Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The other thing is on July fourth, the President signed
the Big Beautiful Bill into the Big Beautiful Law. Let's
get more now on the Legacy Retirement Group dot com
phone line from Cedar Rail Universities, doctor Jeff Haman, Professor
of economics, Doctor Hayman.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
How are you, Sara, Good.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Morning, doing well, glad to be here.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Yes, thank you for the time. I appreciate you.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
So we are seeing a sort of a massive shift
due to the Big Beautiful Bill now the Big Beautiful
Law of the Land of how the government sort of
spends money in this country. It kind of is shifting
from you know, social programs and investments in clean energy
and green energy into spending money on tax cuts, immigration enforcement,
(00:44):
and national defense.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
So what do you what's your overall take on this?
Speaker 3 (00:49):
Well, overall, we had to do something because we couldn't
stand the tax hike that's coming. I mean that, and
that's both the good and the bad. I mean, we
could talk about the tax cuts, but there really aren't
much in terms of tax cuts that are stimulative, because
really this was just to maintain the existing role from
twenty seventeen. The new types of tax cuts he's got
(01:10):
are are limited in time because of the cost over
the ten year period that they were doing, like tax
on tips that reduced tax for seniors and so forth,
but those don't do much in terms of the incentives
to work, save and in test. So we had to
do it to avoid the tax cut, but it's not
likely to be as stimulative as someone that's active advocacy
(01:31):
other than avoiding the negative of a big tax pike.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Well, that's just it is.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
If the twenty seventeen tax cuts were allowed to expire,
we would have seen ultimately less money in our paychecks
at the end of the year, for.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Sure, and it would have been a huge hit on
economy that's already had some other challenges as we can
talk about you know if if you like, so, this
is good that it got done, but it doesn't it
postpones what we really keep kicking the can, which is
on our national debt and the depths of spending as usual.
It doesn't matter which political party or which budget deal.
(02:07):
We've seen this song and dance. They always talk about
a ten year horizon, and they always get the candy
up front and then the broccoli at the back end
of the ten years. And it seems like we never
get the significant cuts.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
That's very well, said doctor Jeff Hayman, Professor of Economics,
Cedarville University. One of the biggest points of contention, Jeff,
is the Medicaid, and they're calling them cuts. I don't
know if that's a little bit of a misnomer. I
would characterize it at more as changes with Medicaid, and
that is really focused down onto the work requirement. So
(02:40):
if you are over under sixty five, able bodied, don't
have kids under eighteen, you are required to work twenty
hours a week. That's a part time job, essentially eighty
hours a month. And the whole thought is there that
there's millions of Americans who could work to some degree
who just aren't, and they're taking advantage of free government money.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
Well for sure, and so let's play some history. In
the ninety six welfare re format, Phil Graham wrote about
this Wall Street Journal who offered that bill. Back then,
we required thirty hours of work and this only requires twenty.
So it's not like this is pretty draconian. Likewise, I
think it's important to note that the Medicaid and snap
(03:24):
spending that's being reduced and proposed, there was a tremendous
expansion of both of those programs during the Biden administration,
and these so called cuts do not take us below
where the Biden ramp up took us in the first place.
So we are still a trend that's above where we were,
and at thirty seven trillion dollars in national debt, we
simply can't afford for people to stay at home and
(03:47):
receive benefits that are able bodied.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
Well, that's absolutely right. I mean there's people that have
been taking advantage of the system. And again, if you
are disabled, or you're over sixty five, or you have
a child at home, nothing is going to happen to
your Medicaid. You're still going to be covered there. It's
just it's like when people go on unemployment Jeff, then
you're required to show in order to achieve unemployment benefits,
(04:12):
you're required to show that you are looking for a job.
That every week you got to say, yep, I had
this interview, I talked to this person, I've got this lead.
It's kind of not really much different than that. You
just got to show like I am. And by the way,
you don't have to get a job. You could also
go to school, you could also do community service and volunteer.
The whole point is is contribute to your community in
(04:33):
some way, shape or form instead of just sitting on
your couch and collecting free from the government. For sure.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
There's a scholar Nick everstaid American enterprises to hit. He's
estimated that we've got three million men that are between
twenty five and thirty four years old that are not working.
They're missing from the workforce. Where are they. We don't
know whether they're playing video games in the basements or what.
But we really need Our labor force is much smaller
(05:01):
than it needs to be. Uh, We've got a low unemployment, right,
but we still have a labor force participation rate which
is too low because many people are not engaged in
the workforce and our economy needs them and and honestly,
they need to work. Work is, as we like to say,
it's a gift from God. I mean, we're we're created
to work. And when people aren't working, all sorts of
(05:22):
social pathologies happen. And then when they refuse to be
part of the workforce, that creates its own set of problems.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
It certainly does, and it's a it gives you a
little bit of a purpose in life, right, you got
to get up, you got to go to work, and
it gives you something to do. And and and then
you mentioned the Snap the Snap change, the Snap program changes.
If I've got a Snap program or what we used
to call food stamps, you know, clearly that's meant for
people who you know, have a hard time buying groceries
(05:50):
and affording food for their family. But you can't go
and buy a bunch of bags of Doritos and you
know two liters uh, you know, bottles of pop that
that's not the that's not what that was meant for.
Go buy healthy food to feed your families. Essentially, what
the changes are there?
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Yeah, And for sure, there's a lot of opportunities for
fraud with that because Snap can be exchanged for cash
and other things, but people who are not eligible for
that at a discount. So there was a lot of
opportunities for fraud in that system. So whether all the
cuts are just fraud, waste and use, it's hard to say,
but clearly there was a lot of opportunities for that
as well.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
And what about taxes, no tax on tips or over
time that is now that was a campaign promise from
Trump that is now in effect.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
You know, a lot of.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Those tips are cash tips anyway, I don't know how
many how much of that was being reported by servers anyway,
But either way, what kind of effect is that going
to have on the service industry?
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Well, obviously for the service industry, it's a big win
for the people to get those tips. But I will
tell you that as an economist, you just know that
that's going to be a different form of compensation, and
you can expect petition will lead to some sort of
lower wages to begin with, because you'll be getting more
take home in terms of tips. So I don't think
it's going to do much for a stimulation of the
(07:10):
workforce in the long run. Uh And so so in general,
konnists like to see things that are are broad based
in effect, you know, rather than specific for industries to
be a stimular the effect. What you want is something
that will get people and incent to go out and
work more hours. And when you only have one small
subset of the the economy doing it, it's it's hard
(07:30):
to get much benefit. Further, and very importantly, most people
we think of the starving waitress. You know, that's going
to get these tips. They're not paying income taxes anyway
because because they don't meet the threshold for income taxes
right this would be the only people that will benefit
would be maybe a very very expensive waitress, you know,
(07:51):
at a very expensive restaurant, bar trenders that make a
lot of money, and it's not clear that they needed
that help. So I'm not as big a fan for that.
I understand politically why it was spotful, especially in Nevada,
for mister Trump to make that, but I don't think
as helpful as marginal TAXA very.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Good, great perspective this morning.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
As always, doctor Jeff Hayman, Professor of economics from Cedarville University,
Thank you for your time.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Have a great week. My friend will talk again soon
The other thing is on July fourth, the President signed
the Big Beautiful Bill into the Big Beautiful Law. Let's
get more now on the Legacy Retirement Group dot com
phone line from Cedar Rail Universities, doctor Jeff Haman, Professor
of economics, Doctor Hayman.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
How are you, Sara, Good.
Speaker 3 (00:16):
Morning, doing well, glad to be here.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Yes, thank you for the time. I appreciate you.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
So we are seeing a sort of a massive shift
due to the Big Beautiful Bill now the Big Beautiful
Law of the Land of how the government sort of
spends money in this country. It kind of is shifting
from you know, social programs and investments in clean energy
and green energy into spending money on tax cuts, immigration enforcement,
(00:44):
and national defense.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
So what do you what's your overall take on this?
Speaker 3 (00:49):
Well, overall, we had to do something because we couldn't
stand the tax hike that's coming. I mean that, and
that's both the good and the bad. I mean, we
could talk about the tax cuts, but there really aren't
much in terms of tax cuts that are stimulative, because
really this was just to maintain the existing role from
twenty seventeen. The new types of tax cuts he's got
(01:10):
are are limited in time because of the cost over
the ten year period that they were doing, like tax
on tips that reduced tax for seniors and so forth,
but those don't do much in terms of the incentives
to work, save and in test. So we had to
do it to avoid the tax cut, but it's not
likely to be as stimulative as someone that's active advocacy
(01:31):
other than avoiding the negative of a big tax pike.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
Well, that's just it is.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
If the twenty seventeen tax cuts were allowed to expire,
we would have seen ultimately less money in our paychecks
at the end of the year, for.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Sure, and it would have been a huge hit on
economy that's already had some other challenges as we can
talk about you know if if you like, so, this
is good that it got done, but it doesn't it
postpones what we really keep kicking the can, which is
on our national debt and the depths of spending as usual.
It doesn't matter which political party or which budget deal.
(02:07):
We've seen this song and dance. They always talk about
a ten year horizon, and they always get the candy
up front and then the broccoli at the back end
of the ten years. And it seems like we never
get the significant cuts.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
That's very well, said doctor Jeff Hayman, Professor of Economics,
Cedarville University. One of the biggest points of contention, Jeff,
is the Medicaid, and they're calling them cuts. I don't
know if that's a little bit of a misnomer. I
would characterize it at more as changes with Medicaid, and
that is really focused down onto the work requirement. So
(02:40):
if you are over under sixty five, able bodied, don't
have kids under eighteen, you are required to work twenty
hours a week. That's a part time job, essentially eighty
hours a month. And the whole thought is there that
there's millions of Americans who could work to some degree
who just aren't, and they're taking advantage of free government money.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
Well for sure, and so let's play some history. In
the ninety six welfare re format, Phil Graham wrote about
this Wall Street Journal who offered that bill. Back then,
we required thirty hours of work and this only requires twenty.
So it's not like this is pretty draconian. Likewise, I
think it's important to note that the Medicaid and snap
(03:24):
spending that's being reduced and proposed, there was a tremendous
expansion of both of those programs during the Biden administration,
and these so called cuts do not take us below
where the Biden ramp up took us in the first place.
So we are still a trend that's above where we were,
and at thirty seven trillion dollars in national debt, we
simply can't afford for people to stay at home and
(03:47):
receive benefits that are able bodied.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
Well, that's absolutely right. I mean there's people that have
been taking advantage of the system. And again, if you
are disabled, or you're over sixty five, or you have
a child at home, nothing is going to happen to
your Medicaid. You're still going to be covered there. It's
just it's like when people go on unemployment Jeff, then
you're required to show in order to achieve unemployment benefits,
(04:12):
you're required to show that you are looking for a job.
That every week you got to say, yep, I had
this interview, I talked to this person, I've got this lead.
It's kind of not really much different than that. You
just got to show like I am. And by the way,
you don't have to get a job. You could also
go to school, you could also do community service and volunteer.
The whole point is is contribute to your community in
(04:33):
some way, shape or form instead of just sitting on
your couch and collecting free from the government. For sure.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
There's a scholar Nick everstaid American enterprises to hit. He's
estimated that we've got three million men that are between
twenty five and thirty four years old that are not working.
They're missing from the workforce. Where are they. We don't
know whether they're playing video games in the basements or what.
But we really need Our labor force is much smaller
(05:01):
than it needs to be. Uh, We've got a low unemployment, right,
but we still have a labor force participation rate which
is too low because many people are not engaged in
the workforce and our economy needs them and and honestly,
they need to work. Work is, as we like to say,
it's a gift from God. I mean, we're we're created
to work. And when people aren't working, all sorts of
(05:22):
social pathologies happen. And then when they refuse to be
part of the workforce, that creates its own set of problems.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
It certainly does, and it's a it gives you a
little bit of a purpose in life, right, you got
to get up, you got to go to work, and
it gives you something to do. And and and then
you mentioned the Snap the Snap change, the Snap program changes.
If I've got a Snap program or what we used
to call food stamps, you know, clearly that's meant for
people who you know, have a hard time buying groceries
(05:50):
and affording food for their family. But you can't go
and buy a bunch of bags of Doritos and you
know two liters uh, you know, bottles of pop that
that's not the that's not what that was meant for.
Go buy healthy food to feed your families. Essentially, what
the changes are there?
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Yeah, And for sure, there's a lot of opportunities for
fraud with that because Snap can be exchanged for cash
and other things, but people who are not eligible for
that at a discount. So there was a lot of
opportunities for fraud in that system. So whether all the
cuts are just fraud, waste and use, it's hard to say,
but clearly there was a lot of opportunities for that
as well.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
And what about taxes, no tax on tips or over
time that is now that was a campaign promise from
Trump that is now in effect.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
You know, a lot of.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Those tips are cash tips anyway, I don't know how
many how much of that was being reported by servers anyway,
But either way, what kind of effect is that going
to have on the service industry?
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Well, obviously for the service industry, it's a big win
for the people to get those tips. But I will
tell you that as an economist, you just know that
that's going to be a different form of compensation, and
you can expect petition will lead to some sort of
lower wages to begin with, because you'll be getting more
take home in terms of tips. So I don't think
it's going to do much for a stimulation of the
(07:10):
workforce in the long run. Uh And so so in general,
konnists like to see things that are are broad based
in effect, you know, rather than specific for industries to
be a stimular the effect. What you want is something
that will get people and incent to go out and
work more hours. And when you only have one small
subset of the the economy doing it, it's it's hard
(07:30):
to get much benefit. Further, and very importantly, most people
we think of the starving waitress. You know, that's going
to get these tips. They're not paying income taxes anyway
because because they don't meet the threshold for income taxes
right this would be the only people that will benefit
would be maybe a very very expensive waitress, you know,
(07:51):
at a very expensive restaurant, bar trenders that make a
lot of money, and it's not clear that they needed
that help. So I'm not as big a fan for that.
I understand politically why it was spotful, especially in Nevada,
for mister Trump to make that, but I don't think
as helpful as marginal TAXA very.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Good, great perspective this morning.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
As always, doctor Jeff Hayman, Professor of economics from Cedarville University,
Thank you for your time.
Speaker 2 (08:13):
Have a great week. My friend will talk again soon
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.