Who’s in Charge in Arizona?

Posted on by
Reply

Arizona citizens will be voting this fall on a ballot measure that would

require legislative approval for any regulation that the state Office of Economic Opportunity projects would impose costs of $500,000 or more over a five-year period. Lawmakers or anyone subject to the proposed rule could request a cost estimate. If lawmakers failed to ratify the rule before the end of the legislative session, the promulgating state agency would have to issue a notice of termination.

That seems entirely reasonable, restricting as it does unelected bureaucrats in unelected “independent” State agencies from acting on their own recognizance to limit citizen activities.

However.

Republicans hold a majority in the Arizona House and Senate and this year passed a bill to require legislative approval for costly regulations. Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed it, claiming such a check “would create an unnecessary burden on state agencies that would inhibit their ability to carry out duties in a timely manner.”

And

Two Arizona Sierra Club chapters betray what opponents fear when they claim Prop. 315 “undermines the autonomy of state agencies.”

The Sierra Club chapters’ managers have said the quiet part out loud.

This is the Progressive-Democrat and her Leftist…supporters…insisting that the citizenry exist to give government agencies something to do; those agencies aren’t at all beholden to the State’s citizens or their elected representatives.

As the WSJ editors put it in the link above, The issue is who decides—elected officials, or unelected regulators? Or perhaps those regulators favored by Progressive-Democrat politicians?
The Know Betters in Arizona’s governor’s office have answered that plainly. The citizens of Arizona need to apply their answer in a couple of weeks, loudly and clearly.

A Question of Border Security

Posted on by
Reply

This question has been rattling around, sub rosa, in my pea brain for some time, and it’s finally percolated to the surface. Texas, in particular, has spent some billions of dollars on its own direct effort to seal its southern border against the flood of illegal aliens allowed in by the Biden-Harris/Harris-Biden administration. Several other States have spent significant dollars sending units of their respective National Guards to Texas and Texas’ southern border to support Texas’ efforts. Florida and South Dakota come particularly to mind, although those are far from the only States to send Guard units. Those units, too, serve to improve the sending States’ own security.

The proximate question is this: should the Federal government reimburse those States for their expenses in guarding our national southern border, expenses necessarily incurred as a result of the present administration’s decision to abrogate its security responsibility?

That raises an overarching question: precisely who is responsible for maintaining the security of our national borders?

Were the Federal government to reimburse, that would be tantamount to asserting a strictly Federal responsibility for border security. Texas’ Governor Greg Abbott (R) has a valid point too, though: Texas has a responsibility to see to the security of its borders, particularly that portion that coincides with the national border with Mexico.

Given the flow of illegal aliens throughout our nation, much of that flow actively and deliberately abetted [sic] by the Biden-Harris administration in transporting illegal aliens from the locations where they’re caught and temporarily detained to a variety of destinations in our interior (along with the flow of gotaways and of an unknown number of undetecteds), by extension of Abbott’s point, all 50 of our States have a responsibility to see to the security of their borders—and their interior—with respect to the illegal aliens in their midst.

The answer, it seems to me, is that border security in our republican federal democracy is a responsibility shared between the central, Federal, government and our several State governments. That leads me to lean toward no Federal reimbursement, per se. However, it may be appropriate for our national defense budget—not any part of a Department of Homeland Security budget—to allocate some border security funds explicitly to the States to defray, not reimburse, some of the States’ costs in securing their own borders.

Another Reason for School Choice

Posted on by
Reply

Maryland’s Montgomery County Public Schools pushes its LGBTQ curriculum on its children down through pre-kindergarten—expose[ing] children as young as 3 to “Pride storybooks” with sex workers, kink, drag, gender transitions, and elementary-age same-sex romance—the school district refuses to notify those children’s parents when this happens in particular classes, and the district refuses to allow those parents to opt their children out of such “lessons.” The 4th Circuit court upheld that atrocious and abusive behavior, so a coalition of parents across a range of religions is petitioning the Supreme Court to take the case and uphold the parents, reversing the 4th Circuit.

A plethora of friend-of-the-courts briefs are flowing in encouraging the Court to take up the case.

And

The overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe schools should hide a student’s gender change at school from parents, according to a recent poll of over 2,200 likely voters.
…
The poll shows that almost three-quarters, 71%, of likely voters said a teacher should notify parents if their students say they want to go by a different gender.

Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision and subsequent ruling, if it takes the case, the way forward is clear. The 4th Circuit’s egregious error and MCPS’ enthusiastically aggressive child abuse and disregard of parents’ wishes illustrate the difficulty of getting public K-12 schools to do their job. Those schools no longer are worth the trouble or our tax money. Instead, this is just one more reason for parents to pull their children from public schools in favor of charter or voucher schools and homeschooling. And for pushing for more charter and voucher schools.

Has FEMA Gone Racist and Sexist?

Posted on by
Reply

The Biden-Harris’ Federal Emergency Management Agency has gone from aiding Americans in regional emergencies to emphasizing Americans who happen to be black or female for such aid before it gets around to helping other Americans in the same emergency region.

[A] closer look at FEMA’s recent internal documents, spending, and public actions shows that FEMA has broadened its focus to handling the flow of migrants into the US and attempting to double down on DEI initiatives on gender, sexuality, and race.

FEMA’s strategic “plan” for the period 2022-2026—we have far too long yet to go under this piece of work—makes the agency’s bigotry clear:

In its first goal, the plan promised to “Instill equity as a foundation of emergency management.”
Its second named priority is to “lead whole of Community in climate resilience.”
FEMA’s “readiness” comes in as the third goal in the plan.
“Diversity, equity, and inclusion cannot be optional; they must be core components of how the agency conducts itself internally and executes its mission[.]”

This is an agency that badly wants a complete revamp, with wholly new personnel in supervisory positions. The bigotry of those managers has gone entirely too far, and their redemption isn’t possible from within government positions.

A Subsidy

Posted on by
Reply

It may be that the People’s Republic of China will start subsidizing mainland Chinese families who have more than one child, to the tune of 800 yuan per child for a family’s second and third children per month. Is that a little, or a lot?

The PRC’s 2024 per capita GDP in nominal terms is a bit over $13,000, which works out to 92,300 yuan, or 7,700 yuan per month. Those 800 yuan are roughly $113.

Using data from just before the Wuhan Virus Situation, per capita household electricity consumption was some 750 kilowatt-hours per month. That consumption cost $0.083 per kilowatt-hour; that works out to roughly 425 yuan per month.

Food consumption cost mainland Chinese roughly $270, or 1,915 yuan per month for a family of three, rising (in a naïve estimate) to $360 per month, or 2,555 yuan for a family upsized to four.

In those broad strokes, it seems that electricity and food consume that subsidy before getting to housing, which already is badly under water, for all that the housing industry may be—may be—turning around.

Given the decision of mainland Chinese families not to have more than one child, even after the murderously enforced one-child edict was lifted, this likely won’t increase family size in the PRC. And that’s separate from the editors’ note that child subsidies have never worked anywhere.