Monthly Archives: March 2022

A Progressive-Democrat’s Morality

Posted on by
Reply

The Arizona House of Representatives has passed and sent along to the Senate a bill that would require the State’s Board of Investment to divest from all companies that

[d]onate to or invest in organizations that facilitate, promote or advocate for the inclusion of, or the referral of students to, sexually explicit material in kindergarten programs or any of the 1st – 12th grades.

The measure was passed on party lines alone.

Here’s the Progressive-Democrat State Representative Morgan Abraham on why he voted against the measure:

This is about finance, and this is a terrible, terrible idea for our retirement system. Some people I’ve talked to think this bill would allow our retirement system to divest from 75% of the S&P 500.
… We should not be forcing our retired teachers, our retired police officers, whoever is involved with this public retirement system to not have the ability to have a diversified portfolio, regardless of the values you have on the underlying issue.

Diversified portfolio. Regardless of the values [we] might have…. Think about that. This Progressive-Democrat thinks it entirely morally acceptable to have a diversified portfolio of investments that includes child pornography.

This Progressive-Democrat thinks it entirely morally acceptable to build retirement funds, in no small measure, through the sexual abuse of our children.

 

Separately, the bill also would require divestiture from all companies that advocate abortion. From this, the bill as a whole is likely to fail on 1st Amendment grounds, regardless of how morally reprehensible abortion might be.

A Strategic Blunder

Posted on by
Reply

Or not. In his Friday Wall Street Journal op-ed, Tunku Varadarajan cited the historian Robert Service as saying that two immense strategic blunders caused Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The first supposed blunder is illustrative of how far our…intellectuals…have deviated from reason and morality.

The first [immense strategic blunder] came on November 10, when the US and Ukraine signed a Charter on Strategic Partnership, which asserted America’s support for Kyiv’s right to pursue membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

No.

It’s never a blunder, large or small, to do a right thing, and acknowledging a sovereign nation’s right to pursue its own friendly, peaceful, or defensive ends always is a right thing. Beyond that, the right time to do a right thing always is right away.

If there was an immense strategic blunder, it was President Joe Biden’s (D) thinking he could virtue-signal with petty ink on a piece of paper and not actually have to back up those words with concrete support for Ukraine.

Full stop.

Either There’s a Deadline, or There Isn’t

Posted on by
Reply

Amazon is pushing the FTC to fish or cut bait (because this is a family blog) regarding Amazon’s proposal to acquire MGM:

Amazon recently certified to the FTC that it had provided all the information requested by antitrust investigators, according to people familiar with the matter. That certification triggered a ticking clock for the FTC that expires in mid-March, the people said. If the commission doesn’t file a legal challenge before the deadline, Amazon could be free to consummate the deal.

However.

The FTC currently has also the authority to unwind mergers and acquisitions after the fact, and to continue investigations pursuant to such post hoc disassemblies even after their nominal clock regarding the merger/acquisition has expired.

That authority means there’s no real deadline, and the government can continue to interfere with private enterprise whenever they take the notion to.

The deadline is a good one, and it should be transformed into a real one: if the FTC does not rule on the matter (itself a questionable government authority, but that’s for another discussion) by a time certain, then the merger/acquisition should go forward unfettered, and the FTC should be required to sit down and shut up. If there’s a real problem with the merger/acquisition, well, we have already on the books perfectly serviceable anti-trust tools.

There’s just no reason for Government to dither and stall on any merger/acquisition or to continue to harass after the fact.

Dangerously Hypocritical

Posted on by
Reply

And dangerous in its own right. President Joe Biden (D), even as he pays lip service to supporting Ukraine against Russia’s invasion of that nation, is conspiring with Russia to let Iran obtain nuclear weapons. Here’s Fred Fleitz, former CIA analyst and ex-senior staffer on the House Intelligence Committee and the National Security Council:

The US has partnered with Russia to get a new nuclear deal with Iran. This includes secret talks with the Russians over the last year and agreements where Russia would hold uranium enriched by Iran and give it back to Iran if a future Republican president backed out of a new nuclear deal.

This is dangerously hypocritical in that Biden is conspiring with one enemy nation to free up another enemy nation in the latter’s effort to get nuclear weapons. The agreement that Biden is so desperate to get back into (with its trivial tweaks) expires, ends sanctions against Iran, and with that expiry leaves Iran with an unrestricted path to nuclear weapons.

Biden’s dealings with Russia in this are dangerous in their own right because Russia is going to give that enriched uranium back to Iran under any circumstance—that uranium is a threat to us and to Israel, and that’s what Russia wants. This is how desperate Biden is to prevent a subsequent President—especially a hated Republican President—from canceling his precious deal: he knows Russia will give the uranium back.

In the end, any agreement Biden might enter into here becomes hard for future Presidents to undo only if Biden submits the deal to Congress for majority votes in each house, which would make the deal a statute, or he submits it to the Senate for ratification as a treaty. Absent those, all Biden’s agreement becomes is an Executive Agreement, which can be undone with the stroke of a pen—just as former President Donald Trump (R) did with the prior failure of an Obama Executive Agreement.

And a future President should cancel such an EA without hesitation, given that Russian return of uranium.

There are Tax Cuts, and There are Tax Cuts

Posted on by
Reply

Some are tiny, but useful first steps. Some are serious and useful in their own right. Georgia Republicans are proposing the latter.

The State currently has a graduated income tax with a top rate of 5.5% on income above $10,000 (except singles; they pay 5.5% on income above $7,000) and standard income tax deductions of $4,600 for single filers, $3,000 each for married filing separately, and $6,000 for married filing jointly.

The proposal, led by State House Ways & Means Chair Shaw Blackmon (R-Bonaire), envisions serious changes. It reduces and simplifies the State’s income tax rate to a single 5.25% rate regardless of income level. It increases the standard income tax deductions to $12,000 for single filers and $24,000 for married couples, a move that appears also to eliminate the marriage penalty inherent in the current deduction. [A] family of four would not pay state income tax on their first $30,000 of income compared with the present first $500 to $1,000 of income, depending on filing status.

Now that’s a tax cut that a mother can love. And fathers and singles.