Category Archives: political economy

He Thinks It’s a Countermove

Posted on by
Reply

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro (D) is making a big deal out of his offer of jobs in the Pennsylvania State government to those terminated Federal bureaucrats who would be interested.

The commonwealth recognizes that a workforce of dedicated and talented public servants is the backbone of a responsive government that can ensure the efficient and effective delivery of services for Pennsylvanians[.]

Kudos to Shapiro, I say, for all that his motive is so highly questionable. There’s no doubt that the vast majority of Federal bureaucrats are talented, dedicated workers, and being offered jobs at the State level that match their skill sets is a Good Thing.

None of that, though, alters the simple fact that Federal employment is not an inherent right and that Federal bureaucrats are not entitled to any Federal job, much less any Federal sinecure. Neither does any of that alter the simple fact that these Federal bureaucrats are unnecessary to the function of the Federal government, and their redundancy should be recognized and acted on.

Indeed, those making the Federal cuts have said from the outset that the bureaucrats’ firings do not in any way impugn their skill, talent, or dedication—it’s simply that they are not needed; their job positions themselves are redundant.

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.

How to Handle Federal Lands

Posted on by
Reply

Terry Anderson, of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, has some thoughts on how best to handle Federal lands, a unaggregated expanse of some 640 million acres, 28% of US land. In their essence, his ideas are to handle those lands in a business-like manner.

…three options: raise the price of goods and services (timber, minerals, visits to national parks), reduce labor costs and liquidate money losers.

He’s right, but those are the second steps that need to be taken, not the first step.

Twenty-eight percent is far too much of American land to be retained by the Federal government. The necessary first step is the transfer of those lands to their respective States.

Anderson’s ideas, fleshed out some in the fulness of his op-ed, does recommend [t]urn[ing] ownership of some federal lands over to the states, but that’s wholly inadequate. The vast majority of those lands should be turned over.

The amount that might be retained by the Federal government, to suggest a percentage for opening discussion, would be less than 5%, and the retention purposes might be limited to protecting some historical and scenic areas for public park use, to finishing cleaning up Superfund sites of their contamination—following which those sites should be returned to the States—to maintaining (and I say expanding) our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to siting military installations, and to setting up, or finishing, nuclear waste storage sites.

The Federal government has no legitimate interest in withholding from State and private use so huge an expanse of our land. Selling it to the States and to private citizens would raise funds for paying down our national debt, too. The modern equivalent of a dollar an acre comes to mind for a suitable sale price—that original one dollar price wasn’t so much for raising money—though it did for that then small Federal budget—than to transfer the land to owners who, by paying for it, would have some incentive to make economic-based use of it.

The retained land then should be managed IAW business principles.