Tag Archives: political economy

A Risk and a Solution

Posted on by
Reply

Japan’s Softbank Group has reported a significant loss driven by the technology company crackdown the People’s Republic of China government has inflicted on PRC tech-oriented companies and Softbank’s heavy investments in those companies.

Masayoshi Son, Softbank’s CEO, now is saying

Our China risk is not so huge. It is within our control[.]

And

It is a time of severe trials for China’s high-tech stocks. We are right in the middle of a storm.

And, as paraphrased by The Wall Street Journal,

[T]here is only so much more damage turmoil in China can do.

Here’s a thought: Softbank could eliminate the risk altogether and prevent any further damage by divesting itself of all PRC-oriented holdings and no longer investing at all in PRC companies, whether tech or ditch digging or anything in between.

Punish Success

Posted on by
Reply

Punish, especially, those who are successful.

[T]he $1.75 trillion [reconciliation] package restores limits on so-called “mega IRAs,” preventing more money from being added to a Roth or traditional individual retirement account if its value exceeded $10 million. The restriction…would apply to individuals who make over $400,000 and married joint filers with more than $450,000 in annual income.

There’s that marriage penalty back, too.

And (and contradictorily to the income limit posited above)

[W]ealthy Americans with account balances above $10 million would have to draw down their accounts by a certain threshold each year, thereby triggering taxes on the money.
…. The general rule is that anyone with more than $10 million in an account must withdraw at least 50%. Those with more than $20 million would be required to withdraw 100% of anything over that $20 million threshold in their Roth accounts.

Regardless of their income. And to hell with their heirs. Or their intended charities.

Here’s another aspect of their game, from Steven Rosenthal of the Tax Policy Center:

A big first step to strip retirement tax benefits from those who don’t need the help[.]

Because Leftists know the needs of Americans better than those who’ve earned the wealth with which to satisfy their own needs.

Really, though, it’s not even that much. It’s much pettier.

Jealousy… is the green-eyed monster which doth mock
The meat it feeds on.

 

Disingenuosity of a Progressive-Democrat

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that last spring’s reconciliation bill included an expanded child tax credit, which payments were automatic monthly payments that went to families without income as well as to those with income.

Progressive-Democrats, in the current reconciliation bill, want to make those credits permanent, and still automatic. Progressive-Democrats also want to start paying out a universal basic income to all Americans. But, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D, MD) is denying that the child tax credit is a step toward a universal basic income.

As constructed, though, this “credit,” paid automatically regardless of “need,” is itself income, and given the breadth of Americans who receive it, it’s virtually universal all by itself.

And, of course, it’s income.

What is Hoyer’s limiting principle that proves this child tax credit is not a step on the road to a fully universal basic income? What hard principle prevents him from changing his mind on this, or that prevents any of his colleagues from changing this “credit,” later?

Hoyer has none. He’s simply being disingenuous when he claims the nearly universal child tax credit isn’t a step—a huge step, nearly spanning the gap, I say—toward a universal basic income.

What Does This Say

Posted on by
Reply

…about Federal bureaucrats and their…managers? And no, I’m

not talking about a Deep State or an Administrative State.

The Biden administration on Wednesday issued a sweeping new order mandating that nearly all federal agencies patch hundreds of cybersecurity vulnerabilities that are considered major risks for damaging intrusions into government computer systems.

And

The new requirement is one of the most wide-reaching cybersecurity mandates ever imposed on the federal government. It covers about 200 known security flaws identified by cybersecurity professionals between 2017 and 2020 and an additional 90 discovered in 2021 alone that have generally been observed being used by malicious hackers. Those flaws were listed in a new federal catalog as carrying “significant risk to the federal enterprise.”

What does this say about the proactivity, the willingness to act on their own recognizance, of the bureaucrats running these agencies and of the bureaucrats responsible for IT in these agencies?

It gets worse.

A significant majority of the flaws being published on the DHS catalog are ones that weren’t covered under previous orders, a senior official said.

Where’s the initiative? The lack is as appalling as it is unacceptable. Waiting—needing—to be told what to do? Really?

These are people who Know Better and passive-aggressively obstruct actions and orders with which they personally disagree. They’re in the way and need to be terminated.

These are other people who are unable to make the office cultural change necessary. They’re also in the way and need to be terminated, albeit with more favorable rationales than that first category.

These are yet other people who’ve simply had their weak performance tolerated out of misguided efforts at being nice. They’re also in the way and need to be retrained—and terminated if the training doesn’t lead to improved performance.

But most of all, those office managers and IT honchos shouldn’t have had to be told to do this critical part of their jobs. They need to be replaced, and their replacements better vetted.

If cybersecurity officials at a certain agency fail to comply with a directive, DHS [for instance] can notify the agency’s senior leaders, who are then responsible for resolving the noncompliance.

This is entirely too slow. Those failing to perform need to be corrected promptly, and if necessary, terminated promptly.

Cybersecurity isn’t just a matter of national security. It’s a matter of national survival.

Misleading—And Potential Fraud?

Posted on by
Reply

Getting an adverse reaction—of any sort—from an employer-mandated or -encouraged Wuhan Virus vaccination? The Biden-Harris OSHA doesn’t want to hear about it.

The Department of Labor’s pledge Monday to publish an “emergency temporary standard” on COVID vaccine mandates “in the coming days” threatens to worsen the skewed picture federal regulators have been getting from employers for five months.

29 CFR Part 1904 – RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES, among other things as JtN puts it requires employers to “record and report work-related fatalities, injuries, and illnesses[.]” OSHA, though, is exempting employers from reporting Wuhan Virus-related adverse reactions.

And this:

[T]he exemption is a “welcome reprieve to employers” because their insurance could have jumped based on recordkeeping logs of adverse reactions to vaccines, which have “little to no correlation” with an unsafe workplace, [labor lawyer Keith Wilkes of Hall Estill] told Just the News.

Concealing health data from the company’s health insurer could amount to insurance fraud, depending on the terms of the employer-insurer contract. It also could impact negotiations over new or renewed employer-insurer contracts, and fraudulently so if those withheld data are material to the matter being negotiated.

To be sure, OSHA still encourages employees

to file complaints when they believe their employer has exposed them to COVID or is “not taking appropriate steps to protect you from exposure.”

Which, to a candid world, would seem a bit one-sided when the employers are being told by the same OSHA to shut up about adverse reactions.

But that’s the Biden-Harris administration for you.