Author Archives: eehines

Yapping vs Action

Posted on by
Reply

Republican Congressmen are starting to push back, ever so gently, against President Donald Trump’s (R) DOGE initiative and agency. They want more control, for themselves and for the several Department and Agency heads, over spending and Federal job cuts.

The calls come as some GOP lawmakers have pushed back against job cuts and characterized moves as haphazard, even as they largely agree with the broader goal of reducing government costs and inefficiencies.

That’s the difference between yapping and action. It’s necessary to be specific, to name programs and to name names, if actual action—cuts—are to be made. Republicans are exposing themselves now.

The House, with its alleged Republican majority, has passed its budget outline proposal, and already it does not include an aggregated ceiling for spending cuts that’s high enough to have room for all of the ones the DOGE effort is suggesting.

Certainly, it’s useful to not make cuts as sweeping as those on offer from DOGE and from Trump all at once; business and especially State budgets need time to adjust to the sharply reduced inflow of Federal dollars and outflow of ex-Federal employees, but that’s easily enough accommodated over a period of two years, so all the cuts proposed could be accomplished within a single Congressional session.

Just as certainly, the several constituencies of the several Republican Representatives have differing imperatives and needs—Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis’ (R, NY) constituents have different views of appropriate levels of cuts and where to make them than do Congressman Thomas Massie’s (R, KY), but in the Federal Congress, these Congressmen have national level constituents in addition to their local ones.

But, as ralflongwalker passed along to me:

You want to gore my ox? Oh, no!

Pick one, guys. Either you’re for spending cuts and reductions in the bloated Federal bureaucracy labor force, or you’re like a bunch of spendthrift Progressive-Democrats, just yapping differently.

An Alternative Approach to Bird Flu

Posted on by
Reply

The current approach is, when a chicken in a chicken flock shows itself to be infected with the avian flu, kill the entire flock. That’s hard on a chicken farmer’s pocket book, since the government only reimburses the farmer for part of the cost of his loss (whether the government should reimburse the farmer for 100% or 0% of his loss is a separate question).

A current alternative is to vaccinate the chickens in the flock against the avian flu, but that’s a labor (and cost) intensive effort since the vaccine must be delivered by injection under the skin, chicken by chicken. Vaccines are under development that would allow mass vaccination, but those are a ways away.

There’s an alternative approach that isn’t, as far as I can tell, being looked into. I sympathize with one of the motives for the mass killing of entire flocks—no one wants to let the chickens die miserable deaths one by each. However, if the avian flu is allowed to run its course through the flock, 90% to 100% of infected birds die. That means that some number of those chickens survive their infection.

How about letting the avian flu run its course through some number of flocks and collecting up the survivors? Those chickens have shown themselves to be resistant to the avian flu. These should be bred among themselves to see if an avian flu-resistant population of chickens could be bred.

Or not, but it seems worth the try.

University Funding and University Overhead

Posted on by
Reply

Maya Sen, Professor of Public Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, thinks the Trump administration’s insistence on a cap of 15% for “indirect costs” as part of all Federal research grants to colleges/universities is too low for too many such institutions; such caps should continue to be negotiated school by school. She insists, for instance, that Harvard needs its 69% cut of research grants for its indirect cost.

An across-the-board 15% cap, she insists, ignores any individualized considerations, leaving schools with higher costs in the lurch. And, she claims,

University research depends on federal money—11% of Harvard’s operating revenue comes from such grants.

Her alternative:

There’s a better solution than a blanket cap. Universities could instead commit to addressing administrative bloat and shoring up research integrity—both reasonable points that academics themselves have flagged.

Couple things about that. One is Harvard’s $53.2 billion endowment with its 2024 return on investment of 9.6%—a fairly typical ROI for Harvard; even if its yearly ROI varies quite a bit around that figure. That’s a lot of money carefully not being used for the school’s operating revenue, or its grant “indirect costs.”

The other is that proposed Universities could instead commit to addressing administrative bloat and shoring up research integrity. We’ve seen already the value of those commitments—empty virtue-signaling words in far too many cases. See for instance, Sen’s own Harvard and its refusal to enforce its commitment to protect Jewish students from Harvard’s population of pro-terrorist “students.”

Bonus thing regarding those schools with higher costs about which Sen worries being left in the lurch: any lurch is solely the product of those “higher cost” schools. They can straightforwardly cull their administrative bloat and adjust their spending allocations to deal with remaining costs. All that would take is a modicum of courage, with backbone injected via reduced revenues caused by reduced Federal froo-froo included in any research grants.

No. The administration’s across-the-board 15% cap needs to be implemented.

“Another Reason to Move to Florida”

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal phrased its headline as a question, but it fits as a statement, also. James Freeman’s op-ed was centered on Republican Governor Ron DeSantis’ move toward reducing/eliminating Florida’s property tax, but there’s a much broader item in play here.

Florida’s regular legislative session starts next week and state Senator Jonathan Martin (R, Fort Myers) recently filed a bill to study “a framework to eliminate property taxes…and to replace property tax revenues through budget reductions, sales-based consumption taxes, and locally determined consumption taxes authorized by the Legislature.

Consumption taxes are even more regressive than our existing national income tax structure is progressive. Replacing reduced taxes with budget reductions, though—that would be a strong move toward leaving Florida’s citizens’ money in the hands of those citizens.

If Florida can pull that off, it would be a strong reason to move there, and it would be a powerful empirically demonstrated example of how such a move would increase the prosperity of the citizens of the other 49 States, and of the United States.

In Which our Courts are Failing

Posted on by
Reply

The question here is what standard courts should apply in matters of reverse discrimination. The question is laid out in The Wall Street Journal article’s lede:

Amid a MAGA-led backlash to diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, the Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider an issue that has split judges around the country: what do white people and other members of a majority group have to prove to win a claim for reverse discrimination?

(Aside: the newswriters’—Jess Bravin and Erin Mulvaney—irrelevant reference to MAGA illustrates their own and their editor’s political bias.)

The question is expanded in the second paragraph [emphasis added]:

Marlean Ames claims the Ohio state agency where she works denied her a promotion and then demoted her because she is heterosexual, instead giving both her old job and the one she had sought to gay people. A federal appeals court in Cincinnati threw out Ames’s lawsuit, finding that she failed to show the “background circumstances” suggesting the employer was hostile to straight people—a threshold step that wouldn’t have been required had a gay employee claimed discrimination.

As the writers noted shortly after:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination because of an “individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin….”

Lauren Hartz, DC-located partner in Jenner & Block raised this bit:

We are in disagreement about what groups in American society today are advantaged or disadvantaged[.]

This is a wholly constructed and cynically dragged red herring. The only advantaged groups are those groups of Americans who get favorable treatment from our courts compared to other groups of Americans, and the only disadvantaged groups of Americans are those groups of Americans at whose expense that advantageous treatment comes.

Civil rights groups have raised another irrelevancy:

Many civil-rights groups say the occasional example of reverse discrimination doesn’t change history. Courts, according to a brief filed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, should be able to consider the “realities of this country’s persisting legacy of discrimination.”

The supposedly “occasional” nature of reverse discrimination is no excuse for any amount of that form of discrimination. Neither does it excuse the creation of a new legacy of discrimination for our future.

Thus: how about using the same standard for all cases involving allegations of discrimination?

How about judges and Justices hew to the text of black letter law and to the foundational text of the 14th Amendment of our Constitution?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That’s it in black and white; it’s not that hard to understand and to apply. As a Chief Justice of our Supreme Court said not so long ago, The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

There is no excuse for our court system, nor any judge or Justice within it, applying different standards of adjudication to different groups of Americans. Judges and Justices are violating their oaths of office when they do.