Tag Archives: jobs

Pass the Bill, Anyway

Posted on by
Reply

…and force President Barack Obama to sign it or to veto it. On the record. Either way, it shapes the 2016 elections, and if Obama actually signs, it’ll be good for the country.

Obama has said he’ll veto

a potential agreement to permanently enact tax breaks on business investments in new equipment and research and development as part of a plan that would renew dozens of expired tax breaks for businesses and individuals both.

Obama threatened his veto even before any such plan actually has been developed and floated. Because you have to veto the bill before you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the bill writing.

Obama said, through his Deputy White House Press Secretary, Jennifer Friedman, that he would

veto the proposed deal because it would provide permanent tax breaks to help well-connected corporations while neglecting working families[.]

This, of course, is nonsense. Corporations don’t pay a lot of taxes, anyway; they pass what they pay on to their customers, including working families and unemployed families, in the form of higher prices. Contra Obama, the best way to help families is to leave more money in their pockets through lower taxes and to put more money in their pockets by getting government out of the way of the economy, so that growth can occur, hiring can occur, pay raises can occur.

Pass the bill, and force Obama to do something besides talk.

Illinois and Money

Posted on by
Reply

The government of Illinois—a Democratic Party-controlled government at the time—reduced the cost of its public pension programs by passing a law reducing future cost growth, specifically, by reducing the size of future increases in pension payouts, without eliminating those increases.

Illinois’ Constitution has this to say on the matter of public pensions:

Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.

Illinois State Judge John Belz decided that the enacted law was a violation of Illinois’ constitution and struck the law.

The state of Illinois made a constitutionally protected promise to its employees concerning their pension benefits[.]

And

[I]t is clear that if something qualifies as a benefit of the enforceable contractual relationship resulting from membership in one of the State’s pension or retirement systems, it cannot be diminished or impaired.

Yet what “qualifies as a benefit” is a matter of statutory definition, a matter set by the Illinois’ legislature. Belz’ ruling indicates that these legislative definitions are, in fact, amendments to Illinois’ constitution—else those definitions must be changeable at legislative initiative, as the law Belz has struck did.

Among his objections is this:

The Act adds new language to the Pension Code….

Now the whole Pension Code, enacted by the legislature and not by constitutional convention, is suddenly a part of the State’s constitution.

Belz’ ruling goes on in that vein.

Belz also seems to have misunderstood what the legislature has done in concrete terms. As he clearly understands, the legislature acted to reduce the size of future pension payouts, changing, for instance, the way a (future) pensioner’s 3% annual increase in pension payment is calculated. The pensioner still gets an increase, though. A smaller increase, as any third grade pupil in arithmetic easily understands, still is an increase. A pensioner’s pension in no way is diminished or impaired, by the definition of increase.

Finally, a practical question: a State’s police powers are an assertion that the State can use its governance offices to act to protect public safety and welfare—to prevent a State from being unable to honor its financial commitments and defaulting altogether, for instance. Thus, if Illinois’ government is unable to act to pay its pension obligations, how does Belz propose those obligations be met?

The judge screwed up, and the State is appealing.

 

Belz’ summary judgment order can be read here.

A Tax Implication of Obama’s Immigration

Posted on by
Reply

Via The Daily Caller comes this ugly thought. Illegal aliens, under President Barack Obama’s immigration diktat, will get work permits and be eligible for social security payments in their dotage. They’ll also be required to pay taxes, including their Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. Never mind that their employers’ cost of labor just went up because they’ll no longer be able to avoid paying their own payroll taxes on those workers (to be clear, they should have been paying all along, but since they were breaking the law hiring these folks, they could hardly be expected to give themselves up by paying up).

Here’s the kicker, though. The number of illegal alien families living under the Federal Poverty Guideline is roughly double the number for the nation at large. Thus,

…asked if the illegals would get annual payments under the Earned Income Tax Credit program[,]

“They are subject to our tax law,” [Cecilia Munoz, White House Domestic Policy Council Director] said….

And for other welfare benefits, now that they’ll be in the system, at least for as long as Obama’s illegal diktat lasts.

Congress over the next Two Years

Posted on by
Reply

This is what our newly elected Congress needs to do over the next two years.

  • Re-pass the 40 jobs bills which Senator Harry Reid (D, NV) suppressed, without changing a word. Do it with a roll call vote, forcing the Democrats onto the Congressional voting record. President Barack Obama will veto or sign them.
  • Repeal the ACA and Dodd-Frank. Do these with roll call votes, forcing the Democrats onto the Congressional voting record. Obama will veto or sign them.
  • Repeal various parts of ACA, Dodd-Frank, one by one. Do each with a roll call vote, forcing the Democrats onto the Congressional voting record. Obama will veto or sign them.
  • Repeal most of the EPA’s regulations, particularly the ones impacting coal, oil, natural gas, and how private lands can be used. Do it with a roll call vote, forcing the Democrats onto the Congressional voting record. Obama will veto or sign them.
  • Pass tax reform with lowered personal, business rates, closed loopholes and subsidies. Do it with a roll call vote, forcing the Democrats onto the Congressional voting record. Obama will veto or sign them.
  • Pass budgets each year that fully fund the Federal government without funding the ACA or Dodd-Frank remnants and severely restricting funding for the EPA and the Labor Department and its political arm, the NLRB. Do this with roll call votes, forcing the Democrats onto the Congressional voting record. Obama will veto or sign them. Make clear how the obstructionist President prefers to shut off government altogether in his temper tantrum if he can’t have his way.
  • Pass border control legislation. Do it with a roll call vote, forcing the Democrats onto the Congressional voting record. Obama will veto or sign.
  • Pass immigration entry reform legislation contingent on a decently secured border, but don’t wait on border security to pass this. The contingency will allow this reform to be passed this session. Do it with a roll call vote, forcing the Democrats onto the Congressional voting record. Obama will veto or sign.
  • Pass legislation vis-à-vis existing illegal aliens contingent on a decently secured border and entry reform, but don’t wait on those to pass this. The contingency will allow this reform to be passed this session. Do it with a roll call vote, forcing the Democrats onto the Congressional voting record. Obama will veto or sign.
  • Seriously restrict regulation delegation authority. Do it with a roll call vote, forcing the Democrats onto the Congressional voting record. Obama will veto or sign.

Our Congress needs to do this against a backdrop of House—and now Senate—hearings into Fast and Furious, IRS, Benghazi, VA, Secret Service failures, immigration lawlessness, NSA snooping, Iran’s nuclear weapons program, DoJ stonewalling of those investigations. Both chambers need to pursue these investigations and associated hearings with zeal, but they shouldn’t be in attack dog mode.

Our Congress needs to take action on the findings of the House Select Committee on Benghazi chaired by Congressman Trey Gowdy (R, SC).

This adds up to a full slate of activities for the 114th Congress.

All cases—legislation and investigative hearings—have two purposes. The first, and foremost, purpose is to get government out of the way of our economy so we can regain our prosperity and to learn and expose the truth of what’s been going on during the Obama administration so that those…failures…can be corrected. The secondary purpose is to keep the Obama administration’s failures of policy and of behavior in the public’s eye.

Don’t waste time on an impeachment effort. They don’t have the votes to convict in the Senate, but the effort will let the NLMSM change the subject away from the Obama administration failures. Of course, the NLMSM might well attempt simply to spike the stories about the legislation and the investigations and hearings, like they did Jonathan Gruber’s truth-telling and most of them did Obama’s immigration “reform” speech last night. But it’ll be a hard thing to spike for two years.

This will be the most effective way of demonstrating the distinction between Conservatives and Democrats/Progressives, of showing what Conservatives stand for and work to achieve compared to what the Democrats/Progressives stand against and work to block. It will give Americans a choice in 2016: a President of little experience and no accomplishment—Hillary Clinton channeling one aspect of Barack Obama—a President bent on Progressive, Big Government policies without regard to the law or the American people—Elizabeth Warren channeling another aspect of Barack Obama—versus a Conservative President, bent on reducing government’s intrusion into Americans’ lives and shrinking government’s interference with Americans’ economy.

This will shape the elections of 2016.

Another Installment of the Obama Recovery

Posted on by
Reply

The number of part-time workers who’d rather work full time remains heavily depressed. Here are some numbers, via Nick Timiraos in The Wall Street Journal.

  • 3 million full-time workers hired just this year, but the number of full-time workers is still around 2 million shy of the level before the recession began in 2007
  • number of workers who are part time for economic reasons is 4.5% of the civilian workforce, down from a high of 5.9% in 2010 but well above the 2.7% average in the decade preceding the recession

Yeah, we’re doing wonderfully well. Sure.