Tag Archives: political economy

Compelling Interest and Racism

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors correctly decry President Joe Biden’s (D) race-based “equity” programs and diktats as taking our nation back to an ugly past.

By equity, Mr Biden means preferences for some racial groups over others to achieve equal outcomes.

And

Mr Biden sells his agenda as taking America into the future. But allocating government funds or privileges by race is a step back to an uglier past. … If applied on the scale Mr Biden hopes, America would become a nation of groups competing for racial spoils and defined outcomes rather than seeking equal opportunity for everyone.

The editors added this near the end of their piece, and here I demur from them.

Strict scrutiny requires that the government have a compelling interest for discriminating by race, and that it must use the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. If less restrictive ways can achieve the same purpose, the policy fails.

There shouldn’t be any strict scrutiny on such matters; the policies should fail on their face. There’s nothing in the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protections clause that permits Government-determined “compelling interest” to override our Constitution [emphasis added].

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

All of that plainly applies to our Federal government every bit as much as it does to each of the governments of the several States.

The Strict Scrutiny standard, as applied here, has been unconstitutional from the start and was an earlier Supreme Court attempt to duck its responsibility in applying our Constitution rather than seeking out excuses and methodologies for getting outside of it.

Government’s compelling interest is to defend and uphold our Constitution.

Full stop.

Repealing SALT

Posted on by
Reply

John Tamny, FreedomWorks’ Center for Economic Freedom Director, wants the SALT deduction cap repealed, and he thinks all Republicans should agree with him.

Among the several Tamny rationalizations for why Republicans should leap at the chance to repeal SALT is this gem.

Repealing the SALT cap might not restore that vision [convolutedly, of limited government], but it would direct money away from Washington and toward states and localities.

No. A better way, the only truly effective way and the only legitimate way, to direct money away from Washington and toward states and localities is to end altogether the interstate transfer of taxpayer monies.

The money us citizens allocate to our various government jurisdictional levels are best left within those jurisdictions entirely. Taxes allocated to our central government should be exclusively for the Constitutional purposes of paying the national debt, funding a defense establishment adequate to defeating external threats, and seeing to our nation’s general Welfare as enumerated in Art I, Sect 8. Those taxes allocated to our respective States and lower jurisdictions are best left within those jurisdictions, subject to the requirements and specifications the citizens of each State set for their State.

The only legitimate interstate transfer of tax dollars is in response to a declaration of a regional or national emergency.

Also Too Weak

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that President Joe Biden (D) came before the American people and touted a bipartisan infrastructure deal, to the tune of $1.2 trillion.

Recall, further, that barely two hours later, Biden again came before us all and said he would refuse to sign that deal unless and until he had, at the same time, a reconciliation-passed bill that had everything in it that was not included in the bipartisan “deal.”

Now Biden is back before us all, saying he’ll sign the bipartisan “deal” and then work on getting further bills passed that have everything in them that he wants.

So—which time was he lying: the first time, speaking from his heart when he said he’d refuse to sign the bipartisan bill unless he got the reconciliation bill with everything else in it, also, or the second time when he was speaking politically, to cover his political behind?

Or: was he simply engaging in the Biden Flip-Flop and speaking in whichever way gives him the most personal political advantage?

Or: does he not truly understand the situation for longer than a few hours?

Under any of those alternatives, Biden’s word is worthless, his commitments entirely unreliable. Any further negotiation with Biden will be just a waste of effort. Any Republican who takes anything Biden says seriously after this—and that particularly includes Senator Rob Portman (R, OH)—is simply exposing himself as wholly gullible.

Too Weak

Posted on by
Reply

Nike’s CEO, John Donahoe, has given his company’s game away. Recall that, earlier this year he claimed dismay over the People’s Republic of China government’s, and the Communist Party of China’s, abuse, slavery, and overt genocide against the Uighurs.

We are concerned about reports of forced labor in, and connected to, the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). Nike does not source products from the XUAR and we have confirmed with our contract suppliers that they are not using textiles or spun yarn from the region.

Even that weak statement turns out to have been just pretense, virtue-signaling for his American audience, which is doubly dishonest just for that.

Now, via an earnings call, he

called the sportswear apparel giant a “brand of China” this week, following a fiasco it was involved in earlier this year over concerns about human rights abuses committed by the communist government.

And

…we are a brand of China and for China[.]

With that call, Donahoe announced his utter rejection of everything for which the US, the nation with the economic, political, and moral environment that enabled his Nike to flourish, stands.

With that call, Donahoe has announced his complete acceptance of abuse, slavery, genocide by the nation he prefers to call home.

Reasons enough to not do business with Nike.

Rule By Law

Posted on by
Reply

…and not rule of law, which our Constitution so strongly pushes. That’s what SEC Chairman Gary Gensler has decided to do.

The SEC announced this month that it will suspend enforcement of new rules issued under former Chairman Jay Clayton that subjected proxy advisory firms to the same anti-fraud rules as public companies and required them to disclose their business conflicts.

Just pick and choose the rules the Biden appointee deigns enforce. Don’t move first to change the rule, while enforcing it while it’s in force. Gensler Knows Better which rules are fit, and disdains the need for someone so awesome to submit his wishes to lesser masses who might impudently comment contrariwise to any change he deems necessary during such a rule change’s comment period.

Oh, wait:

Mr Gensler has directed SEC staff to consider revising the rules.

Give him a rule that better suits him. But he’ll still ignore the existing rule as beneath his dignity.

This is rule by law—which is another way of saying rule by men with the raw power to reign.