An Alternative Question

Posted on by
Reply

A writer to The Wall Street Journal‘s Thursday’s Letters section responded to Alicia Finley’s column A Good Man for US Manufacturing Is Hard to Find, writing,

Ms Finley says “a good worker, like a good man, can be hard to find these days” and that women struggle to find “suitable mates.” Perhaps that is because they largely want men who make more than $150,000 a year as “professionals.” Why would men want to enter “blue collar” professions only to be rejected by women?

An alternative question, and a more cogent one, I claim, is this: What self-respecting man, blue- or white collar, would want a self-identified gold digger for a wife?

Because….

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal editors are at it again. Now they’re claiming to not understand what President Donald Trump (R) is doing vis-à-vis our most dangerous enemy, the People’s Republic of China.

The reality is that Mr Trump is making it up as he goes, and it would help if he had an actual strategy to deal with China in particular.

Because, since the editors don’t see it (or merely claim not to see it), it’s impossible for anyone else to be operating effectively in a highly fluid environment while remaining within an overall strategic framework.

This, too:

But it isn’t clear what Messrs Trump and Bessent [primarily Trump] want from China, and what their strategy is to achieve it.

Because, of course, it’s de rigueur in pressmen’s minds to tell our enemies what our strategies, even our tactics, are in a conflict. How else would pressmen get their clicks and eyeballs on what they choose to write about? And, no, for those of you following along at home, this is not to say that the press is our enemy, but only to say that our enemies read what the press publishes.

Even so, these editors’ blind spot when it comes to Trump’s foreign policy moves is astonishing. Almost as much so as the editors’ apparent inability to recognize that international economics/trade is almost entirely foreign policy and not very much at all economics/trade.

Yes, And?

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are in a tizzy over President Donald Trump’s (R) moves to freeze or cancel altogether Federal funds and grants to universities unless and until those institutions start acting concretely and seriously against the antisemitic bigotry rampant in them. The editors are upset because those fund freezes/cancelations include funds heretofore aimed at NIH sponsored projects.

One regrettable result is that important medical research is getting scrapped.
…
Because of Columbia University’s deep research bench of neurologists, the school in 2022 took over management of the study’s government funding, which is disbursed to some two dozen other sites across the US. A Columbia lead researcher says the study’s funding is now ensnared in the fight between the university and feds over its handling of anti-Israel protests.

Columbia medical professor José Luchsinger:

It’s a pity that all the institutions across the United States, the investigators in these institutions, the staff in these institutions, and the study participants in these institutions are being held hostage to a situation that is occurring in Columbia only[.]

Indeed, it is a pity. Columbia should stop holding all that hostage, should stop namby-pambying around, and should get serious about ending the antisemitic bigotry rampant in its student and professor populations and within its management teams—and then act on that newfound seriousness and get rid of the bigots among its students and professors and university managers.

It is a pity, too, that there even is a fight between the university and feds over its handling of anti-Israel protests.

This is a cynical mischaracterization of what’s going on, and the editors should know better, even if Luchsinger pretends not to. What is there to fight about? What’s going on at the universities is not “anti-Israel protests,” it’s naked antisemitic slurs, intimidations, threats, cutoffs of others’ right to speak in favor of Jews and Israel or just to speak conservatively. Mixed in with those bare assaults (can’t call them bare-faced, the bigots cower behind masks) is overt support for Middle East terrorists and terrorism.

But the editors favor spending money on medical research, which is important when spent efficiently, over getting rid of the bigotry and terrorist support so rife in these institutions. The editors ignore the simple fact that the bigotry and terrorist support not only threaten the institution population at large, but also that very research by making those institutions unsafe for anyone.

Of Course They Are

Posted on by
Reply

Trade groups and other lobbyists are up in arms over President Donald Trump’s (R) tariff regime, and they’re looking at suing him/his administration over that.

“Lawyers” are jumping at the chance to sue.

Consumer Technology Association CEO Gary Shapiro:

Lawyers seem to be in consensus that this is illegal. There will be lawsuits.

Of course they are. Of course there will be. There are fees to be collected from those cases.

Proof to the contrary will be in how many of those lawsuits are brought by lawyers acting either pro bono or on a contingency basis, meaning the lawyer(s) collect nothing at all unless they win. Which they will not do if appellate courts rule against them.

Some Welfare Reform Ideas

Posted on by
Reply

Convert our welfare programs virtually entirely to hand up programs instead of the handout programs that they are currently. There are a relative few folks who truly cannot make their own way and need the support of handouts, but these would be more easily taken care of were the present waste in the form of payments to those who don’t need the help eliminated. That’s even before the fraud and abuse—two virtually synonymous terms in this context—gets dealt with.

Those who don’t really need the help can be dealt with in the following ways. First is to recognize the everyone is capable of falling on hard times, whether through things beyond their control or through their own negligence or mistakes. Give them access to hand up programs, but those programs must come with expiration deadlines after which payments to individuals cease. Extensions should be possible, but they should be difficult to obtain, with the onus on the recipient to prove he still needs them and still is doing his best to meet the criteria for a hand up.

Additionally, hand up programs must come with means testing. Means should be based on the Federal Poverty Guidelines, which in the main, they are. However, currently, “means” generally has thresholds running from 200% to 400%, of the FPG. That has to stop. If a family’s earned income is above the Poverty Guideline, they are tautologically not poverty-stricken. They do not need Federal welfare, even if living just above the Guideline is uncomfortable.

There must be a work requirement attached to all hand up programs. Able-bodied individuals must be working, looking for work actively (not just tossing a resume over the transom once a week or sitting around a union hall), or in training or schooling for work (financial support for the training/schooling, if needed, must come from the State or local jurisdictions).

Finally, Federal welfare must be a last resort after local community, church, and charity capacities are exhausted, then city, county/parish government jurisdiction and larger charity capacities are exhausted, then State and regional charity capacities are exhausted. Particularly regarding the governmental jurisdiction from the city/county/parish level on up to the State, capacity must be limited to existing revenues, with no increases in American taxpayer fund transfers into the State or local jurisdictions.

These are not new ideas, but it’s long past time to implement them. Doing so not only would benefit welfare recipients and those who do not really need welfare payments, it would strongly benefit our nation writ large by reducing drastically Federal spending, with the resulting impact on our yearly budget deficits and our national debt, and by increasing our GDP through all those folks going back to work, improving national productivity.