Tag Archives: political economy

Earmarks—Congress Has Them

Posted on by
Reply

They’re back, in spades, courtesy of Congress’ latest spend-a-thon, the $1.5 trillion omnibus spending bill just rushed through under the guise of billions more dollars in aid and weapons for Ukraine. The funding for Ukraine is sorely needed, but that should have been argued and enacted through a separate, stand-alone bill. Instead, Progressive-Democrats and too many Republicans (vis., Senator Richard Shelby, R, AL) used the blood and bodies of Ukrainians to speed through their personally convenient spending wishes—earmarks.

The argument for earmarks is that Congress should direct this spending rather than leave it to the federal bureaucracy. But the bureaucracy is better placed to make trade-offs based on economic value and urgent need in a world of limited resources.

There are two failures in this claim by The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board.

One is that earmarks are perfectly fine as compromise grease and tradeoffs—they just should occur from within a separate budget and allocation line item for earmarks, and each such earmark should be openly debated on the House and Senate floors so We the People can see them and approve or disapprove of them.

The other is the incredibly naive claim that bureaucracy is better placed to make trade-offs based on economic value and urgent need. No, it’s not. Bureaucrats, just like any other politicians, whether elected or Civil Servant, will make the trade-offs that best suit the bureaucrat(s) involved. On top of that, it’s Congress that controls spending, not bureaucrats. Spending decision should be left to our elected representatives in those houses; delegation needs to be reined in and severely curtailed.

Drill, Baby, Drill

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrats really do not want our nation to be energy independent or to be able to support our friends and allies—and acquaintances around the world—with energy exports for the foreseeable future. For motives known only to themselves, they want to kill our energy capability until their dream of “green” energy comes to fruition, in that future distant beyond the foreseeable.

Senate Democrats are threatening to punish US oil companies with a windfall-profits tax if they increase production.

This also illustrates Progressive-Democrats’ utter disinterest in the way economics and economies work (I’m reluctant to say these Know Betters are ignorant of those ways).

The Senators plan would require companies that produce or import at least 300,000 barrels of oil per day (or did so in 2019) to pay a per-barrel tax equal to 50% of the difference between the current and average price between 2015 and 2019 (about $57 a barrel).

Since increasing supply relative to demand brings down price, one counter to this Progressive-Democrat war on our energy economy is to drill, baby, drill.

Another counter becomes available this fall—we need to fire Progressive-Democrats from our State and Federal governments so that energy producers can drill, baby, drill.

A Step

Posted on by
Reply

The Securities and Exchange Commission is thinking about requiring publicly traded companies “promptly” to report data breaches and other significant cybersecurity incidents; “promptly” meaning within four days. Targeted companies, further, would be required to provide periodic updates about previous incidents and to report when a series of previously undisclosed, individually immaterial cybersecurity events has become material in the aggregate.

SEC Chairman Gary Gensler:

Cybersecurity incidents, unfortunately, happen a lot. Thus, investors increasingly seek information about cybersecurity risks, which can affect their investment decisions and returns.

Good to see Captain Sort of Obvious is more or less on top of this. There’s more to it, though, than just investment decisions.

Hacking our businesses aren’t only detrimental to the targeted companies. They’re far too often deliberate, coordinated attacks across industries, and so are threats to our national security. The attacks, even if done in isolation from each other by independently acting criminals (which is what hackers are), far too often aggregate into a threat to our national security.

Requiring reporting within four days is an improvement over the current weeks to months of delay. However, at the speed with which a hack attack can proceed through networks and across the Internet to other networks—especially with the cloud so ubiquitously in the middle—it’s necessary for the attacked business to report the fact of the attack immediately, not some convenient period of time later.

The rule should be expanded, too; although the expansion I suggest would be beyond the SEC’s ken, and so it would need to be enacted by Congress: private companies should be required to report such attacks, also, and just as promptly.

Energy Independence

Posted on by
3

Let’s say, arguendo, that the Biden-Harris administration is sincere in its desire to switch America over, entirely, to renewable energy sources. Let’s say, also arguendo, that that’s even a good idea. Former Interior Department Secretary Ryan Zinke had some thoughts that bear on the execution of these premises:

The first two years of the Trump administration, we went from 8.3 million barrels a day [and] declining in just two years to 12.5 million barrels a day, the world’s largest exporter of energy. And it just wasn’t fossil fuels, it was across the board. So fast-forward now; we have Russia and we should immediately ban Russian oil [the Biden-Harris administration finally got around to doing this last Tuesday, albeit with an unspecified effective as of date].

However, the Biden-Harris administration still is begging OPEC to increase its oil output, now talking seriously about lifting sanctions on Iran so as to buy Iranian oil, and adding to that going to Venezuela to “negotiate” for oil from that nation. This is because we no longer have the ability to control our own energy pricing through our own domestic oil and gas production. Paradoxically, Biden-Harris has attacked our fossil fuel industry with greater zeal than it has shown against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

All of that is in the name of getting us off fossil fuels and onto “green,” renewable energy sources as quickly as domestic fossil fuels can be eliminated, regardless of the cost to us Americans, financially and politically around the world, and regardless of the current inability of wind and solar to deliver reliable energy, much less in the amounts our economy needs.

Here’s an alternative path to that golden chalice.

Biden-Harris should take the Federal government out of the way of our fossil fuel production industry—oil, natural gas, and yes, coal—and let us produce all of that energy that the market can bear. That will let us return to energy independence.

Biden-Harris acolytes always point to the 9,000, or so, oil leases that oil producers already own and aren’t exploiting. Biden-Harris acolytes, along with Biden-Harris himself, carefully ignore the fact that those leases require exploration and development of actual oil locations and that the Biden-Harris administration is sitting on existing permit applications to do that and refusing to accept (or slow walking, which functionally the same) new permit applications. Biden-Harris acolytes, along with Biden-Harris himself, also carefully ignore the usurious royalties Biden-Harris has decided to charge on new extractions–new oil and gas drilling/fracking. Biden-Harris acolytes, along with Biden-Harris himself, also carefully ignore the administration blocks on pipelines–and blocks on the separate permits needed to transport oil and gas via those pipelines (and via train in the case of oil)–and on storage facilities so that oil and gas can be delivered to refineries, and they carefully ignore the time required to obtain rights of way for those pipelines even were on permitted [sic] to be built.

Oil and natural gas producers also are wary of the Biden-Harris administration’s fickle performance with regard to its fossil fuel regulating regime and are hesitant to commit the several millions of dollars that are required up front just to get started when that fickleness is too likely to block an effort after those millions have been committed.

Letting our nation return to energy independence will, tautologically, make us not dependent on other nations for our energy—not our enemies, not our allies, not our friends.

That will put us—our free market economy and its private enterprises—back in control of our energy production. That production control would extend to production from all sources, including renewable (and nuclear, which can be quasi-renewable) sources.

That will generate the time and prosperity that then will let us develop the technologies needed to get reliable renewable energy in the industrial quantities we need, without the worsening pollution and expanding carbon footprint (assuming, once again arguendo, that that’s a bad thing) inherent in current production abilities, at a pace that we can afford, and at prices we Americans can afford to pay.

The Collapse of the Ruble

Posted on by
Reply

Much is being made of the collapse of the Russian ruble since the sanctions with which we’ve answered Russia’s invasion of Ukraine went into effect. Here’s the US Dollar-Russian Ruble exchange rate over the last month (as of 6 March 2022):

For context, here is the performance of the ruble against our dollar since 30 January 2012:

The current drop is sharp, but so far, it looks a lot like the drop in the latter half of 2014—when sanctions were going in over Russia’s first invasion of Ukraine and its occupation of Donbas and Crimea, and following which the ruble more or less stabilized into a (very) slow degradation vis-à-vis our dollar.

The current round of sanctions are important, and the further devaluing of Russia’s ruble are important, but history suggests that the exchange rate will once again more or less stabilize without changing Russia’s behavior.

Concrete support for Ukraine remains critical, and that concrete action includes sharply increasing the transfer of arms—including combat aircraft and more capable anti-aircraft batteries than just (but not instead of) Stingers—transfer of offensive weapons, so that Ukraine can drive the barbarians back out of their nation; and a cessation of the Biden-Harris’ constant retreat whenever Vladimir Putin threatens war against us.