Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > Budget and Taxation

Looking Back on the Tax Rebate

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:36:00 EDT

Writing in the WSJ, Martin Feldstein calls the recent tax rebate a flop:

Congress enacted the tax rebate program earlier this year because it perceived a growing risk of recession. In addition, it feared monetary policy alone would not be effective because of the dysfunctional credit markets. As American taxpayers know, most of the rebate checks have now been mailed and cashed.

Those of us who supported this fiscal package reasoned that the program would boost consumer confidence as well as available cash. We hoped the combination would cause households to spend a substantial fraction of the rebate dollars, leading to more production and employment. An optimistic and influential study by economists at the Brookings Institution projected that each dollar of revenue loss would increase real GDP by more than a dollar if households spent at least 50 cents of every rebate dollar.

The evidence is now in and that optimism was unwarranted. Recent government statistics show that only between 10% and 20% of the rebate dollars were spent. The rebates added nearly $80 billion to the permanent national debt but less than $20 billion to consumer spending. This experience confirms earlier studies showing that one-time tax rebates are not a cost-effective way to increase economic activity.

More here.

John Stossel on Entitlements

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:30:00 EDT

In his column today, John Stossel points out the irony of "entitlement" programs:

That's the government's ironic term for programs that transfer money from people who earned it to people who didn't.

Entitlement? How can you be entitled to someone else's money?

Irony aside, entitlements are taking up a growing portion of the federal budget and, as Stossel points out, this comes with serious consequences:

Today's big problem with entitlements is that their growth will soon eat everything in the federal budget.
Last month, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the growth of government spending and deficits for Rep. Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.), ranking member of the Budget Committee. The report estimated that spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which in 2007 represented about 8 percent of GDP, would balloon to 14.5 percent in 2030 and 25.7 percent in 2082.

There is no way that can fly.

If you add in all other spending, including interest on the debt, federal spending under the CBO's scenario would eat up an astounding 75.4 percent of GDP in 2084.

If taxes don't keep pace, the CBO says the "additional spending will eventually cause future budget deficits to become unsustainable ..."

And if taxes were to keep pace? The CBO says, "[T]ax rates would have to more than double."

More here.

Another Reason Tax Increases Are A Bad Idea

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 20 May 2008 09:39:00 EDT

Economists and policymakers often debate the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. Everyone essentially agrees that increasing rates will shrink the size of the economy but discouraging work and investment, but the question is will it shrink it by so much that it actually decreases federal revenue?

This piece in today's Wall Street Journal presents evidence that regardless of the top marginal tax rates, federal revenue is pretty consistent as a share of GDP:

The federal tax "yield" (revenues divided by GDP) has remained close to 19.5%, even as the top tax bracket was brought down from 91% to the present 35%. This is what scientists call an "independence theorem," and it cuts the Gordian Knot of tax policy debate.

The data show that the tax yield has been independent of marginal tax rates over this period, but tax revenue is directly proportional to GDP. So if we want to increase tax revenue, we need to increase GDP.

What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case Hauser's Law says it will also lower tax revenue. That's a highly inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy, and it flies in the face of deeply felt beliefs about social justice. It would surely be unpopular today with those presidential candidates who plan to raise tax rates on the rich - if they knew about it.

Although Hauser's Law sounds like a restatement of the Laffer Curve (and Mr. Hauser did cite Arthur Laffer in his original article), it has independent validity. Because Mr. Laffer's curve is a theoretical insight, theoreticians find it easy to quibble with. Test cases, where the economy responds to a tax change, always lend themselves to many alternative explanations. Conventional economists, despite immense publicity, have yet to swallow the Laffer Curve. When it is mentioned at all by critics, it is often as an object of scorn.

Because Mr. Hauser's horizontal straight line is a simple fact, it is ultimately far more compelling. It also presents a major opportunity. It seems likely that the tax system could maintain a 19.5% yield with a top bracket even lower than 35%.

What makes Hauser's Law work? For supply-siders there is no mystery. As Mr. Hauser said: "Raising taxes encourages taxpayers to shift, hide and underreport income. . . . Higher taxes reduce the incentives to work, produce, invest and save, thereby dampening overall economic activity and job creation."

Unfortuantely, it seems that for many, soaking the rich is the purpose of raising taxes -- it isn't about getting more tax revenue at all. But for those who sincerely want to increase prosperity it seems this should be must reading.

Happy Tax Freedom Day

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:47:00 EDT

Congratulations, it's Tax Freedom Day! Check out this report for more details. In a nutshell, American workers have finally worked enough (Jan. 1 to April 23rd) to pay this year's tax obligations at the federal, state, and local levels. Ouch. That's almost four full months of working for Uncle Sam. Luckily, our friends at the Tax Foundation have created a music video to lighten the mood:

Trade as Diplomacy

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:07:00 EDT

Debates about free trade mostly revolve around economics, for obvious reasons. And certainly the fact that passing the Columbian Free Trade Agreement will create more jobs here and give Americans access to a broader array of goods at lower prices is reason for policymakers to support the bill. But it is often overlooked that trade agreements also have an important role to play in public diplomacy. Trade agreements build better relations and are a kind of reward to our allies since they also gain access to American consumers. This is especially true for Columbia an imnportant ally in a region increasingly dominated by American-hating Hugo Chavez.

Robert Novak writes today about how labor is derailing the agreement and that American labor unions are effectively being influenced by the Chavez regime itself:

Colombia has fought a long, successful battle against leftist guerillas supported and financed by Chavez. As a faithful U.S. ally, Uribe has been astounded by the fate of the trade agreement. Since it was signed in November 2006, not one congressional hearing has been held. To please Democrats, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab has gone back to Bogota and won changes on labor and environmental issues. Even now, she is willing to add trade adjustment subsidies for displaced workers in quest of a bipartisan deal. But nothing budges labor.

Schwab's pleas to Democrats are about bread and butter. The agreement removes a $200,000 tariff on Caterpillar off-road tractors going into Colombia, producing thousands of jobs for Americans. Under the Andean Trade Preference Act recently extended by Congress, Colombia has nearly total duty-free access into the United States, but the AFL-CIO insists it cannot approve the agreement because of the way Colombian unions are persecuted.

A rare insight into what the Uribe regime really thinks is going on was provided me by Vice President Francisco Santos on one of the many trips to Washington by senior Colombian officials to court congressional support. Santos told me Chavez's controlled labor unions in Venezuela are in close touch with Colombia's leftist unions, who in turn influence the AFL-CIO. Thus, the labor intransigence in Washington can be traced to Caracas.

The turn away from free trade is alarming. A huge step backward for our economy and for our ability to positively influence the rest of the world. Liberal--especially students on college campus who tend to thoughtlessly jump on the anti-trade bandwagon--should consider what message this sends to the rest of the world.

Sentence of the Day

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:16:00 EDT

"Federal spending is lower in areas where there is less press coverage of the local members of Congress."

Tyler Cowen has more information over at Marginal Revolution.

Understanding Tax Policy

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 12:29:00 EST

The Center for Freedom and Prosperity has released a couple of great videos that make a relatively confusing economic concept--the Laffer Curve--simple. The first explains the basic idea that tax policy affects economic activity, and therefore that the way to maximize government revenue isn't to jack up tax rates. In fact, when tax rates are much too high, cutting taxes can actually lead to increased revenue. The second video looks at this dynamic in action. It examines the data showing how changes to different tax regimes in the past have affected government revenue.

I'm not doing justice to the videos: I fear I make them sound dry, but they're not. Take a look and forward to anyone you think could use an education on the Laffer Curve and the effects of tax policy.

Art Laffer on Rebates

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:42:00 EST

In today's Wall Street Journal Art Laffer (of Laffer Curve fame) shows the incentive problems surrounding the economic stimulus package:

In this world of ours, those resources going to the rebate recipients don't come from the Tooth Fairy. They have to come from workers and producers. If the resources come from workers and producers who thereby receive less for their work than they otherwise would have received, won't they in turn spend less? Of course they'll spend less, and the people who now supply them with less will also spend less, and so on down the line.

As my former colleague and friend Milton Friedman liked to say, "There's no such thing as a free lunch," and this rebate is exactly what he meant. The net effect is that the reduction in demand from those who pay the real resources will be exactly the same size as the increase in demand from the rebate recipients. It's sad but true. Income effects always net to zero in a closed system.

Or, to explain it another way:

To see this point from a more generic standpoint, if the price of apples rises, it is true that apple growers are better off. Their income effects go way up, and they can spend more. But apple consumers are worse off because their incomes go down by the exact same amount, and they have to spend less.

All of the stimulative effects of the rebate to the recipients will be 100% offset by the destimulative effects of the increase in liabilities of the workers and producers who have to pay for the transfer of resources to the rebate recipients. There is no stimulus from a rebate, period.

IWF Policy Brief #13: Congress Should Commit to Restraining Spending

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:51:00 EST

Executive Summary

As Congress considers how to boost the economy, they should begin by ceasing behavior that harms the economy: this means ending wasteful government spending and reforming entitlement programs to reduce the government's implicit debt.

Federal spending has been growing at a pace that outpaces inflation and population growth. While some of this growth can be justified as necessary to fund the war effort and national security activities, non-defense discretionary spending grew by more than a third in real terms since 1999.

Discussions of spending restraint often focus on eliminating government waste and frivolous earmarks-important goals to be sure. Yet the most important budgetary problem facing the government is the growing cost of entitlement programs. Already more than half of the federal budget is on autopilot. Social Security and Medicare alone consume 40 percent of the federal budget. As the baby boomers retire, the costs of these programs will swell. If nothing is done to address their costs, spending on other programs (including defense) will be crowded out, taxes will have to rise dramatically, or we will incur massive new debt.

Policymakers should act soon to control spending, both by ending government waste and by reforming entitlement programs.

Podcast Alert: Economic Stimulus Package

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:22:00 EST

Over on the podcast page, Carrie Lukas and I discuss the proposed economic stimulus package and the general state of the American economy.

Give it a listen here.

Start With Spending Restraint

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:46:00 EST

National Review Online

Congress is back in town this week, and will resume its power struggle with the administration. The president may be a lame duck, but he closed out the 2007 legislative year by winning a budget battle. It was an important show of presidential strength for an administration entering its final year. Yet sadly, it was no big win for fiscal conservatism, a philosophy that's been under assault.

Just how bad has the start of this millennium been for budget hawks? Think back to 1999. The United States was engaged in a war in Kosovo, we were worried about Y2K, and president Clinton was entering his last year in office. Total federal spending was $1.7 trillion.

Since that time we've added more than another trillion dollars to the federal budget. Even after adjusting for inflation, spending has increased by about a third over the last eight years.

There are understandable reasons for some of the increase in our budget: Most notably, America's population has grown - though not nearly as fast as spending. The total population in 1999 was 273 million; today it's 304 million. Yet the federal government now spends about $9,000 per person, nearly $3,000 more than was spent in 1999. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of the reason for the federal budget's tremendous growth, but domestic spending has also been on the rise: Non-defense discretionary spending grew by more than a third in real terms since 1999.

Imagine if Washington had grown only at the rate of inflation plus population growth since 1999. Not only would America have no federal deficit, but we would have hundreds of billions of dollars of surplus. Even if politicians had merely held the line on non-defense discretionary spending, our deficit would be nearly $100 billion lower.

Policymakers can justify some of the additional spending as necessary in the post-911 world. But just as surely as we've needed investments in homeland security and intelligence, plenty of the federal budget has deserved cuts. And let's be honest: Returning to 1999 spending wouldn't exactly be a journey to Spartan frugality. The Citizens for Government Waste found $12 billion of pork that year, which would have been a good place to start the trimming.

Nearly all of the current crop of presidential aspirants has tried to claim the mantel of "fiscal responsibility." Democrats primarily use the term to call for rolling back tax cuts, ostensibly in hopes of eliminating the deficit, while Republicans refer to a return to spending restraint. Yet the real budgetary challenge for the next President won't be the yearly tug-of-war with Congress over appropriations or tax cuts. In truth, our fiscal future largely will be determined by entitlement spending.

This year, less than half the federal budget was actively allocated by our elected officials; the rest was on autopilot. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security accounted for more than 40 percent of total spending by Washington. As the baby-boomers retirement accelerates, these costs will skyrocket. The nonpartisan Concord Coalition projects that without serious reform (primarily of these big three entitlement programs), mandatory spending and interest on debt could consume all federal revenue by 2020. Nothing would be left for other domestic priorities, even for defense.

For the most part, the 2008 presidential candidates (with the exception of Senator Fred Thompson, who offered a detailed plan for reforming Social Security) have avoided any real discussion of how to bring these ballooning costs under control. Senator Obama was savaged by the left-wing punditry for daring even to suggest entitlement spending might be a problem.

A serious conversation is unlikely to happen unless Americans wake up to reality. The media, which obsesses about "gotcha" issues of marginal importance, should ask tough questions about the candidates' vision for the federal budget. America needs a president who is committed to fiscal discipline - something far beyond the usual throwaway lines about eliminating government "waste" and reducing "unnecessary" growth in domestic spending. The next president will have to grapple with the runaway growth of entitlement spending, or the American people will one day be in for a rude awakening.

- Carrie Lukas is vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women's Forum and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.

Understanding the Fair Tax

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:44:00 EST

It seems surprising that an election could really educate people about important policy issues, but this primary season has brought new scrutiny to the idea of a "Fair Tax." There is something very appealing about the prospect of abolishing the IRS and the income tax in favor of a national sales tax. Until you start thinking through the details that is.

There's an interesting piece in today's Wall Street Journal that examines some of the problems that would be created by a national sales tax. In addition to encouraging noncompliance, here's a few others:

Then there's the complexity argument. You don't think the lobbyists and lawyers will get involved in this, looking for exemptions on houses, medical services and education? You're going to put a 30% tax on my home purchase, and my doctor visits and my kids' tuition? Yeah, great idea.
And what about business transactions? If you tax business-to-business transactions, then you'll set off a wave of corporate consolidation. Instead of buying from a supplier at a 30% markup, I'll just buy my supplier and be tax free. And what about financial firms like Goldman Sachs, which spend most of their money on payroll and investments, and very little on goods and services? Goldman will pay taxes on what? Paper clips?
If, on the other hand, we institute the most widely supported version of the national sales tax, then business transactions are to be exempted. In addition to the colossal job of selling America on a zero tax rate for business, a rigorous definition of the term "business transaction" would have to be provided. What is a business transaction, exactly? I write articles for publication. I consider it a hobby. Sometimes I get paid. Should I pay sales taxes on money I earn for writing this article?
What about the Internet connection I used to send it? Should readers pay taxes on the connection they use to read my article? What if a reader uses it for his job? If he is a financial adviser, then no, but otherwise it's yes? Will I pay taxes on gas I used to drive to the studio to talk about this article? What if I stop to buy my son Jack a birthday present on the way home?
I'm a recovering tax accountant (and not a good one at that) and I've got 50 ways to avoid this tax swimming around in my head. What about the really smart guys?

It seems that the national sales tax could create as many problems as it solves.

Hillary's Christmas Gift for the American People: Higher Taxes

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:04:00 EST

Hillary Clinton has just released a very telling new ad. She is wrapping presents with labels like "Universal Healthcare" and "Bring Troops Home" and pretends to be searching for "Universal Pre-K," which she finally finds. All of these things are wrapped up with a nice bow for the American people.

Of course, Hillary is being generous in the same way that someone who steals a credit card to buy their family a bunch of pricy presents is: all of those items would have to be paid for by the taxpayers--and would be incredibly expensive at that. As Kathryn Lopez says in National Review's The Corner: "A Republican candidate could play the footage pretty much straight and have a negative ad."

Economics 101

info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:53:00 EST

Tax policy can often be a bore, but the Center for Freedom and Prosperity has just put out two really well done videos on youtube.com that are entertaining as well as informative.

One covers the U.S. corporate tax code: it debunks the common myth that taxing corporations is somehow different and better than taxing "the people," and explains how the United States's very high rate makes us less competitive. Another discusses the importance of tax competition-we want different regimes to have to compete to attract business and individuals because it helps keep tax rates lower.

Both are worth watching and passing a long to anyone you think is need of a crash course on some basic economic concepts.

IWF Podcast: Universal Voucher Program

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) info@iwf.org (Carrie L. Lukas) — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 13:35:00 EST

IWF's Carrie Lukas and Allison Kasic talk about school choice, specifically the recent vote in Utah over a universal voucher program and its impact on the future of the school choice movement.

Can we really say right now if pine chips are better than corn as a bio-fuel?

info@iwf.org (Anne Trenolone) — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 13:37:00 EST

As a footnote to Charlotte's Web this week on carbon offsets and the US Capitol, I would recommend two articles from The New York Times which also ran this week. The first, "The Carbon Calculus", only references the Capital plant via the photo that accompanies the article, but delves deeper into the issue of carbon trading and some of the potential pitfalls—of course the article doesn't really call them pitfalls. I can't say I agree with the lead of the article that is a bit editorial "A CHANGE is in the works that could go a long way toward making alternative energy less alternative, and more attractive to consumers and businesses." In fact the article clearly lays out the dilemma that a proposed system of cap-and-trade imposed by the federal government "could shake up the economics of energy, handicapping some fuels and favoring others."

This dilemma meshes nicely with the second article, "Fuel without the Fossil" out today (the two are actually part of an energy series by the NYT). "Fuel Without the Fossil" also touches on environmental issues and fuel and the battle to defeat carbon dioxide but underscores the continuing need to encourage competitive innovation in many sectors and to encourage lawmakers at the local, state and federal levels to allow the market to run its course in regards to the emerging bio-fuel industry. With oil at record prices per barrel this week, even average folks are starting to follow this debate and how it will in the short- and long-run impact their pocket books.

Taxes on the Installment Plan: I'm Not Rich, but I still Can't Afford Charlie Rangel's Tax Hike

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:00:00 EDT

Whew! I just talked to an eminent tax expert and discovered that I don't make enough money to be hit hard by Rep. Charlie Rangel's mammoth tax hike, the largest proposed tax hike in history. It may even be that I will get to keep several hundred dollars a year more, or that I if I lose money, it will be, at most, around the same amount. The tax code is so complicated I don't dare speculate.

Either way, though, I personally won't suffer immediate pain.

Being a single woman, I won't be affected, as will many far-from-rich families, by what the Rangel tax hike would do to married women who work. (See my colleague Carrie Lukas's analysis of this at iwf.org.)

Why, then, am I terribly worried about the proposals?

Well, not for reasons of sycophancy towards the rich. My reasons for intense opposition to the tax hike are based on justice, concern for the economy, and self-interest. Yes, self interest. Even if the tax rates don't directly and immediately empty my pockets, I know that eventually I will be adversely affected.

We all benefit when the economy hums, but the Rangel hike, as it is written, will stick it to small businesses, the engines of the economy, and especially to small businesses engaged in manufacturing. This will affect employment and investing. Bad as this is, worse would very likely follow. Rangel is just the beginning.

This is because Mr. Rangel's tax proposals, says J. D. Foster, a tax analyst at the Heritage Foundation, are a political statement. They won't become reality with George W. Bush in the White House, but they could signal the direction of a White House with a different philosophy. The most important fact to absorb about the Rangel proposals is that it would be a trillion dollar tax increase. And that, gentle reader, would not be the end of the matter.

"The only justification [for the Rangel hike]," Foster told me, "is that Congress wants to spend more money, and the Rangel bill is a down payment on the tax increases the Democrats will need to spend all the money they want to spend."

If the Rangel tax hike were enacted into law, government spending would skyrocket. Pay-go would become very go-go. I don't have a crystal ball, but I am going out on a limb here and predicting that, if the Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress, the Bush tax cuts will be repealed. With go-go spending, and projects that those in power deem worthy, there won't be enough money to do all these good things. There will be only one thing to do: increase taxes on people who haven't yet been hit by the Rangel hike. So those who breathe a sigh of relief that we won't have to cough up more than a few hundred dollars, are living in a fool's paradise. We will-and it won't be that far off.

Flush with cash (at least until the economy is chocked by high taxes), the government will spend recklessly. My least favorite programs are the entitlement programs that create a permanent underclass. The number of these programs will grow exponentially, and the number of people injured for generations will rise. It is not just to force self-reliant taxpayers to fund the indigence and, worse, the moral destruction of others.

When taxpayers are allowed to keep their earnings, they fund charities that they approve. These charities, if they have oversight and time limitations, can be far more effective than crippling entitlement programs.

Sometimes when I say my prayers at night, I thank the good Lord for allowing me to have my modest success with book sales while George W. Bush is president. Welcome added income, most of it has gone towards retirement.

And, frankly, I refuse to believe that there is anybody more deserving of my earnings than...well, me. I maintain that this is good for Uncle Sam, too, because the more I save, the less he'll end up doing for me. It's a win-win.

And don't call me selfish. It is selfish of Mr. Rangel & Co. to want to take my money for their programs. But they do.

Charlotte's Web is a weekly column by Charlotte Hays, Senior Editor for the Independent Women's Forum and can be contacted at info@iwf.org.

To receive an email alert when Charlotte's Web has been posted please sign-up here.

More on Taxes

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:52:00 EDT

In her latest Charlotte's Web column, Charlotte Hays examines the consequences of the proposed Rangel tax hike:

If the Rangel tax hike were enacted into law, government spending would skyrocket. Pay-go would become very go-go. I don't have a crystal ball, but I am going out on a limb here and predicting that, if the Democrats control the White House and both houses of Congress, the Bush tax cuts will be repealed. With go-go spending, and projects that those in power deem worthy, there won't be enough money to do all these good things. There will be only one thing to do: increase taxes on people who haven't yet been hit by the Rangel hike. So those who breathe a sigh of relief that we won't have to cough up more than a few hundred dollars, are living in a fool's paradise. We will-and it won't be that far off.

Flush with cash (at least until the economy is chocked by high taxes), the government will spend recklessly. My least favorite programs are the entitlement programs that create a permanent underclass. The number of these programs will grow exponentially, and the number of people injured for generations will rise. It is not just to force self-reliant taxpayers to fund the indigence and, worse, the moral destruction of others.

When taxpayers are allowed to keep their earnings, they fund charities that they approve. These charities, if they have oversight and time limitations, can be far more effective than crippling entitlement programs.

Read her column here.

Higher Price of Gas Increases Potential for Bad Energy Policy

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EDT

Washington, DC - The price of gas has risen in recent weeks, and with the summer driving season quickly approaching, it's likely to rise further. This situation creates an opportunity for politicians to push bad legislation under the guise of helping ease the financial burden on consumers. But consumers should be warned that government intervention in the marketplace will create more problems than it solves.

"No one likes to pay higher prices when they go to fill their gas tanks," said Michelle D. Bernard, president and CEO of the Independent Women's Forum. "But consumers need to recognize that changes in prices play an important role in energy markets, encouraging people to conserve when supplies are short. Government price controls will stifle this important process and create the potential for gasoline shortages."

The American Council for Capital Formation just released a study examining how proposed legislation to end so-called "price gouging" would have affected the economy and the availability of fuel during devastating hurricanes--including Hurricane Katrina--in the fall of 2005. The researchers estimate that these price controls would have resulted in economic costs totaling $1.9 billion dollars.

"Price controls discourage suppliers from taking the steps necessary to get the product to market during a crisis," explained Carrie Lukas, IWF's vice president for policy and economics. "In an instance like Hurricane Katrina, that would have meant even less fuel getting into the areas most in need, and would have encouraged consumers to hoard the limited resources that were available. This may sound like well-intentioned policy, but it could have horrible effects for our economy and for consumers in a crisis."

###

To schedule an interview, please call Kate Pomeroy at 202-631-6704 or kate.pomeroy@iwf.org

The Independent Women's Forum is a non-partisan, 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Founded in 1992, IWF's mission is to rebuild civil society by advancing economic liberty, personal responsibility, and political freedom. IWF fosters greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy. IWF is home to the next wave of the nation's most influential scholars--women who are committed to promoting and defending economic opportunity and political freedom.

IWF announces essay contest finalists

Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:00:00 EST

The Independent Women's Forum is pleased to announce the thirty finalists for our first annual essay contest. We asked college students to write on what it means to be an independent woman today. The thirty finalists were chosen from more than 2,000 entries! It was truly a difficult decision to choose from the many outstanding essays we received from young women across the nation. Each essay offered a unique and intriguing perspective on the assigned topic.

Ultimately, these essays were clear standouts and our finalists should be very proud of their accomplishment of getting this far in the contest. The finalists' essays have been forwarded to our prestigious panel of judges who will make the final decision and award the prizes among this group. Winners will be announced in April. The winning essay will be published in our next newsletter and all of our award winners essays will be featured on IWF's website this spring.

Maureen Campbell, American University

Emilee Cunningham, University of California San Diego

Lindy Dinklage, George Washington University

Kimberly Drewett, University of St. Andrews

Sarah Eisenhandler, Brandeis University

Cori Fitzgerald, Lutheran School of Nursing

Ashley Fogle, Texas Christian University

Nancy Gabel, University of Missouri-Columbia

Amanda Gatewood, University of Kentucky

Samantha Hill, Central Missouri State University

Trysha Jean, Eastern Maine Community College

Meredith Jessup, George Washington University

Sejla Karalic, University of Akron

Lindsay Kerrigan, Indiana University

Caroline Kocher, Gettysburg College

Laura Kochmit, University of South Florida

Katherine Konrad, University of St. Thomas

Barbara McFadden, Sul Ross State University-Rio Grande College

Alice Ohaeri, Lorain County Community College

Christina Parmer, Solano Community College

Andrea Powers, Prairie View A & M University

Lauren Racine, Gettysburg College

Maryann Sanders, University of Pittsburgh

Indu Shanmugam, Concordia University

Danielle Sturgis, Drake University

Nastassia Urlapava-Hill, Colorado Mountain College-CU Boulder

Alexandra Valenti, George Washington University

Juliann Vikse, Princeton University

Licia Yanez, Duke University