Monthly Archives: November 2023

Talking a Good Game

Posted on by
Reply

Javier Milei, the newly elected Argentine President, is, indeed, talking a good game. It’ll be well worth watching to see if he can deliver—and he has many large obstacles in his way, including (this is far from an exhaustive list) opposition to his wish to get rid of the nation’s central bank (and the economic pitfalls associated with it, both near term as Argentina’s economy adjusts, and longer term with currency controls devolved to the provincial banks or to individual banks (some of which may already be too big to control without stern measures aimed at them in particular)), opposition parties bent on restoring/maintaining their own political power, general resistance—both political and popular—to any change of such magnitude, and his own political inexperience and naivete.

With that rambling lede, here’s an excerpt, via RealClear Politics, from an interview that that Milei had with Argentine TV host Alejandro Fantino just before Thanksgiving:

We aren’t above the ones we represent. In financial terms, “The derivative is never worth more than the underlying asset.” The derivative exists because the underlying asset exists. We exist as representatives of the people because the people exist. It is madness, it is delusional, to think that a representative of the people is above the people he represents themselves. It is a delusion in which the political caste exists.

The full hour-and-a-quarter interview, in Spanish, can be seen at the link at the bottom of the linked-to article. That YouTube link also is this.

“Emergency Powers”

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic President Joe Biden has invoked the Defense Production Act of 1950 as an excuse to pour more of our tax dollars into his global warming foolishness. He’s using the Act to pump $169 million into nine projects across 15 sites nationwide in an effort to accelerate electric heat pump manufacturing. There are some serious problems with this. In no particular order:

Biden claims that heat pumps only use electricity; they don’t burn coal or oil or natural gas. That’s a disingenuously narrow view of the situation. Heat pumps do use only electricity at their point of use. However, that electricity comes from somewhere—primarily coal- and natural gas-fired electricity generating stations. At the times the heat pumps are needed the most—in the depths of heating and cooling seasons—”green” energy sources generally aren’t available: at night, when the sun doesn’t shine; when the sky is overcast, and sunlight is limited; when the wind isn’t blowing enough or is blowing too strongly. This is a shortfall that’s disastrously exacerbated by Biden’s open effort to destroy our hydrocarbon-sourced energy industry. Oil-, natural gas-, and coal-fired power plants are reliable, efficient, and don’t care about sun or wind.

Further, heat pumps get increasingly inefficient where temperatures are routinely cold and where temperatures are routinely hot. They work, after all, by trying to pump heat (hence the name of the devices) from inside the house to the hot outside for cooling, or by trying to pump heat from the cold outside into the house for heating.

Another problem is that the Defense Production Act was passed to support government-managed manufacturing (for good or ill) during times of conflict. We’re not at war with anybody now, and haven’t been for a few years—not since the fight against terrorists in Afghanistan, when Biden made his panic-ridden exit from that. Using the Act as an excuse for funding global warming-related matters is an abuse of the Act that warrants its heavy modification, if not outright rescission.

Yet another problem flows from Biden’s claim that his invocation is to boost domestic production of these heat pumps, especially by domestic manufacturers.

These awards will grow domestic manufacturing, create good-paying jobs, and boost American competitiveness in industries of the future.

Yet he’s pouring those millions into companies like Copeland, Honeywell International, Mitsubishi Electric, and York International Corporation.

Mitsubishi is a Japanese company, headquartered in Tokyo. York is wholly owned by Johnson Controls, and Johnson, while claiming to be an American company, is headquartered and domiciled in Cork, Ireland. That’s a lot of “domestic” manufacturing money—our tax dollars—going to foreign companies. Even if they do the actual manufacturing in the US, they’ll be taking off their (significant) cuts in Tokyo and Cork on the way by.

Disregard and Pass Their Own

Posted on by
Reply

DoD has submitted a budget request that includes $114 million for diversity, equity, and inclusion claptrap [emphasis added].

The Defense Department’s fiscal year 2024 budget request shows the federal agency’s emphasis on diversity, equity and inclusion, including “ensuring accountable leadership with continued emphasis and investments in sexual assault and harassment prevention, suicide prevention, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA), and Insider Threat Programs.”
The DOD document shows that DEI is at the forefront of DOD policy.
[The request said] The Department will lead with our values—building diversity, equity, and inclusion into everything we do[.]

And this:

Six months ago, President Joe Biden asked for cuts in federal spending for border control [and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas defended them], which had lawmakers asking questions about why the president was reducing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) budget when the border was out of control.
[Now,] Mayorkas told the House Homeland Security Committee last week that his department was “under-resourced” and needed $14 billion in emergency funding to address the situation at the border.

These are two more reasons for the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to simply and routinely ignore Biden administration budget requests as wholly unserious. The House, instead, should put together its own budget de novo and pass its own dozen allocation bills within that framework.

Federal Revenue

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal is concerned about the IRS exercising its claimed authority to delay implementation of some tax requirements for which Congress had set strict enforcement deadlines. Apart from the question of whether the IRS actually has that authority, the concern centers on how the agency moves might impact revenues for the Federal government.

…the tax agency’s moves frustrate lawmakers’ attempts to raise revenue and plug gaps in tax compliance.

The real question, though, centers on an aspect of Federal revenues about which I’ve written before. This is the claim made in the linked-to article’s headline, and which is repeated in the body of the article:

It Could Cost $8 Billion

And

The Internal Revenue Service has now postponed them [certain rules for tax collections] all for two years—which could cost the Treasury more than $8 billion.

This is risible on its face. Aside from the fact that the Federal government has not established any need for the money, say the dollar value of the claim is accurate. Those $8 billion are the sole property of us taxpaying Americans. It doesn’t cost the Federal government one single copper penny—or copper-plated zinc penny in today’s currency—to not receive what doesn’t belong to it in the first place.

Further, while the IRS’ delays might reduce, in the immediate term, revenues to the Federal government, the delays result in those $8 billion being left in the hands of us taxpayers—who know much better than Government how to spend those dollars, or save them, on our individual needs and wants. That leads to increased activity in our private economy, and that leads, in the mid- to longer-term, to net increases in revenues to Government.

It would lead to even more revenues to Government were the IRS’ delays functionally made permanent by eliminating altogether those tax items for which the IRS is delaying collection. That increase in certainty regarding the reduction in Government confiscation of our dollars in the form of taxes would lead to even greater private economic activity, and so to even more revenue, on net, to Government.

Customer Choice

Posted on by
Reply

New Mexico’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has gotten to be enacted rules mandating battery cars and trucks in New Mexico.

Starting in calendar year 2026, 43% of all new passenger cars and light-duty trucks shipped to New Mexico auto dealerships by national auto manufacturers must be zero emission vehicles. Similarly, beginning in calendar year 2026, 15% of all new commercial heavy-duty trucks shipped to New Mexico auto dealerships by national auto manufacturers must be zero emission vehicles. These percentages gradually increase over time.

“Increase over time:” by 2031, those 43% rise to 82%. By 2034, the minima for Ford F-250, Ford F-450, and tractor-trailer type trucks rise to 55%, 75%, and 40%, respectively.

Disingenuously, Lujan Grisham says regarding those limits on choice,

The adoption of these rules is a victory for customer choice….

That’s the Progressive-Democrat’s definition of customer choice: the State taking on the burden of choosing, thereby relieving its subjects citizens of that burden.

No. I decline to use Lujan Grisham’s Newspeak Dictionary. I’ll stay with American English dictionaries and their definitions of “customer choice:” us ordinary Americans acting on our own selections.

That choice is clear, too, for the good citizens of New Mexico, who’ve already made theirs: less than 1% of the 650,000 vehicles registered in New Mexico, despite tax credits, are EVs. Those good citizens do, however, need to select better at the next ballot box.