Category Archives: political economy

Pro-Green Hysteria, or…?

Posted on by
Reply

The Biden White House recently has canceled or delayed some projects that are critical to American economic prosperity and to American economic independence from our enemies.

On Tuesday [6 Jun] the US Army Corps of Engineers revoked a Clean Water Act permit granted by the Trump Administration for the NewRange copper and nickel mine in Minnesota’s Duluth Complex.

That copper and nickel is critical to the Biden administration’s push for a green transition to battery cars (and to a host of legitimate electric and other projects). Green aficionados objected, despite the fact that the region already is well-mined for iron ore, and in entirely environmentally sound ways. No more mining.

And:

[Biden’s] Interior Department last month delayed a decision on whether to let Alaska build a 211-mile road to a critical minerals mining area.

The Trump administration had approved this one, but green aficionados objected. Hence the delay.

And:

[L]ast Friday [2 Jun] Interior removed from oil and gas development hundreds of thousands of acres of public land in New Mexico within 10 miles of the Chaco Culture National Historical Park.

The folks affected by that development project, the Navajo Nation, badly wanted and whole heartedly approved it for the tens of millions of dollars in oil and gas royalties it would have produced for these Native Americans (whom the Left and the Progressive-Democrats in Congress and the White House pretend to favor). But green aficionados objected. No oil or gas development here, and no prosperity for Navajos.

These project cancelations and delay mean that, in the words of The Wall Street Journal‘s Editors, [t]he US will have to import the minerals from arsenals of autocracy like Russia and China.

Are these moves motivated by Biden’s pro-green hysteria or by Biden’s softness toward the People’s Republic of China? Or maybe both?

Aiding and Abetting?

Posted on by
Reply

Acting as an accessory?

Lululemon CEO Calvin McDonald is defending with a straight face his decision to fire two employees who, while thieves were robbing a Lululemon store, verbally objected to the thefts, filmed the thieves in the act, and called the police.

McDonald insists that employees should “let the theft occur.” He went on:

We put the safety of our team, of our guests, front and center. It’s only merchandise. They’re trained to step back, let the theft occur, know that there’s technology and there’s cameras and we’re working with law enforcement.

This is, to use the technical term, a crock. The employees he fired used cameras—the ones in their cell phones—and they worked with law enforcement—they called the cops on the thieves.

Stepping back and letting the theft occur: that puts the safety of Lululemon employees front and center how, exactly? Allowing the crimes to occur unhindered only makes Lululemon stores—and other stores in the immediate area—even more susceptible to crime. And that endangers even more store employees and those customers who are present when criminals accept the McDonalds of the nation’s invitations.

I report. You decide. Or something like that.

“Be More Like Europe”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the mantra of the Left-Wing extremists who have become the center Left, and that was the rationalization of the Progressive-Democratic Party, of which those extremists have become the center, as Party pushed, those years ago, Obamacare, their precursor to socialized medicine.

Today, there’s this, from the part of Europe that is Great Britain. GB’s National Health Service, the Party’s model for what they want Obamacare to become has achieved this milestone:

More than 18,000 people died in Scotland last year [2022] while on NHS waiting lists[.]

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar pointed out that the NHS wait list death toll (already far too high IMNSHO) just six years ago was 7,868.

This is what socialist medicine does to honest citizens.

That’s Easy

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party politicians claim they want to prevent a future [debt ceiling] standoff by trying to defuse the borrowing limit as a weapon.

Congressman Brendan Boyle (D, PA), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said there is an increasing number of Democrats who want to fundamentally change the debt-ceiling process, with many colleagues recognizing it is “just insanity to keep doing this over and over and over again.”

Boyle also said this, as though it were a bad thing:

Because we have been fixated on this issue for months and months, we are dramatically behind on all the rest of the legislative work that Congress has to get done.

Actually, the only things Congress has to get done, and it would take very little time were Party to stop being obstructionist, are to pass a budget and then lower personal and corporate income tax rates across the board and pass the dozen separate appropriations bills that give effect to that budget.

As I wrote during an earlier debt ceiling fight,

Getting this profligacy [in spending] under control—eliminating that profligacy—is the only way to get rid of budget deficits, and the elimination of those deficits—not their reduction, but their elimination—is the only way to avoid having to repeatedly increase the amount of our borrowing, the only way to eliminate the “need” to repeatedly raise the debt ceiling….

Eliminating debt ceiling fights should be perfectly straightforward to do. However, those politicians are congenitally incapable of reducing spending. They still can’t even say the words “cut spending.”

Hype that Deadline

Posted on by
Reply

Even The Wall Street Journal is in on the artificial…excitement…act. Congress has just a few days to pass a bill before June 5 deadline goes the subheadline.

It’s not much of a deadline, with revenue flowing in under existing tax laws that’s more than sufficient to pay as scheduled the principal and interest on our nation’s debt, and then the scheduled payments for our soldiers and veterans, and then the scheduled payments for Social Security and Medicare along with the scheduled transfers to the States for Medicaid, and then the scheduled payments for HHS, then DoT (for good or ill), then DoEd (for good or ill), then….

You get the idea.

There are only a couple of things of note should a debt ceiling deal not be enacted by 5 June (or whatever becomes Yellen’s deadline du jour). One is that much of the Federal government would have to shut down. That amounts to a big so what.

The other is that a number of Federal government contracts with private businesses would have their payments HIAed, to the detriment of those businesses. The failure to pay on time also would strongly negatively affect our economy and to a large extent our reputation around the world.

That last is a consideration worth taking very seriously, but not at the expense of enacting a debt ceiling deal, any deal. Republicans and Conservatives in the House need to stand firm. The present deal isn’t all that, but, to coin a phrase, think of the (Progressive-Democratic Party’s) alternative.

The deal also shouldn’t be stand-alone.

Some conservatives in the House and Senate have said they would oppose the deal because it doesn’t go far enough to limit federal spending….

One way to show they’re serious about that is via the as yet undeveloped Federal budget for the next fiscal year. Beginning Thursday (assuming today’s vote is up rather than down), the House—which is to say, the Republican caucus, since they’ll get no cooperation from the Never-and-Nothing-Republican Progressive-Democratic Party caucus—needs to begin work on that next Federal budget, a budget that codifies reduced Federal spending, reduced Federal tax rates, and reformed Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid transfer payments, and have that budget passed and ready to send to the Senate the day after that body votes on the debt ceiling bill.

And then the House—the Republican caucus—needs to get to work on the dozen separate appropriations bills that are due by this fall.

There’s no need to wait on a President’s budget proposal (what President Joe Biden (D) tossed over the House’s transom this winter is not one that can be taken seriously) or to put up with Progressive-Democrat obstructionism and knee-jerk “No.”

Press ahead.