Austerity

Continuing the theme that other parts of the world still exist, this thought on Brazil’s upcoming presidential election.  In a Wall Street Journal piece about the Brazilian presidential candidates’—all 13 of them—big economic plans with no money to implement them, the item’s author offered this bit:

Mr. Bolsonaro has raised the most hopes in financial markets of tackling the endemic spending problem. …his top economic adviser, economist Paulo Guedes, has promised investors fiscal austerity….

It’s sad that “journalists,” whose interns surely know better, continue to insist that reducing government spending is somehow “austerity.” How is it austerity to leave more money in the hands of the people who earned it?  How is it austerity to leave the private economy free to spend its own money on its own imperatives instead of the Know Betters who populate government spending it for them on Know Betters’ “goals”?

Reduced government spending—and reduced tax rates, the two cannot work effectively in isolation from each other—far from being austere, allows an economy to grow.

The Brazilian government needs to get out of the way of the nation’s private economy.  Its high spending and high taxing are what constitute austerity.  Brazil’s citizens live austere lives because the government confiscates their money—to the tune of 40% of GDP—and it spends that confiscated money, not on those citizens’ wants or needs, but on government salaries and pensions, and on schools and hospitals that would be well supported and staffed in a free market economy.

In Other Parts of the World….

A man in Austria was shocked to be handed a bill from a debt collection agency for €10,365 ($12,000) after misplacing his hotel key….

After all,

the key was a skeleton key for the entire building, and now the owner is claiming all of the hotel’s intricate locks must be replaced.

So—a hotel is careless of its security setup, and that makes its customers responsible for any potential breach.

Hmm….

Taxes and Caps

Howard Gleckman, Senior Fellow at the Tax Policy Center, wants the $10,000 cap on the federal deduction for state and local taxes repealed.  After all, he worries [emphasis added],

what will happen to state budgets if high-income residents resist tax increases that are now less subsidized by the federal revenue code[?]

Further, Gleckman is arguing,

restoring the old distortion “may indirectly benefit low- and moderate-income households” by propping up state spending.

Because it’s a Good Thing for State governments to keep taking their citizens’ money away from them and spending it for them.  It’s a Good Thing for State governments to continue spending heavily and crowding out private enterprises by consuming resources and accesses to money that would be better and more efficiently used by those States’ citizens and their private enterprises.

Remember this, next month.

A Response

Recall Senator Richard Blumenthal’s (D, CT) sly innuendo about Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh during last Thursday’s (has it been only a week?) Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to receive testimony from Dr Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh:

As a federal judge, you’re aware of the jury instruction falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus [false in one thing, false in everything], are you not? You’re aware of that jury instruction.

Where Blumenthal was being legally pedantic, Victor Davis Hanson has an idea of an entirely appropriate response by Judge Kavanaugh, a broader, literary one, from Horace:

Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur [change only the name, and the story is about you]

Indeed.

Commitments

Recall the deal brokered by Senators Jeff Flake (R, AZ) and his BFF Chris Coons (R, DE) wherein Flake would sell his vote for confirmation of Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh in return for a new, week-long FBI investigation specifically into Dr Christine Blasey Ford’s (and one other woman’s) accusation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh.  Recall further that, no sooner had the Senate Judiciary Committee completed its committee vote on the confirmation, Coons was talking to the press about how the FBI should not be limited; the agents should be free to investigate any further allegations that might be generated come up during that week.

But that deal which, as The Wall Street Journal put it in Sunday’s edition,

was intended to satisfy concerns that allegations against Judge Kavanaugh weren’t being fully vetted before the full Senate took up his nomination[,]

is subject to further welshing by Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA):

The FBI’s hands must not be tied in this investigation….

This just confirms how worthless commitments made by Progressive-Democrats are. Feinstein was a participant in the Flake-Coons negotiations; she knew the parameters of the agreement when she agreed to it. Now she’s busily reneging.

Remember the trustworthiness of Progressive-Democrats as you contemplate your vote next month.  And do go vote.