Author Archives: eehines

A Reason to Help the PRC

Posted on by
Reply

President Xi Jinping set a goal, which he called in typical PRC cutesy fashion, Healthy China 2030, to raise PRC citizenry life expectancy to 79 by 2030, a goal he achieved in 2016. He also wants to improve health care so that all mainland Chinese can live longer, healthier lives in their dotage.

This is a goal well worth us supporting the PRC on.

This is, after all, a nation with a fertility rate of 1.55, which compares with a replacement birth rate—the rate needed just to maintain a nation’s population at its current level, but not growing or shrinking—of 2.1.

This is a nation with a currently aging population, and that will continue to age due to that broadly inadequate fertility rate.

This is a nation with an elderly dependency rate—the ratio of the elderly population per 100 people of working age—of 20.7 and growing rapidly.

The is a nation with a potential support ratio—the number of working-age people for each elderly person—of 4.8 and shrinking rapidly, the inexorable effect of that very low fertility rate.

Helping the PRC to help its elderly to live longer and more healthily not only is a moral imperative, it’s a strategic political objective, too. The growing old folks population with its increasing longevity, coupled with that shrinking labor force, makes the aging population increasingly dependent on government handouts. That shrinking labor force, though, produces increasingly less output and so sends increasingly less revenue to government to redistribute to its aging population. It’s an open question whether automation and robots can maintain or increase production enough to produce the revenue needed for that redistribution.

We should be helping that population grow ever older, healthier, and longer-lived. That will speed the economic dislocation from that aging, and possibly push it into economic collapse. That’s an outcome for an enemy nation that wouldn’t be all bad for us.

Yes, Do That

Posted on by
Reply

A letter-writer in Friday’s WSJ Letters section wants us to stop calling degrees useless and, instead, encourage students to follow their bliss in their courses of study.

He cited principles of education that learning thinking is as important as learning facts and arithmetic. He’s right on this. He also cited statistics that indicate that most formally trained STEM graduates find work in other than STEM fields. Stipulated.

He closed, though, with this:

But if most STEM students leave their field, shouldn’t we stop labelling programs as “useless” and instead encourage students to develop their intellectual strength by studying whichever field they find most interesting?

Yes, do that. But also do this: require each college (including colleges within universities) to publish the median and mean wage/salary incomes at the five year post graduation mark for each major offered, and require each college to be the primary lender to its students or sole guarantor of other lending facilities’ loans to the college’s students.

Let each student know in advance his likely income from following his “most interesting” course of study along with his cost for pursuing that course.

I’d Go One Step Further

Posted on by
Reply

In a Friday letter to the WSJ‘s Letters section, Samuel Estreicher and Rudra Reddy, of the New York University School of Law, reminded us of a suggestion for curbing Federal district judge arrogance in issuing nationwide—universal—injunctions:

Aside from raising the legal standard for issuing such injunctions, the Supreme Court should also consider procedural steps that could be taken to challenge a nationwide injunction once issued, such as an expedited appeal to the regional circuit or to the high court itself.

My one further step is this: automatically stay each universal injunction until its final review by the relevant appellate court and Supreme Court, or by the Supreme Court directly. In conjunction with this, require the appellate court or Supreme Court to take up the case within an explicitly defined number of days (not many) of the injunction having been issued, with that takeup done either by appeal or by the appellate court on its own initiative, whichever is necessary to meet the deadline. Apply the same time-constraint to the Supreme Court in the event of a direct appeal.

I’d give serious consideration, given the serious nature and wide scope of a universal injunction issued at the district level, to having the injunction’s appeal go directly to the Supreme Court. That Court is, after all, the only one with universal jurisdiction, and it’s the only Constitutionally mandated Court in the US.

And an incentive step: in the event the universal injunction is struck down, even if it’s allowed to stand as it applies solely to the litigants, the appellate/Supreme Court should overtly chastise the issuing district court judge for his overreach.

It’s Not Only Airbases

Posted on by
Reply

Holman Jenkins is negatively excited, justifiably, by some implications of the Ukrainian Drone attack that has so severely damaged Russia’s LRA bombers, which comprise a major component of the barbarian’s strategic nuclear triad.

“Hoo boy” was my first reaction to the outpouring of commentary treating a Ukrainian drone attack on parked Russian aircraft as the greatest military revelation since the Trojan horse. The US had been warned, warned, warned, and warned by events on its own shores of this turn in military tactics. In February, I cadged assurances from the leadership of Barksdale Air Force Base, home to many of America’s irreplaceable B-52s, that it was employing countermeasures against the drone threat.

It’s not just exposed aircraft on airbases, either. Our missile siloes are at risk. And no, the missiles don’t need to be dug out of their siloes to be successfully attacked. Nor do the silo lids need to be blown and rain debris down onto the missiles–they just need to be jammed from opening. An attack on the operating mechanism—the hinges for those silo lids that swing up to open, the slides for the lids that slide away, etc. A sealed-in missile is just as functionally destroyed.

Certainly it would take horsier drones to deliver explosives big enough to jam the doors than the small quadcopters that were adequate to damage or destroy exposed, neatly parked aircraft. (Did the barbarian learn nothing from an Israeli raid on Egyptian airbases in an earlier war? Or did he really think distance was enough protection?) Horsier drones are as well developed on mature technology as the quadcopters, and they can be just as easily assembled in situ for their short, one-way missions.

Fear-Mongering Lies

Posted on by
Reply

The editors at The Wall Street Journal opined about the CBO joining the Left’s scaremongering regarding those disastrous cuts to Medicaid that the Evil Republicans are bent on inflicting. The dishonesty is much broader than that of the CBO, though. The lede image illustrates the magnitude and the breadth and depth of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s participation in the lie.

Here are some facts buried by the CBO in its report, but still there in its Black Letter Report. CBO isn’t the only crowd focusing on the top number, that some 10.9 million folks would lose Medicaid coverage under the House Republican reconciliation bill.

  • 2 million able-bodied adults on Medicaid would lose coverage owing to the bill’s work requirements
  • 700,000 would lose coverage through the bill’s more frequent Medicaid eligibility verification requirements
  • 4 million undocumented migrants would lose coverage
  • 1 million non-permanent immigrants and asylum seekers would lose Obamacare subsidies

That’s 8.3 million of those 10.9 million who would lose coverage. Those millions consist of folks who should be working rather than shirking and freeloading, others who are not entitled to coverage due to their status as illegal aliens, their status as non-citizens and so not entitled to subsidies, or their lack of eligibility because they’ve moved out of state, or their incomes have increased sufficiently.

Those remaining 2.6 million might or might not still be eligible for coverage, and if so, they’ll easily be covered by their States through the savings in Medicaid outlays no longer being sent to those 8.3 million.

Hospitals won’t close, unless a State chooses to cut them off from Medicaid outlays out of a politician snit, and the only folks who would die would be those dumped onto the street by a State’s decision to close those hospitals.

Of course House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D, NY) and his supporters know these things full well. As highly talented and thoroughly educated politicians, they are, of course, entirely literate and responsible politicians that they also are, they’ve read the entire CBO report.

Instead, they illustrate why our nation cannot have nice things were they to return to political power.