Tag Archives: economics

Think about Leaving

Posted on by
Reply

Portland business owners are more than fed up with the level of crime destroying their businesses. Their idea of who has the solution is misguided, though.

Frustrated business owners are calling on city and county leaders to do more to combat rising property crime in Portland….

This situation is not solely on the heads of Portland’s city councilmen or the county commissioners. The business’ fellow residents of Portland keep electing those councilmen and commissioners, politicians who’ve demonstrated their lack of commitment to order and rule of law.

Why would any business owner want as his customers folks who so consciously approve of and vote for such politicians? Those are the voters, after all, who then vandalize, rob, and otherwise trash their businesses. There are plenty of jurisdictions that do regard rule of law to be a Good Thing, and those jurisdictions have sound economies with plenty of room for businesses currently domiciled in lawless Portland.

Overreach

Posted on by
Reply

The New York banking regulator, the New York State Department of Financial Services, has announced “rules” that would require banks of all sizes to consider climate change in their risk assessment considerations. NYSDF’s rules are made the worse because it has outsized influence due to the plethora of Wall Street institutions in the State.

Banks would be called upon to look at climate-related risks when bringing on new clients and when extending credit.

This is naked government overreach, even at the State level, and it’s one more reason financial institutions should leave New York. I can suggest Miami, Austin, Dallas, Sioux Falls, and Fargo as alternative locations.

It’s more than that, though. It’s an…inaccurate…goal. The only climate-related risk any American business, banking or other, faces is Government behavior vis-à-vis government bureaucrat-perceived climate situations.

Punishing the Successful

Posted on by
Reply

There are changes to Americans’ 401(k) plans that are included in the Omnibus Spendathon bill currently in front of Congress, and they are IMNSHO highly favorable. (Aside: I hope the Omnibus Spendathon gets killed in favor of a short-term bill—or no bill at all; we won’t miss the Federal government for a few days—that will let the incoming Republican-majority House have its input into the year’s spending. These 401(k) provisions could be brought up and enacted then.)

Among those changes are a raise in the age at which account holders must begin taking their Required Minimum Withdrawals from the current 72 years old to 75 years old.

Cue the outrage from the Progressive-Democratic Party politicians and their Leftist supporters, all of whom hate the success of others.

Some lawmakers, academics and policy analysts have criticized some of the provisions, including the move to raise the age of required retirement account distributions to 75. They argue much of the legislation benefits the wealthy and the financial-services industry.
“It will primarily subsidize the wealthy and worsen the racial wealth gap,” said a statement from Americans for Tax Fairness.

Leave aside the racist slur from ATF regarding its manufactured race beef. Never mind that the proposed legislation doesn’t harm anyone, or that it gives a path to greater prosperity to those willing to scrimp more now in favor of greater payoffs tomorrow. Those Progressive-Democrats and their Leftist supporters are desperate to hold back some because others can’t keep up. They can’t conceive of—or refuse to consider—ways to help those others do better.

Progressive-Democrats and their Leftist supporters, at bottom, have nothing but contempt for the capabilities of those of us on the middle and lower economic rungs. We average Americans are simply too grindingly stupid to be able to act on our own; we must be “taken care of” by our Betters on the Left.

Priorities

Posted on by
1

Another fail by the Progressive-Democrat Mayor of New York City Eric Adams.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams said with the expiration of Title 42, the Big Apple may be forced to cut public services to prioritize an expected influx of an additional 1,000 migrants arriving every week.

He said it explicitly:

Truth be told, if corrective measures are not taken soon, we may very well be forced to cut or curtail programs New Yorkers rely on, and the pathway to house thousands more is uncertain[.]

There’s this bit of context, too:

In the past several months, New York City has already received more than 31,000 asylum seekers….

That in a city with a population of 8.8 million residents, of whom, more than 350 thousand already receive public assistance. And Adams seriously thinks the 31 thousand are a serious drain on so large a city with a welfare system so broad.

Adams seriously thinks American citizens should take a back seat to a small collection of illegal aliens.

Why is this mayor prioritizing illegal aliens over his city’s American residents in meting out his city’s finite support resources? Well, he is a Progressive-Democratic Party politician….

Progressive-Democratic Party Welfare Cliff

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written about this on a few occasions. The New York Post has current data, and they’re even worse. Here’s a table illustrating the matter (as usual, right click|Open in New Tab to get a bigger image).

And some specific data:

  • In 24 states, unemployment benefits and ObamaCare subsidies for a family of four with no one working are the annualized equivalent of at least the national median household.
  •  In a dozen states, the value of unemployment benefits and Obama­Care subsidies exceeds the salary and benefits of the average teacher, construction worker, electrician, firefighter, truck driver, machinist or retail associate.
  •  In New Jersey, a family of four can receive benefits equal to an annualized earned income of $108,000 with no one working.
  •  In Connecticut and New Jersey, a family earning $300,000 a year can receive ObamaCare subsidies
  •  New Jersey is a state where a family can earn the equivalent of $100,000 a year if both parents are collecting unemployment benefits and ObamaCare subsidies for health care. In Connecticut the benefits can reach $80,000.

Party is bent on keeping average Americans trapped in Party’s welfare cage and dependent on Party largesse in return for votes.