In Just One Year

It is, though, something that’s been well-known for several years; it’s been baked into our economy by the prior spending and taxing paradigms of this administration from its passage of Obamacare forward.

A slowdown in the growth of federal revenues, as well as rising government spending, pushed the US deficit up in the 2016 fiscal year for the first time since 2011, reversing the trend of falling deficits as the economy recovered in recent years.

The budget shortfall widened to $587 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept 30, the Treasury Department said Friday, up 34% from the previous fiscal year.

And the deficit is going to continue to rise in the coming years unless government spending is sharply curtailed.  The sequester has been good for generating those smaller deficits, but it’s badly damaged our national defense capability—which was the point of the extortion President Barack Obama (D) attempted when he offered the sequester in conjunction with his fellow Democrats’ refusal to agree to a responsible budget.

[A] growing number of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security recipients, as well as slightly higher interest rates on publicly held debt, helped drive up total spending by 5% in 2016, while total revenues grew by just 1%.

This puts a premium on reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and on getting our debt under control.  Which demands getting rid of our deficits, not growing them.  Which demands reducing government spending, not growing it.

But that’s going to take a change in administrations and the preservation of the Senate and the House.

Disparate Impact

Some folks sued RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co over its hiring policy that

allegedly gave preference to applicants with two to three years of job experience out of college and disfavored those with closer to a decade in the workforce. The company’s guidelines provided to its hiring contractor, according to the ruling, said the greener group of workers “adjusts easily to changes.”

The suit centered on the premise that this policy had a disparate impact on older workers.  In the words of Lee Parks, an employment and civil rights lawyer with Parks, Chesin & Walbert, the policy means that

Those over 40 need not apply[.]

Judge William Pryor, writing for the majority at the 11th Circuit, which heard an appeal from the trial court’s ruling, wrote Indeed.  Disparate impact questions only apply to job holders, not those who’d merely like to hold a job.

Apparently disparate impact as justification for “corrective” action or as a cudgel is good only for some groups of Americans, but those who aren’t currently the favored ones don’t get its use.

This is one more reason to do away with disparate impact as an excuse for anything at all.