Tag Archives: political economy

Bureaucratic Passive-Aggressive Resistance

Posted on by
Reply

It’s in progress, as Federal agency personnel pretend they don’t know how to do their jobs in light of President Donald Trump’s (R) directives to them.

The Transportation Department temporarily shut down a computer system for road projects. Health agencies stopped virtually all external communications in a directive that risked silencing timely updates on infectious diseases. A hiring freeze left agencies wondering how parts of the government could adapt to new demands. Confusion loomed over how agencies should disburse funds allocated by the previous administration.

Computers are confused about how to deal with existing and proposed road projects. Sure.

Health agencies personnel are holding their breath until they turn blue in the face—or get their way. These personnel are self-selecting for the coming RIF.

Managers who can’t figure out how to use the personnel they have—and have had all along, less retirements and resignations—to continue their statutory mission are demonstrating their unfitness to be managers.

Funds allocated by the Biden administration—allocated, mind you, not spent—should not be spent. It’s not that hard.

Then there’s this bit of resistance:

[S]ome longtime federal employees said the chaos seemed more extreme this week due in part to wide-spanning differences between the agendas of the previous administration and the incoming one.

This is an example of the failure of the current civil service system and why it needs to be replaced. There’s no reason for the chaos: the so-called wide-spanning differences don’t exist. The previous administration’s agenda no longer exists, so there’s nothing from which to differ.

To be sure, there is a new agenda and a new corporate culture in place; if those long-time Federal employees can’t adapt, and do so quickly, they need to be retired or RIFed. They’re just in the way, wasting us taxpayers’ payroll.

Folks, mostly on the Left and in the Progressive-Democratic Party, wonder why there’s so little confidence, much less trust, in Federal bureaucrats and the Bureaucratic State. We average Americans, who aren’t as dumb as the Left tries to make us out to be, understand full well why.

Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself

Posted on by
Reply

Somebody said that a while ago; it’s still true today.

The milieu this time, though, concerns drones and the People’s Republic of China, and the headline lays out the matter:

Drone Makers Looking to Steer Clear of China Fear Beijing’s Wrath

And this, to put the gooseflesh on the skin:

For US companies, dependence on China has become untenable, particularly as Beijing shows it is willing to cut off their access to essential supplies.
In Taiwan, that spells opportunity. ….
However, recent examples of Beijing punishing companies for their ties to Taiwan have made US businesses cautious in their efforts to avoid China in the production of drones, an industry where commercial ambitions and national security intersect.

“Cautious” is it? This is just one more shameful example of the cowardice of American business managers.

The way to avoid PRC wrath and repercussions over no longer sourcing essential supplies from the PRC and sourcing them from the Republic of China is to stop sourcing from the PRC and source them from the RoC. And from anywhere else.

When the goodies no longer come from the PRC, the PRC can no longer threaten their cutoff. When all the goodies, for everything else besides drones, no longer come from the PRC, the PRC can no longer use any cutoff for leverage or retaliation, or any other purpose. Don’t overthink things. Don’t artificially complexify things. Just do it.

Even managers of American companies can understand that.

Certainly, the transition will be short-term expensive, but in the mid- and long-term things get so much cheaper, so much more stable, and so much less threatening that the time to incur that expense is today.

Lose the fear.

The First Move Should Be…

Posted on by
Reply

The incoming Trump administration is looking spring-loaded to begin mining the sea bed for minerals that are just lying around waiting to be scooped up and harvested. The new Congress looks ready to support that.

Last month, the House of Representatives passed its annual defense funding bill, which included a provision instructing the secretary of defense to provide a feasibility study on whether minerals from the deep sea could be processed within the US.
That follows a number of cabinet appointments by Trump seen as friendly to deep-sea mining. Elise Stefanik, Marco Rubio, Howard Lutnick, and William McGinley have all been nominated for positions on the president-elect’s team and have all previously voiced support for ocean mining.

Aside from the benefits of mining the sea floors, including those on our continental shelf and elsewhere in our Exclusive Economic Zone, our first move, or at least a very early move, should be the floor of the South China Sea, which is rife with minerals, especially those critical to energy, to any energy transitions, to computing, to defense-related technologies, and so on.

We also should move to help our friends and those who would be friends around the rim of the Sea do their own sea bed mining within their Exclusive Economic Zones and help mediate disputes among those nations over whose EEZ applies where and how to deal with the claimed overlaps.

The People’s Republic of China will protest most loudly and aggressively, but it’s long past time their seizure and occupation of these international waters and the waters in those EEZs gets answered and the PRC pushed back into its own waters.

SALT Tax

Posted on by
Reply

Short, brief, sweet, and redundant.

One thing threatening serious tax reform—which is to say making permanent the tax rate reductions that otherwise expire near the end of this year, reducing those rates further, and flattening the rates further—is the kerfuffle over the SALT (State And Local Tax) tax deduction cap, currently at $10,000.

I sympathize with the Representatives and Senators, especially the Republican ones, in those States most impacted by the cap. Their wealthier constituents want the cap raised significantly if not eliminated. These politicians, though, must understand that as members of our national Congress, their responsibilities to our nation as a whole runs a very close second to their responsibilities to those individual constituencies.

The business of cap raising/eliminating is nonsense for a couple of reasons. One is that there is no reason at all for the rest of us taxpayers to subsidize those in States with profligate spending and already high taxes. Those Congressmen would do better using their Federal influence and bully pulpit to convince their State and local governments to mend their spendthrift ways and lower their tax rates—the latter which several States (tellingly, mostly Republican led) already have done or are doing.

The other reason is that, aside from empirical evidence that lowering tax rates actually increases revenues to the Federal government from the increased private economic activity that results from more money being left in the hands of us private citizens, revenue reductions—if any—from lowered tax rates is easily covered by reduced spending in general and reduced, if not eliminated, subsidies and tax credits for “green” energy solar and windmill farms, battery cars, federal deductions for non-federal tax collections, and other such tax engineering froo-froo.

Indeed, with sufficiently reduced spending, badly needed increased spending on national defense still could occur.

Raising the SALT tax cap wouldn’t be tax reform, it would be tax deform. In fact, reform here would be eliminating the SALT deduction altogether.

An Independent Greenland’s Budget

Posted on by
Reply

Amid President-elect Donald Trump’s (R) rhetoric regarding buying Greenland from Denmark, there is concern in Greenland about that, but maybe not so much. Greenland already is a largely self-governing island within the Kingdom of Denmark. Greenland already has been pushing for independence, and the Danish government, along with its monarch, is open to considering that, given sufficient interest in independence on the part of Greenlanders.

Greenlanders strongly want independence, they don’t want to be part of the US, but they are highly interested in a closer relationship with us than is politically possible as long as they’re part of the Kingdom—another factor underlying their push for outright independence.

One concern about independence is that with independence, the annual $600 million in transfers from Denmark to Greenland, roughly half the current Greenlandic budget, would stop. What to do about that?

Greenland is rich in a broad variety of natural resources, from oil and natural gas to rare earth minerals to graphite to uranium to precious stones, and on and on. These resources remain largely untapped. The fishing waters around Greenland and in what would become an independent Greenland’s Exclusive Economic Zone also are rich.

Extraction royalties from mining those land based natural resources would easily fill the budget gap, and more. Alaska has been paying dividends to its citizens for nearly 50 years just from oil and natural gas extraction. Texas charges a severance tax—its extraction royalty—on natural gas, oil, and condensate (a byproduct of natural gas production with its own commercial value) production. That tax covers a significant fraction of Texas’ annual budget. With proper (Greenlandic) management the fisheries (and undersea minerals) in Greenland’s EEZ would become another source of national revenue.

Greenland’s budget would more than make up for the loss of Denmark transfers with its own extraction royalties and exploitation fees—which needn’t be all that high to put the nation’s budget well into the black. A trade arrangement with the US that addressed all, or even most, of that would be highly beneficial to both nations.

Beyond that, the US is highly concerned about Russia’s and People’s Republic of China’s moves in the region and in the polar seas and so is interested in expanding existing bases and adding more. Basing rights could come with fees for Greenland, also.

A freely negotiated trade and basing arrangement with an independent Greenland would be a winning arrangement all around. That also would be more revenue positive for us than taking on Greenland as a territory, or even a protectorate.