The Wooster Voice (Wooster, OH), 1987-09-11

Harvard Professor Alexander Agassiz and author Stephen Jay Gould will present in this year\u27s incarnation of the Wooster Forum Series. The topic of the year is Human Nature, Human Choices . The Wooster Review is revived under the leadership of Stephen Moore. The Student Government Association seeks new members.https://openworks.wooster.edu/voice1981-1990/1408/thumbnail.jp

The Wooster Voice (Wooster, OH), 1987-09-11

Harvard Professor Alexander Agassiz and author Stephen Jay Gould will present in this year\u27s incarnation of the Wooster Forum Series. The topic of the year is Human Nature, Human Choices . The Wooster Review is revived under the leadership of Stephen Moore. The Student Government Association seeks new members.https://openworks.wooster.edu/voice1981-1990/1408/thumbnail.jp

The Wooster Voice (Wooster, OH), 1987-09-11

Harvard Professor Alexander Agassiz and author Stephen Jay Gould will present in this year\u27s incarnation of the Wooster Forum Series. The topic of the year is Human Nature, Human Choices . The Wooster Review is revived under the leadership of Stephen Moore. The Student Government Association seeks new members.https://openworks.wooster.edu/voice1981-1990/1408/thumbnail.jp

The Wooster Voice (Wooster, OH), 1987-09-11

Harvard Professor Alexander Agassiz and author Stephen Jay Gould will present in this year\u27s incarnation of the Wooster Forum Series. The topic of the year is Human Nature, Human Choices . The Wooster Review is revived under the leadership of Stephen Moore. The Student Government Association seeks new members.https://openworks.wooster.edu/voice1981-1990/1408/thumbnail.jp

Gift Honors Life of UM Alumnus Stephen Moore

Phil Hardin Foundation expands educational opportunities at UM law schoo

Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors: 2004

As states continue to claw their way out of the worst state budget hole in years, this report presents the findings of the Cato Institute's seventh biennial fiscal policy report card on the nation's governors. The report card's grading is based on 15 objective measures of fiscal performance. Governors who have cut taxes and spending the most receive the highest grades. Those who have increased spending and taxes the most receive the lowest grades. Our analysis shows that states that keep tax rates low and restrain spending growth have the best economic performance and thus the best longterm fiscal health.This year, four governors receive the grade of A: Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Craig Benson of New Hampshire, Bill Owens of Colorado, and Judy Martz of Montana. Four governors receive Fs for their poor performance in dealing with the state fiscal crisis: Bob Holden of Missouri, Bob Taft of Ohio, Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania, and James McGreevey of New Jersey.The grades of the governors of some of America's most populous states are Jeb Bush of Florida, B; George Pataki of New York, B; Rick Perry of Texas, B; and Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, D

Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors: 2002

Against the backdrop of the worst state budget crunch in years, this report presents the findings of Cato Institute's sixth biennial fiscal policy report card on the nation's governors. The report card's grading is based on 17 objective measures of each governor's fiscal performance. Governors who have cut taxes and spending the most receive the highest grades. Those who have increased spending and taxes the most receive the lowest grades.This year, two governors receive the highest grade of A: Bill Owens of Colorado and Jeb Bush of Florida. Four governors receive the lowest grade of F: Gray Davis of California, Don Sundquist of Tennessee, Bob Taft of Ohio, and John Kitzhaber of Oregon.Stephen Moore is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Stephen Slivinski, a former fiscal policy analyst at the Cato Institute, is director of tax and budget studies at the Goldwater Institute.The governors of some of America's most populous states and their grades are George Pataki of New York, B; George Ryan of Illinois, D; and John Engler of Michigan, B.State governments faced a combined budget gap of more than $40 billion in 2002, largely as a result of an overspending binge in the 1990s. Most governors will confront more tough budget choices in 2003. We hope that governors do not make the mistake of raising taxes to try to balance budgets, as many did in the economic slowdown of the early 1990s. Instead, by reducing spending and cutting tax rates, governors can return their states to fiscal and economic health. If they do, we will have many high grades to reward on the next Cato fiscal report card

Show Me the Money! Dividend Payouts after the Bush Tax Cut

The centerpiece of President Bush's tax cut in 2003 was a sharp reduction in the individual dividend tax rate. The dividend tax cut was designed to spur investment and boost the stock market by increasing the after-tax return on corporate earnings, thus raising stock valuations. The tax cut also reduced the tax bias against dividends to spur larger payouts to shareholders. That reduces the amount of discretionary cash available to executives and will likely reduce the number of Enron-style corporate financial scandals. This study examines the impact of the dividend tax cut after one year. We gathered data on dividend payouts before and after the 2003 tax cut for all Standard & Poor's 500 companies. We found a highly positive response to the tax cut: Annual dividends paid by S&P 500 companies rose from $146 billion to$172 billion, an increase of $26 billion.In addition, special dividends of$7 billion have been paid, raising the total first-year dividend increase to $33 billion.Thus, dividends increased 18 percent without special dividends and 23 percent with special dividends.Twenty-two companies that did not previously pay dividends have initiated regular dividends.Equity values rose more than$2 trillion after the tax cut.The large and positive response to the dividend tax cut, which is scheduled to expire at the end of 2008, suggests that Congress should make it permanent

The Case against a Tennessee Income Tax

On November 2 the Tennessee legislature will convene a special session to debate reform of the state tax system. The center of the controversy is whether Tennessee should adopt a personal income tax, as proposed by Gov. Don Sundquist, to close an estimated $400 million budget shortfall. This study finds that a personal income tax in Tennessee would likely have two negative economic effects. First, an income tax would almost certainly reduce economic growth and job creation in the state. The absence of an income tax in Tennessee gives Tennessee a large competitive advantage over other states with which it competes for jobs and businesses. We find, for example, that Kentucky, a state very similar to Tennessee except that it has an income tax, has had considerably weaker economic performance since 1980. Between 1980 and 1998 the per capita economic growth rate of Tennessee was 47 percent compared to 36 percent in Kentucky. The second negative effect of a state income tax would be to trigger much faster growth in state expenditures. That has been the almost universal pattern in other states after they enacted a state income tax. Yet the premise of pro-income tax forces in Tennessee that the state's revenues have been growing too slowly is contradicted by the evidence. In the 1990s, even without an income tax, Tennessee's per capita tax receipts have grown 12th fastest among the 50 states. Tennessee's tax revenues have climbed at twice the rate of inflation plus population growth. The legislature should be cutting taxes, not introducing new ones

States Face Fiscal Crunch after 1990s Spending Surge

Across the nation, large budget gaps are forcing state governments to make tough policy choices. While some states are trying to control spending, others are turning to tax increases to balance their budgets. Some state officials are trying to pass the buck for their poor fiscal management by pleading for a bailout from Washington. But a bailout would encourage states to continue overspending, which is the source of the current fiscal mess. The states' mistake was to allow rapid tax revenue growth during the 1990s to fuel an unsustainable expansion in spending. Between fiscal years 1990 and 2001, state tax revenue grew 86 percent--more than the 55 percent of inflation plus population growth. If states had limited spending growth to that benchmark, budgets would have been $93 billion smaller by FY01--representing savings roughly twice the size of today's state budget gaps. If revenue growth higher than the benchmark had been given back to taxpayers in permanent tax cuts and annual rebates, rebates could have been temporarily suspended during FY02 and FY03 to provide a cushion with which to balance state budgets. Current budget gaps provide policymakers an opportunity to weed out the budget excesses built up during the past decade. Yet overall state spending continues to grow. After soaring 8.0 percent in FY01, state general fund spending has not been cut in FY02 or FY03 even as large budget gaps have appeared. States should impose tax and spending growth caps to prevent budgets from growing too quickly during the next boom. Revenue growth above a benchmark would be given back in tax cuts and tax rebates. That would prevent spending from increasing too quickly and provide the option of suspending rebates during slowdowns to close budget gaps without the damage caused by tax rate increases