Category Archives: politics

A Proposed Budget Cut

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump’s budget proposal contains a funding cut for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, with effect in 2019, of $125 million.  The Partnership supposedly “created or protected more than 100,000 jobs” just in the last fiscal year.

I’m not convinced that’s a bad idea.  The function is good, but should the Federal government be the one paying for it? After all, it’s our tax money, not the Feds’.  Besides, the Partnership, as originally conceived, wasn’t intended to get Federal dollars; the existing subsidies are relatively new.

State universities already have outreach programs for agriculture, albeit heavily subsidized by the Federal government—Agriculture Extension Services.  It would be beneficial for the several States to set up, again in their State universities, Business Extension Services.  Care should be taken to ensure that these extension programs complement, rather than duplicate, the Small Business Administration, which also works closely with the States’ universities.

It’s the local, small businesses that benefit the most from such services; Big Business doesn’t need the support.  It should be the States who pay for this, using the tax money of the States’ own citizens, not the funds transferred from the citizens of other States.

This illustrates, too, the folly of inter-State transfers of moneys, especially while laundering them through the Federal government along the way (with the Feds taking their taste as the money passes through).

A Party’s Failure on Immigration

Posted on by
Reply

The Party in question isn’t the Republican Party.  Those folks always have had a very stringent position on immigration, and they’ve not hidden their view from the public’s eye.  No, the failing party is the Progressive-Democratic Party.  Those folks have long claimed—a claim we now know to be a cynical pretense, a pretense consistent with the underlying philosophy of the party of Jim Crow and of racist and sexist affirmative action—to be champions of immigrants and of DACA children.  But last week, they voted against every bill, Republican-offered and “bipartisan,” that was brought up.  The Progressive-Democrats wouldn’t even vote for cloture so the bills could be openly debated on the Senate floor.

Many Republicans voted against the bills, too, it’s true enough.  But as I said, they’ve had a sterner view of immigration all along.  It’s the Progressive-Democrats who voted against their avowals, who welched on their public commitments to DACA children and to immigrants and immigrant wannabes.

The Progressive-Democratic Party has shown with last week’s display that they don’t give a damn about DACA children or about immigration reform generally.  They only want the issue for campaigning for their political gain.

DACA children aren’t human children.  Prospective immigrants—including the illegal aliens already present—aren’t adult humans.  They’re just shovels for digging up votes.

This is how the Progressive-Democratic Party so shamefully has said they view these people.  This is what all of us need to remember in the fall.

The Veterans Administration Is Not Getting Better

Posted on by
1

VA Secretary David Shulkin, according to an IG report, has been misappropriating VA funds for his and his family’s personal benefit, and he’s been abusing his authority to require a subordinate to act as his “personal travel concierge.”  He

improperly accepted a gift of Wimbledon tennis tickets….

And his Chief of Staff, Vivieca Wright Simpson, apparently tampered with evidence:

made false claims to a VA ethics official by altering an email to get official approval for Dr Shulkin’s wife to take part in the trip as an “invitational traveler,” a status that meant the VA would cover her expenses. Her airfare cost taxpayers $4,312.

Shulkin and his fellow travelers (not only his wife) spent an exhausting 3 and a half days in business-related meetings out of their 10-day trip.  That’s some jet lag.

Of course, Shulkin and his staff denied all of this and complained that the week the IG gave him to respond was, somehow, not enough time.  Must have been still jet lagged.

He’s paid the money back?  He should have known better in the first place.  If the leadership cannot be counted on to perform, how can anyone else be?  Reallocate the VA budget—every single dollar of it—to vouchers for our veterans.

 

Veteranos Administratio delende est.

Don’t Pay It

Posted on by
Reply

The Federal National Mortgage Association, Fannie Mae, the government-run (never mind that it’s supposedly only government-sponsored, it began life as a government agency, it was set out on its own and failed, and now it’s under Federal Housing Finance Agency management regulation) mortgage securitizor, is failing again.  And now this agency wants a taxpayer bailout.

Fannie said Wednesday its regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, would seek a fresh taxpayer infusion of $3.7 billion from the Treasury Department as a result of the loss [of $6.5 billion in the last quarter alone]….

It also would be, if this taxpayer bailout goes through, the second one for this agency just since the Panic of 2008.

The thing has, in fact, been paying dividends to the Treasury, but it’s time to stop feeding it.  It isn’t necessary; if the free market wants securitized mortgages to facilitate mortgage lending, private enterprise securitizers will appear—just look at all the securitizers of other kinds of loans and other methods of securitization that have already appeared.  Treasury will more than make up for the lack of Fannie Mae dividends from the tax revenue accruing from a more dynamic free market.

Fannie Mae and its brother, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), just distort the lending market.

The agency needs the infusion?  No, it doesn’t.  It needs to go away.  Along with Freddie Mac.

A New Insurance Plan

Posted on by
Reply

Idaho has one.  Blue Cross of Idaho says it’s going to take advantage of newly issued State regulations to start marketing a plan that won’t meet Obamacare requirements, and they’re going to sell the plan alongside its existing Obamacare-compliant plans.

The Idaho Department of Insurance last month became the first state regulator to say it would let insurers begin offering “state-based plans” for consumers that involved practices generally banned for individual insurance under the ACA, including tying premium rates to enrollees’ pre-existing health conditions.

In particular,

The new Blue Cross state plans’ premiums would vary based on an enrollee’s health status—for instance, for one of its new plans, the insurer suggested that the best rate for a healthy 45-year-old could be around $194.67 a month, while a person of the same age with worse health could pay as much as $525.69. For one of its “bronze”-level ACA plans, the premium for a 45-year-old, regardless of health history, would typically be around $343.09, the insurer said.

Risk-based premiums.  What a concept.  And lower risk brings a premium roughly half the Obamacare risk-be-damned charge.