it was just great. And now, with the Trump presidency, real growth averaging 2.5 percent is a downright great economy, according to Trump and the GOP.

To put this all in perspective, since 1950, real GDP growth has averaged 3.3 percent, and during economic recovery/expansion periods (that is, factoring out recessions), growth averaged 4.4 percent. So, 2 percent, 2.3 percent or 2.5 percent doesn’t cut it.

Some actually ask: What real difference does this make? 

Well, consider the “Rule of 70.” What is that? Divide 70 by the average annual real rate of growth, and one arrives at the number of years it takes for GDP, income or living standards to double. At 5% annual growth, it takes 14 years for real living standards to double, while at 1%, it would take 70 years. At 2 percent, it takes 35 years for living standards to double, while at 3.3 percent, it’s 21 years. These differences matter, having substantive effects on human beings. 

Last month, Barack Obama tweeted about his signing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 11 years earlier, claiming that it paved “the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation in American history.” Naturally, President Trump had to respond, “Did you hear the latest con job? President Obama is now trying to take credit for the Economic Boom taking place under the Trump Administration. He had the WEAKEST recovery since the Great Depression, despite Zero Fed Rate & MASSIVE quantitative easing. NOW, best jobs numbers ever.”

And on it goes. Quite frankly, neither of these guys should be all that excited about the economy of the past 11-plus years in which they resided in the White House. 

The December 2007 to mid-2009 recession still matters, in a certain sense. Again, in terms of the key economic number, real GDP growth from 1950 to 2007 averaged 3.6 percent. From 2008 to the end of 2019, growth averaged a mere 1.7 percent, that is, less than half of where we should be.

To further drive home the problem, let’s focus on the full years during this current economic recovery/expansion period, that is, from 2010 to 2019. If the U.S. economy had grown at an average rate of 4 percent (not even at the 4.4 percent historical norm), then the 2019 economy (measured by real GDP) would have been $3.5 trillion larger in 2012 dollars than it actually was. That’s $3.5 trillion in real lost output!

Indeed, 2008 matters. The credit meltdown and falling into what often is referred to as the Great Recession left a deep mark. Some lost faith in free enterprise. Others came to fear trade and immigration. Still others came to see government as some kind of savior. In reality, the lesson from the 2008 economic mess and its aftermath should be the gross failure of government. 

For example, an aggressive “affordable housing” regulatory and spending agenda incentivized bad loans and laid the foundation for the housing/mortgage mess. Government bailouts, stimulus efforts and loose money failed to revive strong economic growth. We should have snapped back from that deep recession, but we didn’t. Increased taxes and regulations made matters worse, and played key roles in a poor recovery. And the U.S., under Obama, moved to the global sidelines in terms of international trade, and then, under Trump, moved aggressively in a protectionist direction. That hasn’t worked out, with U.S. businesses facing increased costs, fewer opportunities and reduced incentives for investment, and trade paring back economic growth, rather than feeding it as had been the case for most of the post-World War II period.

The tax and regulatory relief achieved so far under the Trump administration has been a plus, but it has not been enough given what happened under Obama, and given Trump’s own costly trade, government spending and, in certain areas, regulatory (like antitrust) policies.

No, two percent growth is not positive, and it should not be considered the norm for the U.S. economy. A pro-growth agenda of substantive and permanent tax and regulatory relief, advancing free trade, reining in government spending and monetary policy focused on price stability would get the U.S. back on a robust path of economic growth, which would make a real difference for every American.

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, an economist, a novelist (his latest novels are The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^thbook in the series, and the second edition of Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel with a new Author Introduction), a nonfiction author (among his recent works is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know), a podcaster, and an entrepreneur. You can also order his forthcoming book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York – signed books or for the Kindle. The views expressed here are his own.

Free Enterprise in Three Minutes with Ray Keating – Episode #54: Wrongheaded Assumptions on Taxes and Government from Mayor Pete (SPECIAL DOUBLE ISSUE – 6-Plus Minutes)

In this podcast episode of Free Enterprise in Three Minutes, Ray Keating focuses on three big mistaken assumptions that lead Pete Buttigieg, running to be the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, and a host of other politicians far astray on matters of government spending and taxes.

Tune in here.

Presidential Elections Mean Wall Street Talking Heads Slip into Denial

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – February 24, 2020

Well, 2020, of course, is a presidential election year, so get ready for some ridiculous political analysis courtesy of various Wall Street, business, and even on occasion, free-market analysts. Many will be in denial regarding what candidates pledge to do on assorted policy issues.

And given that the race for the White House this year will feature a hard-Left Democrat – with socialist Bernie Sanders in front at least for now – against the populist Donald Trump, who exhibits no self-control while on Twitter or near a hot microphone, denial might be ramped up in unprecedented ways. 

Why the denial? As a recent Fox Business article by Randy Swan opened, “Conventional wisdom has long held that investors should dismiss most of what they hear from presidential candidates on the campaign trail.”

Consider a few examples. When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, assorted business – and even a few free-market – analysts argued that if elected, Obama certainly wouldn’t carry through on his agenda of expanding government’s role in health care, raising taxes, and pushing ahead with protectionist measures on trade – as he most clearly pledged to do on the campaign trail. 

Yet, Obama and Congress imposed ObamaCare; taxes were increased under ObamaCare and at the start of 2013; and while Obama thankfully didn’t push ahead with his protectionist promises, he did largely move the U.S. to the policy sidelines when it came to trade, until his support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade accord very late in his administration and to no avail.

So, contrary to widespread assumptions among assorted Wall Street talking heads, Obama pretty much did what he promised to do.

And then there was Donald Trump’s strident anti-free-trade rhetoric on the campaign trail. Many in the chattering class tried to assure investors that Trump wouldn’t go protectionist and/or start a trade war. After all, the argument went, no one would benefit. Well, of course, no one would benefit, yet, Trump shifted U.S. trade policy into a protectionist mode – pulling the U.S. out of the TPP; threatening and imposing higher tariffs on an array of products; attacking our closest trading partners with threats and/or the imposition of costly trade policies; and yes, starting a trade war with China.

So, despite assurances emanating from various “experts,” Trump did exactly what he said he would do on trade.

Go figure.

Why are the carriers of conventional wisdom in denial? Part of it might be a belief that politicians will say anything to get elected, so why believe them? While one is tempted to buy into that, in reality, most people run for the White House for a reason, and even if they seek power, it is power to do something.

More likely, the conventional wisdom-eers actually seem to think that politicians are too smart to do what they’ve promised to do, such as raising taxes, getting government more involved in health care, and engaging in trade wars. Wow, that really is denial!

Politicians have long served up dumb ideas that, for example, fly in the face of sound economics, and they’ll continue doing this, as evidenced by an astounding number of bad ideas being served up by Democrats seeking the White House this year. They, in fact, aren’t smart enough not to believe it. That was the case with Obama and taxes; is the case with Trump and trade; and most certainly is the case with, for example, Bernie Sanders and socialism, and Pete Buttigieg falling in love with seemingly every tax imaginable to man.

Don’t be talked into anything else. In the end, playing the denial game when it comes to politicians willing to do what they promise is highly dangerous. As is often the case with conventional wisdom, it’s dead wrong once again. Investors and everyone else should take what they hear from presidential candidates on the campaign trail very seriously.

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, an economist, a novelist (his latest novels are The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^thbook in the series, and the second edition of Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel with a new Author Introduction), a nonfiction author (among his recent works is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know), a podcaster, and an entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own.

Free Enterprise in Three Minutes - What Caused the Great Depression?

NEW EPISODE OF FREE ENTERPRISE IN THREE MINUTES! Episode #16: What Caused the Great Depression?

The Great Depression is mistakenly blamed on market failure. In reality, the economy sank into and persisted in a depression due to government failure. The Great Depression was all about trade protectionism, tax increases, massive increases in government spending, and unprecedented regulation.

Tune in at

http://www.buzzsprout.com/155969/751301-episode-16-what-caused-the-great-depression

Free Enterprise in Three Minutes - Yes, Taxes Matter

New Episode of Free Enterprise in Three Minutes with Ray Keating - Episode #14: Yes, Taxes Matter - Ray Keating asks: Why do so many economists – including supply-side economists, like myself – favor tax relief and oppose tax increases? Are we just evil, greedy people? Of course not. Taxes matter to everyone due to the various ways taxes impact incentives, opportunity and economic growth.

Tune in at

http://www.buzzsprout.com/155969/734280-episode-14-yes-taxes-matter

Free Enterprise in Three Minutes: The Big 5 Policies for Growth

Episode #6: The Big 5 Policies for Growth - What are the policies that allow economic growth to flourish? Ray Keating highlights the “Big 5” policy or institutional requirements that are essential to allowing economic growth to flourish.

Listen at iTunes at https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/free-enterprise-in-three-minutes-podcast-with-ray-keating/id1349576104

Or at Buzzsprout at http://www.buzzsprout.com/155969/666862-episode-6-the-big-5-polices-for-growth

Government's Incentives to Spend

My latest Real Clear Markets column - incentives inside government push for more spending and higher taxes. Go to

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/02/01/its_naive_to_assume_salt_changes_will_reduce_state_spending_103129.html

Throwback Thursday: Elections Do Not Repeal Laws of Economics

by Ray Keating

As we watch the carnage of the 2016 presidential election process, it pays to keep in mind that policy matters, and that so-called smart people frequently make bad economic policy decisions. The following column, which originally ran in Long Island Business News in November 2008, debunked the idea served up by many at the time that Barack Obama was just too smart to actually carry through on the policies he supported during the campaign. We, unfortunately, have learned that Obama actually meant what he said, as I argued at the time…

Politics and elections do not repeal the laws of economics.

This fact of life tends to irritate many politicians. On the campaign trail, they pander for votes, and put forth the idea that government can do just about anything. It can tax, regulate, and spend with impunity.

Of course, it’s a complete myth that fundamental economics can be repealed by political rhetoric or legislation. And that is the harsh reality that confronts President-elect Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats who will have larger majorities in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate come January.

During his time in the U.S. Senate and on the presidential campaign trail, Obama had very little use for sound economics. For example, he put forth an agenda featuring higher taxes on successful entrepreneurs and investors, as well as on energy companies. Obama also revealed protectionist leanings on the trade front. And he exhibited few qualms about embracing more government spending or an activist regulatory agenda.

Economics 101 tells us that all of this would mean higher costs for businesses and consumers, and bad news for an already-reeling economy.

But in the days leading up to and following the election, assorted experts and talking heads on television have assured everyone not to worry. After all, as we have been told over and over again, Obama is a smart fellow, and he will surround himself with other smart people.

The point, or hope, seems to be that Obama and his aides are just too intelligent to actually try to put his campaign agenda into law. After all, these smart people are not going to do anything that would jeopardize Obama getting re-elected in four years.

There are two major problems with this line of reasoning.

First, history is rich with so-called smart people who made – to put it less than delicately – dumb decisions. That list includes a variety of U.S. presidents. Let’s recall that Herbert Hoover was very smart. In fact, so were Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. Yet, these smarty-pants made some of the worst economic policy decisions in our nation’s history; decisions that rattled the nation and the globe. Hoover and Carter also wanted to be reelected, but were booted out of office by big numbers.

Second, the unsavory implication is that Obama did not really believe all of those things he declared and proposed during the campaign. It was just what had to be said to get the Democratic nomination, and then to win the White House.

I don’t believe that. I take the president-elect at his word. If you look at Obama’s short voting record in the Senate and his campaign proposals, they reveal a consistent liberal philosophy that favors bigger government, more regulation, and higher taxes, along with skepticism of free trade.

In the real political world, smart people make bad decisions all of the time. Political ideology, poll watching and/or simple emotion often overwhelm or blind elected officials to sound economic thinking.

Where then is the hope for the economy? Well, at least on the policy front, there isn’t a heck of a lot. We’re in a bad economy right now, and most of the policy proposals offered by President-elect Obama will, at best, do nothing to help, or at worst, make matters worse.

One hope is that President-elect Obama and his staff will quickly learn through on-the-job training what policies make for sound economics, and which ones do not.

But our best hope comes from the private sector – from the innovative entrepreneurs, the risk-taking investors, the courageous small business owners, and their hard-working employees. These are the people who will have to find ways to survive and thrive in what is likely to be an increasingly hostile policy climate. Through their ingenuity, they must find avenues around governmental obstacles in order to move ahead, in order to grow the economy, in order to create new jobs. Unfortunately, this already difficult task looks like it will only grow harder in the immediate future.

______________

Mr. Keating is an economist and novelist who writes on a wide range of topics. His Pastor Stephen Grant novels have received considerable acclaim, including The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel being a finalist for KFUO radio’s Book of the Year 2014, and Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel winning for Book of the Year 2015.

The Pastor Stephen Grant Novels are available at Amazon…

Murderer’s Row: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

The River: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

An Advent for Religious Liberty: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel

Warrior Monk: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel