Supreme Court Damage

This is why we so desperately need a Republican President and a Republican Senate from 2017 on.

The Supreme Court split 4-4 Tuesday on a challenge brought by public school teachers who objected to paying union dues, delivering a big win for the unions[.]

The Liberal block on the Court has continued to vote in lock step, rather than on what the law actually says, this time damaging—as they surely know—not only the Free Speech Clause, but the Free Assembly Clause as well, of the 1st Amendment.

This particular ruling is not “final;” the split ruling only leaves intact the 9th Circuit’s ruling.  The appellate courts remain split on the matter, and a later, full court can hear another case along these lines and strike unions’ ability to collect dues from non-members and to use the dues from members and non-members for political purposes those dues payers do not approve.

That full Court badly needs a conservative, textualist Justice to replace Antonin Scalia.  Our Republic is badly endangered by a bloc-voting Liberal Court that sees the Constitution as malleable in accordance with their own interpretation of today’s needs rather than malleable only through Article V and the folks who make up today’s society, We the People.

More Overregulation

More fallout from Dodd-Frank: these regulators now are about to promulgate a rule set that requires companies to sequester bonuses paid to their executives for some period of years before those execs can collect their bonuses.

Aside from interfering with decisions that are wholly internal to a business and so none of the government’s business, there are other problems with this set.  This rule set will

govern pay to risk-taking executives who are in a position to do material damage to their companies.

In addition to extending the deferral window, regulators want to broaden the pool of bank employees subject to the new rules by expanding the definition of risk taker to include factors like the amount of money an employee handles.

Never mind that risk is part of business, and there already are Federal, and State, laws extant that deal with both fraud negligence in this area.  Never mind that shareholder suits, or the threat of them, also already exist as a market mechanism for adequately managing risk-taking.

There’s also this:

…how to balance risk with reward in compensation arrangements that will apply to a cross section of banks, investment advisers, broker dealers, credit unions and executives at mortgage-finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  …

“Trying to come up with a rule that can be uniformly applied to a set of highly diverse players in the financial-services industry was always just going to be very difficult,” said Kyoko Lin, a partner at law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP.

Well, NSS.  This is yet another reason government has no business meddling in the market place.

Federally Mandated Wages

Here’s another fiasco-in-waiting being manufactured by the Progressive-Democrat Party and its leader, President Barack Obama.

The Obama administration has advanced to the final stages a contentious rule that will make millions more Americans eligible for overtime pay….

The Labor Department sent its final version of the overtime-pay regulation to the White House Office of Management and Budget on Monday for review, according to an administration official.

This rule will force employers to pay overtime for hours worked beyond 40 in a week to salaried workers whose annual basic salary is $50,440 or less—an increase of more than 200%.

As any grade schooler who’s on an allowance knows, when the price of something goes up, the grade schooler buys less of that thing.  When the price of labor goes up….

This government interference in the private economy will have two effects: salaried employees who used to put in the overtime now will be barred from that—to the overall detriment of the company’s productivity and so competitiveness, and from that to the detriment of the jobs of that company.

Alternatively, the company, in an effort to maintain company-level productivity, will suck up and pay the overtime.  This will drive up the cost of the company’s products, reduce the funding available for R&D, and from that harm the competitiveness of the company to the detriment of the jobs at that company.

Alternatively, the company will hire fewer workers, replace fewer workers who depart for any of a variety of reasons, to the detriment of employment generally.

These folks of the Left know that; they’re some of the smartest people around, as they assure us.  But, hey—union votes.

The Truth

…is beginning to come out.

At a CNN Ohio coal country Townhall involving Progressive-Democrat Party Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT), Clinton said, in all seriousness,

I’m the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key into coal country, because we’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business.

Her campaign then clarified, in a post-Townhall statement, that her plan “would also safeguard workers’ retirement and health benefits.”  But do nothing about their current jobs so they can get to retirement, apparently.

In an MSNBC-hosted Townhall, Clinton also said this with a straight face:

Now, is Libya perfect? It isn’t.  Libya was a different kind of calculation [from Syria] and we didn’t lose a single person….

Because #FourLivesDon’tMatter.

Hmm….

The PRC’s Economic Malaise

Andrew Browne had some thoughts in a recent Wall Street Journal article. PRC’s Premier, Li Keqiang, wanted to do some serious revamping of the nation’s economic structure and deemphasize a massively overbuilt industrial capacity, shifting the economy more toward consumer production and consumer spending. His words—”This is not nail-clipping; it’s like taking a knife to one’s own flesh”—were reminiscent of his predecessor’s actions. Zhu Rongji eliminated 30 million jobs in an actual overhaul attempt in the ’90s.

Thirty million jobs. That sounds like a lot, but with a workforce of roughly 800 million and roughly 95% employment (because, of course), those 30 million represent just 4% of the workers overall. That’s a sharp cut, but as job cuts go during downturns, it’s not that sharp.

But even that much was too much for Li. Or rather for PRC President Xi Jinping.

[H]igh-level economic policy-making and its practical implementation, once the preserve of the State Council headed by the premier, have increasingly fallen into the hands of Communist Party committees led by President Xi Jinping.

And

…Xi’s political preoccupations: to strengthen the party…to root out challenges to the régime, and to avoid social instability that could in any way threaten the party’s hold on power. If that means delaying unpopular economic adjustments, so be it.

“The party’s hold on power:” read that as Xi’s hold on power, say I. And the people of the People’s Republic can go hang.