Category Archives: politics

A Remaining Question

Posted on by
Reply

GSA says it has discovered more than $13 billion in suspected fraud by federal contractors since March.

Since then, the task force has announced a litany of fraud busts, spanning multiple agencies.

That’s just a small sample of the $250 billion in public funds fraud that the newly formed anti-fraud task force led by Vice President JD Vance (R) has found.

Left unaddressed, though, is what will GSA, DoJ, and the respective Department Secretaries and Agency Directors will do about those bureaucrats who enabled, if not actively facilitated, all of that fraud, whether out of personal ideology, crookedness, or incompetence? These also need to tracked down, prosecuted, and if convicted jailed for a good long time.

The Cat’s Out of the Bag

Posted on by
Reply

One of President Donald Trump’s (R) advisors, Jared Kushner, met with Progressive-Democrat House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D, NY), ostensibly to seek out areas of “common ground” in advance of Jeffries’ ascension to House Speaker in January.

The Left has been ripping at its collective bodice ever since news of the meeting broke. I also disagree with the usefulness of the meeting, but for different reasons. The first is that Jeffries cannot be trusted to keep any agreement, formal or tacit, out loud or unspoken, with a President or a Party whose members he’s spent his time in the House smearing as unpatriotic threats to democracy and/or personally dishonest.

This corroborates my position:

Jeffries said the only way the Democrats and the Trump administration would come to agreements on issues would be if Republicans were willing to give ground to Democrats on cost-of-living issues, which is the Republican’s top priority.

Nothing about his party giving ground to Republicans on any question. Nothing about compromise at all. This is Jeffries’ statement that he will lead Party to pass legislation without Republican input that isn’t Republican surrender. This is Jeffries’ statement that he and Party will simply dictate legislation and non-Party Representatives can go hang.

This is corroborated by Party’s commitment to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate as soon as they get a majority there, enabling Party to impose its will on us Americans wholly independently of any other party input and utterly without compromise.

That arrogance makes Jeffries and Party entirely untrustworthy.

Rent Freezes

Posted on by
2

Are rent freezes unconstitutional? The question comes up in my pea brain by the moves of Democratic Socialist and Progressive-Democrat Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s move to freeze rents in New York City (though he’s merely expanding on prior city administrations’ rent freezes) and of Democratic Socialist and Progressive-Democrat candidate for Florida Senator Angie Nixon, whose campaign platform plank was a national rent freeze.

The Fifth Amendment says, in part, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. A rent freeze plainly caps a landlord’s income, blocking him from increasing it at will or even consistently with market values or imperatives.

Nah—that won’t work. Government can’t take what doesn’t exist, and those increases are purely speculative.

But those rent freezes lead to reductions in value of the landlord’s property through denial of the revenue increases required, not merely useful or even needed, to maintain his rental properties in the face of rising costs of maintenance through aging degradation, misuse or abuse of the property by the tenants, and inflation which drives the prices plumbers, electricians, etc must charge.

Surely that freeze-driven devaluation of the property constitutes a taking within the meaning of the Amendment.

Probably not here, either. For one thing, the government wouldn’t be taking for public use, it would be just taking. That’s a technicality. One the merits, it likely isn’t a taking at all. All government regulations in one form or another impact the value of the businesses in the industries being regulated. In some cases, those regulations actually increase the value of the regulated industry participants. If regulatory caps are takings, then regulatory-prompted gains would seem to be taxable capital gains.

But those gains aren’t transfers by government to the regulatees anymore than the regulation-driven losses are takings.

Rent freezes are bad for business, bad for tenants in the long run, and bad for government revenue, but they aren’t unconstitutional. Just monumentally stupid.

SNAP Reforms

Posted on by
Reply

The Senate’s Progressive-Democrats object to States having even minimal fiscal responsibility for managing Federal outlays to them for welfare programs. Their latest objections concern reforms to SNAP payments. Currently, the Federal government forks over 100% of the funding for a State’s SNAP program, and the State is solely responsible for disbursing those funds to eligible recipients. The current reforms, enacted last year, require those States with error rates—paying out to fraudulent recipients, for instance—above a low level (10%) to begin picking up a small part of the SNAP tab, with effect in 2028.

Progressive-Democrat Senators, en masse, object, and they’re blocking a farm bill unless they get that deadline extended. Their real goal is to functionally eliminate the deadline.

There is an alternative that would render this sort of Progressive-Democrat…foolishness…moot, and it’s one I’ve proposed before. Maybe its time has come, in response to Party’s studied intransigence to any reform that would reduce dependency on Party government.

Designate a nearby year as Year0, and add up all the Federal funds transfers for any purpose to each State in that year. Lump that sum into a single payment for the year. In each subsequent year, reduce that lump sum payment by 10% of the Year0 transfer, until the transfer is reduced, in about 10 years, to $0.00.

Federal transfers—taxpayer dollars—in general should not be getting made to any State except in exigent circumstances. The good citizens of Texas should not see their tax remittances pushed on over to New York or California. The good citizens of New York and California should not see their remittances relayed to Illinois or Iowa. Each State and territory in our union should keep its citizens’ tax remittances solely for the benefit of that State’s/territory’s citizens.

Exigent circumstances: when a State-wide or region-wide emergency arises that’s beyond the resources of that State or region, then Federal transfers (a going in allocation, to start the discussion, would be 50% grant and 50% loan at market interest rates) would be an appropriate means of assisting the State or region in dealing with the emergency.

The Senate Filibuster

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section wants the Senate to convert to a talking filibuster rather than the current format of requiring a 60 vote majority for a bill o proceed to a second floor vote for an up or down decision on the bill in question. His view is that Senators aren’t serious about their opposition to a bill unless they talk to exhaustion on the Senate floor.

That’s a process that’s doomed to cancel altogether the purpose of the filibuster.

Talking filibusters die from opposing Senator fatigue, and then the majority party gets to dictate its will and impose unilaterally the filibustered bill without change or compromise, albeit with some small and inconvenient delay.

The current form of the filibuster requires some measure of bipartisanship in order to pass a bill.

The quaint talking filibuster was an artifact of a time when political parties and their members actually were interested in national good rather than party good and were willing to compromise; it was a time when there was a measure of collegiality in the Senate. Today’s political environment is entirely too divisive, with both parties demanding its way or nothing at all with each strongly willing to accept nothing at all if it means, at the least, blocking the other party.

Republicans’ fear of a unilateral-minded Progressive-Democratic Party majority, which would result from a revival of the talking majority or the elimination altogether of the filibuster should be matched by Progressive-Democrats’ fear of a unilateral-minded Republican majority.

It’s instructive to see that the Progressive-Democratic Party is the one willing to roll the dice on its getting that majority first, from which they can impose one-party rule for generations, while the Republican Party, for the most part (there are some Weak Ones) continue to fight for the current filibuster system and a degree of compromise, however forced.