An End to the Ukrainian War

Posted on by
Reply

The lede in a Wall Street Journal article goes like this:

Western leaders are beginning to have a clearer vision of how they hope the war in Ukraine will end.
What is missing is any plan to make it happen.

On the contrary. The principal, the nation that has been invaded by the barbarian, has a very clear vision of how the war will end. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has articulated that vision since the day the barbarian hordes swarmed over the borders: all Russian forces out of all Ukrainian territory. Full stop.

What’s missing is Western resolve to assist Ukraine in achieving that.

Far more likely, though, is a war of attrition that lasts until one side is so defeated or exhausted that it calls a halt without realizing its ultimate aims.
Such an outcome, many diplomats acknowledge, would be measured in years not months.

Such an outcome, though, is not at all predicated on an essential balance of Ukrainian-barbarian forces and a resulting grinding fight. Any attritional aspects to the war would be obviated if the West were to supply Ukraine with the weapons, ammunition, and logistical support that Ukraine’s defense leaders say they need and in the amounts and rate of supply they say they need them.

Instead, the Know Betters in the American, French, and German governments are slow-walking all of that, insisting that Ukraine doesn’t need to tools to win—only the tools to prevent a barbarian win. French President Emmanuel Macron provides the canonical example of this arrogant shortsightedness, doubting Ukraine’s ability to achieve a complete victory on the battlefield. A victory which, of course, Ukraine cannot achieve as long as the tools they need are slow-walked or outright withheld.

That’s what is the stuff of attrition, of unnecessary blood spilled by Ukrainian soldiers and civilians—women and children—and of continued barbarian atrocities of rape, child murder, wanton destruction.

The Purpose of Medicaid

Posted on by
Reply

State Medicaid programs were created for the explicit purpose of providing health insurance coverage for State citizens on the lower rungs of that State’s economic ladder. The Federal government transfers Federal funds—the tax remittances of all of us citizens regardless of the State of which we might also be citizens—to support those Medicaid programs.

In California’s case, Federal transfers in support of Medi-Cal, that State’s Medicaid program, comprise more than 69% of the program. That amounts to 71.4 billion of our tax dollars.

Now the Progressive-Democrat governor of California, Gavin Newsom, wants Medi-Cal to pay the rent for the State’s homeless.

Newsom has proposed using federal healthcare funds to cover at least six months of rent for homeless California residents and those close to losing their homes.

The foolishness is spreading; California is not the only State pulling this stunt.

California is modeling the program off of similar programs in Oregon and Arizona that have been previously approved by the federal government.

Oregon gets 76%—$8.5 billion—of its Medicaid program covered by the Feds, and Arizona gets more than 80%—$14.3 billion—of its Medicaid funding from the Feds.

Newsom argues—and he’s actually serious—that this will save money in the long run because the State (as JtN cited him)

will not have to pay as much for these people’s expenses in hospitals, nursing homes and prisons.

This is a cynical non sequitur. Nursing homes and prisons aren’t centered on medical care, for all that medical care is a small part of those…services. Those services’ costs also are already factored into their budgets. Too, hospitals aren’t residences—and their medical service costs also are already factored into their budgets, including in part from California’s existing Medi-Cal.

Maybe it’s time to stop sending the Medicaid-related tax remittances of citizens of other States to these States.

Yellen and Law

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal editors wrote Thursday about Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s…flip-flopping…on making whole, or not, nominally uninsured depositors in the wake of SVB’s failure and the government takeover of Signature Bank. Their subheadline accurately summarized the matter.

Are all deposits insured or not? Only [Yellen] seems to know.

The editors’ lede was this:

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Thursday walked back her comments from the day before that walked back her remarks the day before about providing a de facto guarantee on all US bank deposits.

The editors then asked the question: Who’s on first?

An especially a propos followup came just a bit later in that routine: “Q: When you pay off…who gets the money? A: Every dollar of it.”

Legally, in answer to the subheadline question is no; only deposits of $250k or less are insured. But what’s a law to a Progressive-Democrat? Only a suggestion, to be ignored at convenience.

Juice and Squeeze

Posted on by
Reply

In Wednesday’s WSJ Letters Tirien Steinbach, Stanford Law School’s Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, sought to defend her own behavior in the disruption that prevented an invited guest from speaking at all.

She insisted on asking a key question:

We have to…ask ourselves: Is the juice worth the squeeze?

Steinbach blew up her own case with that question, which she also put to the invited guest speaker as she participated in her school’s censorship and cancelation of his speaking.

Free speech juice always and everywhere is worth the squeeze. We have sufficient laws, already, to deal with actual incitement to riot, actual creation of panic in stressful situations, slander, and so on.

The correct and only legitimate answer to speech to which someone or some group objects is speech by that someone or group, or a perhaps more articulate supporter, to contradict or refute the prior.

That Steinbach is oblivious to this demonstrates her unfitness for her role on Stanford’s management team, even her unfitness to retain such licenses to practice law as she might have.

Gainful Employment

Posted on by
Reply

In her Wednesday Wall Street Journal op-ed, Judy Shelton wrote extensively about the Federal Reserve Bank’s spotty performance in combatting the latest round of inflation, effort in which the Fed has been engaged for the last year.

Then she concluded her piece with this:

In other words, when capital is allocated through meaningful price signals that reward long-term investment in productive economic opportunities, people become gainfully employed and real growth leads to greater prosperity.

True enough as far as it goes. However, the Fed’s impact on capital allocation isn’t the only factor.

Congressional/Presidential—which is to say our elected representatives—spending and taxing policies are equally important, if not more so, factors. Our current welfare structure, based on high and increasing taxing and high and increasing spending, pays too many able-bodied to not work, and that reduces the number of folks ready to become gainfully employed. With the number of workers artificially reduced, the ability to allocate capital is limited.