Tag Archives: political parties

Limited Options?

Posted on by
Reply

Some of The Wall Street Journal‘s news personalities claim that not only are America’s options few, but we are Running Out of Options in the Gaza War. And further, as their subheadline intimates, those options are purely American political re-electability options.

Biden’s stalled cease-fire plan is a political vulnerability ahead of his debate with Trump. Israel and Hamas have a longer timeline.

Of course they do, and of course the news personalities’ bit is nonsense.

While it is true that our—not only Biden’s personal political prospects (and Trump’s, come to that)—are limited, it’s only in the fetid imaginations of pressmen that our options are running out.

Putting any emphasis at all on any sort of ceasefire in the Gaza Strip is dangerously misguided. There can be no hope of a ceasefire with an enemy that will strike at will regardless of the terms of any extant ceasefire agreement, just as Hamas did last October, in violation of the then-existing ceasefire agreement, and just as Hamas has done repeatedly before then in violation of all of those ceasefire agreements.

Our option as a nation—disregard self-serving politicians—is restricted to a single one. Support Israel fully in its war for survival against butchers whose own sole goal is the extermination of Israel. That war, of course, is the source of the longer timeline of Israel and Hamas (notice that: a single timeline, not separate ones for the nation and the terrorists). Hamas mucky-mucks have promised repeated October 7s, no matter the costs the terrorists inflict on Gaza Strip civilians, until the terrorists achieve their goal of extermination. Which makes Israel’s timeline stretch until they’ve succeeded in destroying (not exterminating—an out of line IDF general has badly conflated the two) Hamas.

On reflection, though, there is one more national option, even if Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden lacks both the political courage and the morals to apply it. That is to cut off Hamas’ source of money and arms: going back to enforcing existing sanctions on Iran (which are less effective, now, due to Russia’s and People’s Republic of China’s support, but still damaging), to begin sinking Iranian arms shipping and interdicting overland arms shipments through Iraq before it can deliver arms and ammunition, and severely damaging, if not destroying, Iran’s nuclear weapons development facilities cybernetically and, if necessary, kinetically. Dealing with Iran also would have the happy side effect of weakening Hezbollah’s ability to continue its terrorist attacks against Israel from the north.

It Doesn’t Get Any Clearer

Posted on by
Reply

A portion of oral argument in Moms for Liberty and Young America’s Foundation, et al v US Department of Education was relayed to Southeastern Legal Foundation Executive Director Kim Hermann while she was at a Heritage Foundation conference centered on addressing the Biden administration’s general penchant for putting boys into girls’ locker rooms and sports prioritize[ing] gender identity over sex in a broad range of milieus. That portion:

The judge allegedly asked a Justice Department lawyer to explain what expertise the Department of Education has on human biology and sexuality that justifies judicial deference to the feds’ new interpretation of “sex.” The DOJ lawyer replied “I guess I’m not sure,” according to Hermann’s colleagues.

What a sweeping indictment of Chevron Deference by the Biden administration defendants in the case.

Tax Cuts are Costly

Posted on by
Reply

Arkansas’ Republican Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders has signed into law the State’s latest round of individual and corporate tax cuts. “Finance officials” say that

the cuts will cost about $483 million the first year and $322 million a year after that.

Sanders also has signed into law a different tax cut, this one in the form of a tax credit increase. This one

increases the homestead tax credit from $425 to $500, retroactive to January 1.

“Finance officials” piped up again:

That cut will cost $46 million.

Cost whom, exactly? The money isn’t the State government’s after all. The money belongs to the citizens of Arkansas, they just remit it in the form of tax levies. It doesn’t cost the government a single copper penny to not get what doesn’t belong to it.

Beyond those “financial officials'” distortion, there’s another item missing from their pseudo-analysis.

Those officials are ignoring the impacts of the increased economic activity in the State’s private economy from all that money now being left in the private hands of the State’s citizens and private businesses. There are two primary impacts. One is the increased prosperity of those citizens both from their being able to hold onto more of their money and from that increased economic activity. The other is the increased tax receipts the government will receive, on net despite the reduced tax rates, from the increased aggregated revenues flowing from all that increased economic activity.

Spending vs Revenue

Posted on by
Reply

…in the Progressive-Democratic Party’s world.

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors have this one right.

CBO projects that this year’s budget deficit will clock in at roughly $2 trillion, some $400 billion more than it forecast in February and $300 billion larger than last year’s deficit.
…
Notably, CBO’s revenue projections are little changed. Revenue is expected to total 17.2% of GDP this year—roughly the 50-year average before the pandemic….

So, whence the deficit explosion? Plainly, it’s in all that spending that the Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden and his Party syndicate in the House and Senate insist on doing.

CBO significantly revised up projections for federal spending. Outlays are now expected to hit 24.2% of GDP this year and average 24% over the next decade. Wow.

Mind you, that’s against a steadily, if slowly, growing GDP. That projection means that Party spending will be growing, too. All while revenue remains steady—which is to say, flat/not growing.

This is the politicians of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s utter inability to say “cut spending,” which plays into their inability actually to cut spending. After all, the money, in their minds, isn’t real; it’s only monopoly money, and if they need want more dollars, they have only to go to their Modern Monetary Policy money tree and pick more dollar bills from the branches.

The reality, though, is that the money Progressive-Democrats demand to spend is our money. Those politicians have no skin in the game beyond their political power. The skin us average Americans have in this game is real: our ability to get along in the real (and real economic) world in which we live, having as we do, only those real dollars that Party policies steadily devalue.

We need to remember that this November.

A False Choice

Posted on by
2

And a politically hard, but eminently straightforward alternative.

California’s regulators want to ban older diesel locomotives from operating in California after 2029, requiring only battery locomotives or some other form of net-zero emission locomotion process to be the motive force over freight trains (and passenger trains after 2030).

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors think that would ban diesel locomotives nation-wide, and in one sense they’re right.

Since locomotives can’t be swapped at the state border, the rules in practice would affect trains far beyond the left coast.

That offering is a false choice, though. There’s nothing in California’s proposed regulations that would stop rail freight shippers from simply ceasing to ship goods into California. California’s businesses could use their State government-mandated battery locomotives to go get the goods warehoused just outside the State’s border.

The transition to this new shipping paradigm would be expensive, but there would be clear winners, both during the transition and after. During the transition, there would be a proliferation of construction jobs as the warehouse would be built along with a net increase of jobs for warehouse operators. There would be more jobs building and then operating new transshipment facilities for unloading the trains and short-haul transportation of the goods to the warehouses.

Longer-term, warehouse operators would make money, short haul truckers would see a large increase in business and business opportunities, and railroads would save money by not having to gussy up all of their rail equipment to meet California’s requirements. Even California’s range-limited battery locomotives would gain by not having their range limits play such a major role in their operation.

The biggest winner of all would be the railroads, which would have successfully rescued themselves from under the boots of the California government.