Tag Archives: political economy

Government Fiat

Posted on by
Reply

This is what the Progressive-Democrats in charge of our Federal Government are plotting [sic] in the way of drug pricing under Medicare Part D (the drug provision of Medicare), per the Tax Foundation.

Under HR 3 [the Elijah Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act], if drug manufacturers do not agree to participate in negotiations, or do not agree to the negotiated price, they would be subject to an escalating excise tax on the sale of the drug in question. The tax would kick in at 65 percent and would rise by 10 percentage points each 90 days the manufacturers are in “noncompliance,” reaching a maximum tax rate of 95%.

What “negotiation?” This is the price we’re negotiating for, says the Health and Human Services Secretary, the Government official that HR3 says will represent the Government.

Here’s our counteroffer, says the drug manufacturer.

No, no, that’s too high, says SecHHS, repeating his original offer. Then he says, Here’s your noncompliance tax.

This isn’t negotiation, yet that’s what will occur, with the Government holding all the cards. Targeted drug manufacturers and sellers would not even be allowed to opt out of Medicare under HR3.

The Tax Foundation is concerned about drug innovation, and rightly so.

I’m also concerned about the fate of free enterprise and of individual freedom.

Is Biden at it Again?

Posted on by
Reply

Is this another dangerous failure of the Biden/Harris administration?

US officials have approved license applications worth hundreds of millions of dollars for China’s blacklisted telecom company Huawei to buy chips for its growing auto component business, two people familiar with the matter said.

Apparently, it’s been going on behind our backs since shortly after Biden took office.

But in recent weeks and months, people familiar with the application process told Reuters the US has granted licenses authorizing suppliers to sell chips to Huawei for such vehicle components as video screens and sensors.

It’s true enough that these moves are only claimed by Karen Freifeld’s childhood invisible “people familiar with” friend, but Biden’s actions here, if true, would be of a piece with his empirically demonstrated timidity in the face of our enemies.

The Value of a College Degree

Posted on by
1

According to Credible:

High school graduates make about $39,000 per year, while those with a Bachelor’s degree earn $73,000.

Average student loan debt on graduation, though, runs a bit over $37,000, with a typical annual payment on that debt is more than $4,700.

Here are the annual incomes from some of the skilled trades, according to my arithmetic and data from Indeed. Based on 50-week years (because some vacation matters, even if it’s not paid):

  • Journeyman Electrician (an entry level): $48,500
  • Journeyman Plumber: $45,040
  • Welder: $44,020
  • Carpenter: $42,720
  • Pipefitter: $51,270
  • Ironworker: $48,640

Tradesmen, also, have none of that $37,000 of student debt coming out of their training.

Keep in mind, too, that doctors, lawyers, philosophers, teachers, and on and on, have no place to apply their skills (and no place to live or play in their off hours) without the trades to build those facilities, or without the trades to build the communications, power distribution, and transportation infrastructures to connect them and to provide the means by which to get to and from them.

The financial value of a degree might seem greater than the value of a certification in a trade, but its greater value depends on the prior existence of those trades.

A Remade Population, Progressive-Democrat Style

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrats are bent on reducing Americans to dependency on the largesse of that Party’s politicians for our…everything.

One move in that push is the explosion of the Federal government’s food stamp program—a program created by Party’s forbears, the Democratic Party, and which the Progressive-Democratic Party is using the Wuhan Virus program as an excuse for expanding—and expanding Americans’ dependence on them.

A family of four will get up to $835 per month after adjusting for inflation. The average four-person household in the US spent only $537 per month on food at home in 2019.

That’s 55% (!) more than that family actually spends for food.

But that’s only one move.

Entitlements before the pandemic consumed two-thirds of federal spending. Now [Progressive-]Democrats want to create new entitlements that make the middle class more dependent on government while enlarging existing welfare programs like food stamps, which they plan to pay for by raising taxes and cutting defense. This is a recipe for a weaker and fatter America.

It’s also a recipe for a population of Julias and Pajama Boys dependent on Party, and so a population of Party voters. And a weaker America.

Reconciliation, Taxes, Debt, and Two Senators

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Joe Manchin (D, WV) and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D, AZ) claim they’re worried about their Progressive-Democratic Party’s reconciliation bill, even as they voted in the wee hours of last Wednesday morning, to pass their Party’s budget outline—that reconciliation bill.

Manchin:

I have serious concerns about the grave consequences facing West Virginians and every American family if Congress decides to spend another $3.5 trillion[.]

However.

Early this morning, I [Manchin] voted “YES” on a procedural vote to move forward on the budget reconciliation process because I believe it is important to discuss the fiscal policy future of this country.

Manchin expounded on his duplicity:

Adding trillions of dollars more to nearly $29 trillion of national debt, without any consideration of the negative effects on our children and grandchildren, is one of those decisions that has become far too easy in Washington[.]

Yet the reconciliation resolution that he voted up contains those trillions of dollars of added national debt, and supporting that seems to be one of those far too easy decisions that he also has decided to make.

Sinema, paraphrased by MarketWatch:

said two weeks ago that she does not support the $3.5 trillion package….

And, quoting Sinema:

While I will support beginning this process, I do not support a bill that costs $3.5 trillion….

Though, of course, she wants consideration of it. Especially since that process is purely Party, with no Republican input whatsoever.

Of course, were they serious, they’d have voted against the resolution until all of that was eliminated, reduced, or tailored to their satisfaction. The easiest time to block such nonsense is at the outset. The longer that stuff is allowed to remain in the reconciliation package, the more likely it’ll remain all the way through. And the more time there’ll be for their fellows to find things with which to buy off Manchin and Sinema.

Their fellows likely will find the price exacted for renting their…votes…to be quite low.

The proof of the pudding will be in how Manchin and Sinema vote when those matters come up for serious debate, and how they vote when the aggregated cost of the bill becomes operational.

I’m not sanguine.