Tag Archives: political economy

Kevin McCarthy’s First-Day Agenda

Posted on by
2

House Minority Leader, and putative Majority Leader should the Republican Party gain the majority in this fall’s mid-term elections, Kevin McCarthy (R, CA) has a first bill in January [that] would aim to repeal the $80 billion IRS expansion that the Progressive-Democratic Party rammed through on strictly party line votes earlier this summer.

I have a suggestion for McCarthy, and the Republicans as a whole, if they do gain that majority.

As soon as the results are confirmed that the Republican Party has the House majority, McCarthy should convene the Republican caucus and work out not only that bill but the others on McCarthy’s “first day” agenda, along with most of the bills the Republicans and Conservatives want during the first 100 days of the new session, and have them finalized within party parameters by the end of the year. They also should work to identify those bills that don’t have party unity yet so the caucus doesn’t waste time on them in that initial period. The caucus also should finalize committee chairmen and memberships.

The caucus then should submit those initial bills to their respective committees on 4 January 2023 (because 3 January will be occupied with formalizing the election vote counts and getting the Congressmen sworn in). Those committees should be prepared to pass the bills out of committee and to the House for floor debate on 5 January, and then the caucus should bring the bills to up or down votes on Friday, 6 January.

If the Progressive-Democratic Party cries that they’re not ready with committee membership or bill debate, that’s too bad. No one and nothing prevented them from using those same two post-election months to get themselves organized for the coming Congressional session and prepared with their own bills and answers to the Republican caucus’ bills. After all, what the Republicans and Conservatives would be proposing already are well enough known—they’ve been campaigning on them. The Progressive-Democrats also should have their proposed bills ready for committee and floor vote—they’ve been campaigning on their policies already, also.

If the Republican Party gains the majority in the Senate, the Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R, KY) should use the same post-election months to get the Senate Republican caucus organized so it’s ready to go on 4 January with the Senate’s companion bills.

There’s no need to dilly-dally or to let the Progressive-Democratic Party obstruct and stall. It’s time they started working with the Republicans for the good of our nation rather than for their personal and Party power.

Catch-22?

Posted on by
Reply

No, typical Leftist “misunderstanding.”

In a piece about the possibility of an inflation-related increase in Social Security payments, Megan Henney, writing for FOXBusiness, cited this remark from Mary Johnson, The Senior Citizens League‘s Policy Analyst/Editor, about the supposed downside of the increase.

Higher Social Security payments are a bit of a Catch-22. They can reduce eligibility for low-income safety net programs, like food stamps….

That demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of safety net programs. With greater income, there’s less need for the safety net, so of course eligibility should be reduced commensurately.

Only a Leftist, who believes in ever-growing government, could say such a thing with a straight face.

Power to the People

Posted on by
Reply

Or not.

In a Friday op-ed centered on California’s hog-raising requirements for pork sold in the State, Robert Alt, President and CEO of the Buckeye Institute had this throw-away line:

California—which boasts of recent policies that require residents to reduce electricity use to prevent rolling blackouts….

The only State—and possibly the first nation in the world—to institutionalize steady state brownouts.

What a legacy for the Progressive-Democratic Party running California.

Rent Control Fails Again

Posted on by
Reply

And so does the St Paul, MN, city council, sort of.

Last November, the city’s voters passed a rent control law that caps annual rent increases at 3%. Then reality intruded, and the City Council was forced to attempt corrective actions.

The City Council noted in its reform bill that, “according to data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, there have been only two hundred (200) residential building permits in Saint Paul through April of 2022, compared to 1,391 at the same point in 2021.”

That drop occurred as immediately as any economic reality can—beginning just two months after the cap was passed.

The City Council’s corrective actions are limited to

  • a 20-year rent-control exemption for new residential properties and some apartments that participate in government affordable-housing programs
  • after a tenant leaves or is evicted with just cause, landlords will be able to raise rent by 8% plus inflation
  • property owners can…apply to St Paul for an exemption to the 3% rent cap if their property taxes go up or if there are “unavoidable increases” in maintenance and operating costs, including increases owing to inflation

In truth, this may be all the City Council can do to…modify…the will of the city’s residents. To get serious correction to this rent control fiasco, the question really needs to be resubmitted to those residents.

If those voters reaffirm their position on rent control, we’ll all know what those worthies truly think about housing and access to it by those in the lower economic tiers of the city.

Truss’ Tax Cut “Fiasco”

Posted on by
Reply

UK Prime Minister Liz Truss withdrew her plan to reduce the Brits’ top tax bracket from 45% on annual incomes above £150,000 (roughly $169,000) to 40% amid a panicky self-serving outcry from the liberal Labourites and too many entrenched pseudo-conservatives among the Tories. The rest of her tax reduction and energy subsidy package seems to remain intact.

In the scheme of things politics, though, it seems to me that withdrawing that top tier tax cut is a small price to pay in order to get the rest of the tax cuts to pass. And it may be (though I frankly doubt it) that Truss deliberately overbid her tax cut package in order to allow herself be talked down a little bit to get to a package that could pass after her concession but that could not pass had she made her bid from the jump without the cut from 45%.

Regardless, the biggest error, and one that no one in Socialist Great Britain is decrying, is that enormous energy subsidy to businesses and households, ostensibly to help them pay for skyrocketing energy costs. Sure, the subsidy is supposed to be sunsetted after two years, but most of us know how well sunsetting works with subsidies.

Instead, the subsidies will serve only to maintain the current sky high energy prices to the end users and to consumers in all economic strata, all of whom must buy food, and housing, and transportation—all of which depend on energy.

The smarter way to reduce those energy costs would have been to push further deregulation of British domestic fossil fuel energy production and delivery. Truss is moving to allow fracking to resume, but that’s only a start.