Author Archives: eehines

No Speaker of the House

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal had a brief blurb on what to expect from the House of Representatives while it has no Speaker.

With no speaker, the House is at a standstill. The members have not been sworn-in, meaning there technically isn’t a House of Representatives in the country right now. Committees can’t be organized and they can’t vote on legislation.

That last bit—no legislation—is key for me. With the House unable to vote on legislation, so long as there’s no Speaker, that means the Federal debt ceiling can’t be raised, taxes can’t be raised, and spending can’t be increased. Ultimately (later rather than sooner) the Federal government would be forced to vastly curtail operations. Curtail, not close as so many sensationalist journalists and in-office politicians so loudly bleat, because existing taxes would continue to be collected, and existing spending programs would continue to spend.

For me, that lack of legislation is a major plus; although it would be useful were the Idiot Five to get out of the way so a Speaker could be chosen, and the Republican-led House set about returning to Republican roots and reduce tax rates, reallocate (tightly controlled and reduced) spending away from current welfare cages and toward securing our border, supporting Ukraine seriously against the barbarian invasion, (re)arming the Republic of China, greatly reducing Federal regulations.

Anti-Semitism

Posted on by
Reply

…and hypocrisy.

Much is made by what passes for the press in the United States about the anti-Semitic actions—both real and imagined—of a few famous Americans, like Kyrie Irving, who tweeted about an anti-Semitic movie, and former President Donald Trump (R), who shared a meal with a couple of unsavory persons.

But that same gang of “journalists,” in the main, carefully avert their eyes and keypads when it comes to their favored institutions, like the United Nations.

The United Nations General Assembly last year passed 15 resolutions critical of Israel, while passing just 13 resolutions on other countries, according to a non-governmental watchdog [UN Watch Director].

Those other countries, given a once-over-lightly, included such terrorist-supporting and human rights abusing nations as Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, and Syria. The UN also was careful to single out the US for its special opprobrium. Meanwhile, Venezuela and genocidal People’s Republic of China got complete passes, no mention at all by the UN of their abuses.

But Israel: that nation, a bastion of democracy and religious freedom in the Middle East and core participant in the Abraham Accords, is especially hated by the UN.

Hypocrisy. And bigotry.

Indications of the Extent of the Exposure

Posted on by
Reply

A Rapid City city councilman, Jason Salamun, wants to ban TikTok from city-owned devices and networks, and to prohibit city agencies from using the app. A councilwoman, Laura Armstrong, opposes the proposed ban, claiming Rapid City has bigger problems to solve, such as crime and drugs. Yet that just illustrates how easily the ban could be enacted compared with solutions to those bigger problems.

Armstrong also claims—and she’s serious—that TikTok isn’t a threat. Never mind that TikTok is wholly owned by People’s Republic of China-domiciled ByteDance, and that under the PRC’s national intelligence law, ByteDance can be required by the nation’s intelligence apparatus to conduct espionage on American government and business entities and on individual Americans. That espionage would be done through TikTok.

Armstrong did some of her own research on the matter.

Among the things she found, the city’s exhibition center could lose business because contracts with musicians require the venue to promote gigs via TikTok, she said.
The city’s fire and police departments use TikTok to recruit, and the Solid Waste department has an official TikTok account….

That demonstrates how widespread the city’s exposure is, yet Armstrong is arguing, and again she’s actually serious, that far from demonstrating the threat, this exposure demonstrates only the difficulty of ridding the city of the threat.

Go figure.

Yes, and No

Posted on by
Reply

Company employees are getting pay raises just for staying on the job rather than moving on to other endeavors.

Wages for workers who stayed at their jobs were up 5.5% in November from a year earlier, averaged over 12 months, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. That was up from 3.7% annual growth in January 2022 and the highest increase in 25 years of record-keeping.

It’s also the case that new hires are getting bigger signing bonuses, initial salaries, and more perks for joining the company.

However, this claim by The Wall Street Journal (at the link above) is mostly backwards in the present environment:

Faster wage growth is contributing to historically high inflation….

It’s true that increasing wages—increasing labor costs generally—feeds into inflation as companies have to raise their prices when labor costs eat too far into their profit margins. However, as WSJ also noted,

Prices rose at their fastest pace in 40 years earlier in 2022.

That sharp rise in inflation actually began before the sharp rise in wages, and it has far outstripped the rise in wages: 2022’s inflation peaked above 9%, and it’s still around 7%. The current wage increase is only a nominal increase. The real change in wages, what real people spend on real necessities and wants, has been negative: that 5.5% nominal increase in November, compared with November’s 7.1% inflation for instance, actually represents a 1.6% decrease in actual buying power for us average Americans.

The fact is that the current period of high inflation is driving the rise in labor costs, not the other way around.

Taxes and our Federal Tax Code

Posted on by
Reply

Former President Donald Trump (R) paid breathtakingly little Federal taxes compared to his wealth over the six years covered by his tax records, which the Progressive-Democrats so dishonestly, if strictly legally, released. And yet, despite those same Progressive-Democrats’ desperation to expose illegalities in his low tax payments, those same records prove he did nothing illegal; he simply took advantage of what our tax code—as enacted over the years by both parties as they held sway—plainly, and by design, allows.

Think that’s unfair compared to you and me? Think it’s not right that rich folks should have access to…loopholes…that us average Americans can’t reach?

Nah. For all the imbalance, there’s nothing unfair about it. The opportunities are right there in plain sight in our byzantine body of tax law. And they become increasingly accessible to us as we rise up our nation’s economic ladder.

Still the imbalance should be corrected, and that’s easy to do. Nor does it involve increasing taxes on the rich, although it does involve closing those…loopholes.

All it takes is two things.

First, we get rid of our existing income tax code, every jot and tittle of it.

Then we replace it with a new income tax code. That new code would eliminate entirely business income taxes—not merely zero out the maximum rate, eliminate that tax altogether. If it’s still on the books, it’s too easy to raise the rate later, even from zero.

Businesses don’t pay a significant portion of that tax, anyway; their customers do in the form of higher prices, and the rest of us do in the form of reduced rates of business growth, hiring, and wage increases—with the resulting reduced productivity—and in reduced rate of innovation.

With the elimination of the business income tax, businesses would be able to raise capital, grow, innovate, produce—make business decisions—based solely on the economic wisdom of the decisions. Having to dance around the tax code, having decisions influenced by tax advantage or disadvantage would be a thing of the past.

The new income tax code would include a low (10% perhaps) flat tax on all personal income regardless of source, and the code would have no subsidies, deductions, credits, what-have-you. No loopholes. Just: enumerate your income, remit 10% of that.

Now us Americans would be able to keep more of our money, make freer decisions concerning our needs and wants, have more to save for emergencies, future expenses, retirement. All based on our own view of our present and future economic situation, instead of having to do our own dance around the tax code.

Too, with everyone paying at least a little, the Federal government would see a net increase in tax revenue, and that increase would be even larger from the increased overall economic activity in a free market economy in which the private players, us Americans and our businesses, are more active.

Easy peasy. All it takes is political courage. And for us American voters to inject that courage by repeatedly firing those politicians who lack it and repeatedly hiring those who have it. After all, that’s what elections are for—they really do have consequences.