Latest news with #VeroniquedeRugy
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: The market usually fails the environment when the government doesn't help
To the editor: Contributing writer Veronique de Rugy is evenhanded when it comes to government subsidies: There should be none for the private sector. Let the market determine winners and losers in the economy ('Good riddance to those green-energy tax breaks. Now keep closing other loopholes,' July 17). When it comes to consumer goods, private enterprise can be an effective allocator of resources, but the market has proved woefully deficient in other ways. It has failed to provide a decent life for all on a healthy planet. Short-term profit has overwhelmed long-term well-being. Corporate dominance has brought us a world fouled by chemical and plastic residues and climate-changing pollution. Even as renewable energy becomes practical and affordable, its relative powerlessness compared with the fossil fuel industry impedes its quick adaptation. Meanwhile China, which has embraced a major role for the government in the economy, is eating our lunch in this regard. Electric vehicle manufacturing and more sustainable artificial intelligence are just two of its recent successes. China is still a major emitter of carbon dioxide, but it leads the world in renewable energy investment. I don't want to live in authoritarian China. I want to live in a democratic USA that recognizes that the market must be supplemented by rational policy. If we don't prioritize humanistic, environmentally friendly policies via government action, they will not prevail. Grace Bertalot, Anaheim .. To the editor: De Rugy appears to present a rational argument: She wants more green energy, but subsidizing it is the wrong way to get there. She says, 'When you compare the size of green versus fossil-fuel subsidies, the difference is staggering.' Nonsense. I would assume an economist such as De Rugy would know the term 'externalities' — that is, social costs that come from economic activity. Burning fossil fuels creates horrendous externalities. Air pollution kills more than 8 million people annually. Carbon emissions from burning coal, oil and gas overheat the planet and cause more frequent and intense heat waves, droughts, floods, rising sea levels and wildfires, which all cost communities billions of dollars. I agree that subsidizing clean energy is not the most effective government policy to correct the energy marketplace. Instead of focusing on subsidies, however, De Rugy should join fellow economists, including some conservative Republicans, who call for mitigating fossil fuel externalities with a tax on carbon pollution. Caroline Taylor, Santa Barbara .. To the editor: De Rugy's support for eliminating green energy subsidies in the 'Big Beautiful Bill' omits vital context. While President Trump didn't get the $1 billion he reportedly sought from the fossil fuel industry during his 2024 campaign, he did receive more than $75 million from various interests associated with fossil fuels. That aligns with his constant 'drill, baby, drill' chants and his bizarre, debunked claims that wind turbines cause cancer. Meanwhile, the country reels from the devastating effects of climate change, from deadly floods in Texas to wildfires in California. The green energy subsidies De Rugy criticizes were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, one of the Biden administration's major successes, backing proven clean energy companies. Let's be honest: This repeal isn't about sound policy. It's about political revenge — and protecting fossil fuel donors. Mark Winkler, Studio City
Los Angeles Times
15-07-2025
- Health
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: How is ‘Medicare for all' ‘unworkable' when universal healthcare works elsewhere?
To the editor: I like reading contributing writers Veronique de Rugy and Matt K. Lewis, thoughtful commentators I often disagree with and always learn from. But this week, they make assertions that get under my skin. De Rugy applauds the use of health savings accounts ('The 'Big Beautiful Bill' got one thing right,' July 10). According to her, they allow people to control their own health decisions. I say they're another way to hide the cracks in our inadequate healthcare system. Lewis calls 'Medicare for all' 'unworkable' ('Will Democrats find an anti-Trump to galvanize the left?,' July 11). That's funny. It works well for many of us over 65. So why is it unworkable for everybody else? So many of us watch those heartbreaking TV commercials for Shriners and St. Jude's children's hospitals. That those institutions need to beg for donations is a terrible indictment of our healthcare system. Shouldn't every citizen have healthcare as a right? That's the way it's done in every other developed country on the planet, with costs far less than what we pay and with superior results. It's way past time for universal healthcare. William Blum, Studio City
Los Angeles Times
28-06-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: The Social Security Fairness Act restored the benefits Americans worked for
To the editor: The Social Security Fairness Act does not give windfall benefits to government workers who did not pay into the system, as contributing writer Veronique de Rugy stated ('Social Security is headed for a cliff. When will voters care?,' June 26). It restores the amount of the monthly benefit the worker receives in their monthly payment (eligibility determined by the worker paying into Social Security for the required 40 quarters) that was cut because the worker also worked for a government entity long enough to draw a pension. I started working at 16 years of age and for the next 19 years, I had Social Security deductions taken from every paycheck. Like many working people, those deductions reduced my take-home pay, but we knew the money would be returned later via our monthly benefit upon retirement. When I applied for Social Security I was notified that due to the pension I was going to receive from my county employment, my monthly Social Security benefit was going to be cut by 50%. For the last nine years I received only half of the Social Security benefit I earned by contributing 19 years of deductions. Thanks to this legislation, which had bipartisan support, Americans are getting the benefits they worked for. Joy Rockport, Valley Glen .. To the editor: Before earning a clear credential in secondary English in 2002, I logged 25 years in the private sector. I give my heartfelt thanks to the Biden administration for recognizing that government workers deserve to benefit from their contributions. I sleep better knowing my retirement will be boosted by an extra $1,800 a month. It seems only fair. Melissa Mazzei, Los Angeles .. To the editor: Several questions arise: First, is it possible that this column exaggerates the peril? As a financial professional, I have witnessed many inaccurate estimates firsthand. Second, why is the role of income inequality neglected? The enormous layer of cream at the top that contributes nothing to the Social Security system is surely worth mentioning. Even a small increase to the Social Security taxable wage base would likely have a huge impact on the projected shortfall. Finally, the headline lays the blame at the feet of the voters. To her credit, de Rugy's column discusses congressional inaction. Much of the public is very busy, many working multiple gigs to pay their bills. Members of Congress are paid to legislate responsibly and to take courageous stands. I ask the author: Have you correctly identified the problem? Susan Wolfson, Glendale .. To the editor: According to my Social Security statement, if I am collecting $4,350 a month in Social Security today, my surviving spouse and minor children can collect up to $5,900 a month, or 36% more than what I am getting while alive. No wonder Social Security is headed for a cliff. Cap the survivor benefit to what the deceased was receiving and limit the duration. Andrew Ko, Glendale
Newsweek
16-05-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Mexico Tax Plan Could Backfire
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Experts warn that Republican plans to tax remittance payments could unintentionally increase migration to the United States. Why It Matters House Republicans have added a provision to President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill" that would impose a 5 percent excise tax on remittance transfers. The legislation was put forward by the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means. The measure, exempting U.S. citizens, would impact more than 40 million people, including green card holders and those on temporary work visas such as H-1B, H-2A, and H-2B. Remittances are money transfers that individuals send to family or friends in their home country, typically from a country where they are working. Millions of immigrants send money back they earn in the U.S to their home countries. What To Know Policy experts are sharply criticizing the proposal, saying it risks backfiring. Rather than deterring migration, as intended, the tax could deepen economic strain in parts of Mexico and Central America that rely on remittances, potentially increasing the pressure on individuals to migrate north in search of work. "Rather than serving as a deterrent, a remittance tax could actually incentivize more migration. If individuals believe they'll need to earn even more to meet family needs due to the remittance penalty, they may be more likely to come—and stay longer—to offset that financial loss," Veronique de Rugy, George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and senior research fellow with the Mercatus Center, told Newsweek. "Remittances are a lifeline for millions of households in Mexico. In many rural areas, they support basic consumption, education, housing, and small-scale investment," De Rugby said. "Taxing these transfers effectively reduces household income in those communities, potentially pushing families back into poverty or forcing them to forgo essential spending. "That, in turn, reduces local demand, suppresses entrepreneurship, and weakens social cohesion in already vulnerable regions." President Donald Trump signs the guest book after touring the Abrahamic Family House in Abu Dhabi on May 16, 2025. President Donald Trump signs the guest book after touring the Abrahamic Family House in Abu Dhabi on May 16, 2025. Alex Brandon/AP In 2023 alone, Mexico received more than $66.2 billion in remittances—primarily from individuals working in the United States—accounting for roughly 4 percent of the country's GDP, according to the Migration Policy Institute. In poorer, rural areas of Mexico with few job opportunities, remittances fund essentials like food, housing, school supplies, and medications. This flow of money often makes it possible for families to remain in their communities rather than risk a dangerous journey north. "There is no question that such a policy would have an impact on certain communities. Remittances pay for everything, including food, clothes, housing, medications, and school supplies," immigration attorney Hector Quiroga told Newsweek. "A decrease of any kind will lead to belt tightening as people are forced to choose between two different necessities or do without some things altogether. The resulting economic impact would spread to local businesses, as the supply of cash would decrease overall," he said. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has already rejected the proposal, calling it unjust and harmful to migrant families. She said it "would damage the economy of both nations and is also contrary to the spirit of economic freedom that the U.S. government claims to defend." Michelle Mittelstadt, director of Communications at the Migration Policy Institute, told Newsweek that it's unclear how much of the remittance flow would be impacted by the proposed tax, since U.S. citizens send some portion. Still, she warned that such a measure could drive people toward unofficial channels. Experts have argued that the policy could inadvertently increase migration to the U.S. rather than deter it. "It's a classic case of economic nationalism backfiring," said de Rugy. "Instead of reducing migration, it may increase the financial desperation that pushes more people to leave home in search of opportunity. "In addition to being economically harmful, this policy sets a troubling precedent. It penalizes lawful financial behavior, distorts labor markets, and risks damaging diplomatic relations with Mexico—all while doing nothing to meaningfully address border security or fiscal sustainability." Quiroga echoed those concerns, saying the tax would likely have unintended consequences. "Some individuals who send remittances to Mexico might conclude that it makes more economic sense to bring family members to the US and support them here rather than send remittances back, remittances that would not be worth as much if taxed at 5 percent," he said. Others warn that even a small cut to remittance income could have ripple effects in low-income communities. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, takes the opposite view, arguing that the tax might discourage migration by reducing its economic benefit. Other high-ranking Trump officials have backed the measures. Vice President JD Vance, then an Ohio senator in 2023, co-sponsored the WIRED Act, which would have imposed a 10 percent fee on remittances out of the U.S. What People Are Saying Veronique de Rugy, George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow with the Mercatus Center, told Newsweek: "The logic of the tax assumes migration is driven purely by opportunity, but in reality, many migrants are responding to economic necessity. Making remittances more expensive only increases the pressure to work longer hours, stay for more years, or bring additional family members to the U.S." Michelle Mittelstadt, director of communications at the Migration Policy Institute, told Newsweek: "More than $66.2 billion in remittances were received by Mexico, chiefly from individuals living in the U.S., in 2023. "This represented 4 percent of Mexico's GDP that year. So U.S. taxation on this flow of money sent by individuals to their families and other loved ones in Mexico could have an effect on remittance sending, though it is not clear at this point 1) what share is sent by U.S. citizens and thus would not be subject to this proposed tax; and 2) whether this tax would prompt people to send money through unofficial channels rather than continuing to use formal money transfer routes." Immigration attorney Hector Quiroga told Newsweek: "I personally don't think that this would have any impact one way or another. While $320 million is a lot of money, the average remittance to Mexico is about $390 per month. Five percent of that is $20. That amount would likely not be enough to dissuade migrants from coming to the United States because the economic opportunity is clearly not available in Mexico, and there really is nowhere else to go." Mark Krikorian, executive director of the right-wing Center for Immigration Studies, said: "One of the main reasons people come here is to work and send money home. If that's much more difficult to do, it becomes less appealing to come here." What Happens Next Critics say the tax is unlikely to stop people from migrating since it does not address the deeper issues driving them to leave, such as poverty and limited job prospects. By cutting into the money families rely on, the policy could worsen conditions in their home countries and push more people to seek work in the U.S.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion: America needs real fiscal reform
A thin majority (52%) of Americans believe it is possible to both balance the federal budget and cut taxes at the same time, while slightly less (48%) believe the budget could be fixed simply by reducing the growth of spending in Washington. An optimist would take comfort that at least a good portion of the public believes fiscal sanity is within reach. Without at least a belief, the nation doesn't stand a chance. But others may say those figures, part of a poll conducted by RMG Research for Napolitan News, demonstrate how few people grasp the challenge of closing an annual deficit that hovers around $2 trillion, let alone what it would take to chip away at a national debt that is nearing $37 trillion. I will always lean toward the optimists, especially when I consider how dire the opposite — total fiscal collapse — would be. But I'm also a realist. Donald Trump's proposed budget doesn't get us there. Oh, it would do a lot of things you might like. You could deduct the interest you pay on car loans. Every baby your family brings into the world would receive a $1,000 savings account as a start on life, with parents or others allowed to add up to $5,000 per year to the account, tax free, until the child is 31. Taxes on tips and overtime earnings would disappear, within limits, and people 65 or older would see an extra $4,000 added to their standard deduction, meaning they would pay less in taxes. Lower taxes will spur economic growth. It would make some deep cuts, including to bureaucracies and redundant programs. But it also chips away at Medicaid, an entitlement program for which states pay about 30%, by pushing more costs onto states, much of which they can't afford. Many poor people would lose services, as was made clear in an analysis sent to two members of Congress earlier this month by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. It may be easier to pick on low-income, needy people than the more well-heeled recipients of Social Security and Medicare. It may be tough to say no to the military. But you can't fix the budget without fixing them first. The proposed budget is 'more rhetorical than revolutionary,' wrote Veronique de Rugy, the George Gibbs Chair in Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center. In a piece published both by Reason magazine and the Cato Institute, she said the cuts may look impressive, but they 'lose luster' when compared to the added spending for the military and border security and the continuation of the 2017 tax cuts. 'And for all its fiery declarations, the budget fails to truly confront the drivers of our fiscal crisis,' she said. Any genuine discussion about fiscal sanity should begin with the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model brief that was released nearly two years ago. It estimated that disaster will come when the nation's total debt equals about 200% of its economic output, or GDP. And, at the time, the scholars there estimated the nation had 20 years, probably less, until that point. Disaster will be triggered when investors believe the U.S. is no longer capable of paying its debts. When that happens, according to the brief authored by Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters, 'no amount of future tax increases or spending cuts could avoid the government defaulting on its debt whether explicitly or implicitly.' The U.S. would have little choice but to inflate the dollar in an attempt to pay off the debt at interest rates that would have to rise in order to attract skittish investors. That would lead to the destruction of wealth and increased unemployment. Viewed against those predictions, both the Trump administration and those who decry his proposed cuts miss the point. Yes, politicians should be more surgical and smart than they are now in cutting. But no one should turn a blind eye to what's at stake. Fifteen years ago, former Wyoming Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican, and Bill Clinton's former chief of staff, Democrat Erskine Bowles, got together and devised a credible plan to save the nation fiscally through strategic tax hikes and budget cuts. No one in Washington wanted to touch it. That was when the national debt totaled only $12 trillion. As de Rugy put it: 'We don't need more of the same; we need evidence of a serious turnaround. Until that happens, we have little choice but to assume that Trump's budget is another big-government blueprint in small-government clothing.' Instead of just believing, maybe Americans should start demanding action while there is still time.
