Category Archives: Economics

Miscellaneous economy stuff

Yet Another

Posted on by
Reply

…Alinsky-esque distraction by the Ctl-Left.  This one is on the matter of Obamacare subsidies to health coverage providers to compensate them “for reducing out-of-pocket costs for some low-income consumers who sign up for plans on the exchanges.”

The Obama administration paid billions of our tax dollars to these providers, the amount for this year alone looks to be in the neighborhood of $7 billion, with the annual payout looking to rise to $16 billion in 10 years.

The House has sued to block further payments because no funds were appropriated for them, and so they’re illegal.  A number of State AGs are seeking to intervene in the suit.

More than a dozen Democratic state attorneys general took legal action Thursday seeking to preserve billions of dollars in federal subsidy payments….

It’s a fair debate to have in the courts, although, absent appropriation, there’s no money to spend, and so it would seem illegal to spend.

Now comes the cynical distraction.  New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said,

Millions of families across the country—including hundreds of thousands right here in New York—rely on these subsidies for their basic health care[.]

As if that’s relevant to the legality of the matter.  The courts should allow the spending independently of the law because tear-jerking.

Schneiderman is demonstrating the intellectual, legal, and moral bankruptcy of the Ctl-Left’s demands.  They’re wholly unable to present a case, and so they stoop to emotionalism.

Foolish

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump is willing to talk to the Progressive-Democrats in Congress in order to achieve tax reform, and it might seem like a good idea.  In the present situation, though, it’s a waste of time.

As the Trump administration reached across the aisle on tax reform for the first time Wednesday, Democrats communicated some requests of their own regarding the tax overhaul. Those requests included a middle class tax cut and that the overall bill not be part of a reconciliation package….

Of course the Progressive-Democrats don’t want a tax reform to be part of a reconciliation bill.  That way they can hold true reform hostage to their Big Government demands.  This is just Lucy offering to hold the football for Charlie Brown so she can jerk it away at the last moment.

It’s a waste of time to try to deal with a party that, at least since then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) said he’d refuse to work with a President Mitt Romney, refuses to work with or cooperate with Republicans in Congress or the White House (vis., “revise Obamacare our way, or we won’t talk to you”).

A Thought on Tax Reform

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s piece by Laurence Kotlikoff, a Boston University economist, on tax reform had this subhead [emphasis added]:

The House proposal beats Trump’s plan, which is more regressive and would induce huge tax avoidance.

There are a number of questions considered in the article, but the prior question, it seems to me is that tax avoidance bit.  The question of tax avoidance is an interesting non sequitur.  Kotlikoff (or the WSJ‘s headline writer), like too many others, is tacitly assuming Government is entitled [sic] to our money; he is giving not the least particle of thought to the need to establish, first, that Government even needs the money before there can be any tax to be avoided.

While us individual citizens must obey the law as it exists, our representatives in Congress must consider that premise, and we must inveigh our representatives to do so.

Expanding their Empire?

Posted on by
Reply

The SEC—the Securities and Exchange Commission—doesn’t have enough power; it wants to convince more private companies, over which it has no jurisdiction, to go public so it can regulate them, too?

To spur more companies to go public, the new head of the Securities and Exchange Commission has turned to a veteran Silicon Valley lawyer whose career has involved some of the biggest deals in history.

SEC Commissioner Jay Clayton seems to be sincere in this effort, but he won’t be around forever, and his predecessor had different regulatory ideas, and so likely will his successors.

Then there’s this:

“The real question is do small-growth companies have access to capital, and they do,” said Robin Graham, Managing Director and Head of Technology, Media and Communications at Oppenheimer & Co Inc. “It’s just in the private markets.”

There’s a hint there.

The USPS and Price Increases

Posted on by
Reply

The United States Postal Service lost more than $560 million in the previous quarter (!), and it wants a pay raise to pay for it, a rise in the price of stamps by a penny.  Now, a penny might not seem like much, especially against the current price for a first class stamp on a 1oz letter, but it is symptomatic of a much larger problem: the USPS, a protected monopoly in the first class mail niche and so lacking actual competition and associated innovative pressures, is a money-losing (to the tune of two and a quarter billion dollars each year) proposition.

Postmaster General Megan Brennan:

America deserves a financially stable postal service that can continue to play a vital role in our economy and society[.]

Yewbetcha.  And the USPS ain’t it.

The postal service has lost money for 10 years in a row. It says the continuing red ink hurts consumers because it can’t make necessary investments to ensure “prompt, efficient and reliable postal services,” such as by updating delivery trucks and equipment.

Once again, the USPS, with its empirical performance, is making the argument for disbanding it and replacing it with competitive private enterprises in a free market economy.  Sort of like the protected monopoly Ma Bell was replaced, the USPS needs—the American people need—that replacement (who pays a dime a minute for a long distance call anymore?  Who needs to pay half a buck to send a letter?).