It Just Never Stops

Posted on by
Reply

Now a Veterans Administration nurse is charged with stealing and selling Wuhan Virus proof of vaccination cards, along with vaccine lot numbers, from a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital. She’s been, allegedly, peddling them to non-veterans, and even more despicably, to veterans.

The failures of the VA just never seem to stop.

Until they are stopped. This sort of dishonesty isn’t unique to the VA, but this is an agency with a deep and broad range of dishonesty and failures to perform, and it can be dealt with.

Veteranos Administratio delende est.

In Which I Disagree

Posted on by
Reply

This time, I disagree with a Koch family and their Stand Together Foundation and their stance on teaching Critical Race Theory in our schools. They oppose the idea of government bans on speech in general, arguing that even unpopular speech must be protected.

Leaders inside the network of right-leaning organizations built up by the billionaire Koch family are saying they oppose government bans on the teaching of Critical Race Theory in schools despite not agreeing with what is being taught.
Evan Feinberg, the executive director of Stand Together Foundation, a Koch-affiliated organization, said that “using government to ban ideas, even those we disagree with, is also counter to core American principles.”

Feinberg, et al., are right as far as they go, and it is difficult to draw a line between what is unpopular, even hateful, speech that must be protected, and speech that is plainly dishonestly done and so legitimately subject to ban. CRT, though, is so blatantly dishonest that it clearly is on the wrong side of that broad gray area.

CRT insists that America is inherently and inescapably racist and that blacks are intrinsically incapable of succeeding—they’re permanently victims, solely because they’re black—and that whites are never anything but oppressors, solely because they’re white. From that, CRT pushes the distinctly racist ideology of identity politics.

Teaching CRT is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is none, akin to committing slander, akin to lying in advertising or contracts. Those limits on free speech are properly applied, and so are the bans on teaching CRT.

Wrong Answer

Posted on by
Reply

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen wants Congress’ authority over the debt ceiling abolished.

She argued Congress makes the decisions on taxes and spending, so it should also provide the ability to pay those obligations.
“If to finance those spending and tax decisions, it’s necessary to issue additional debt, I believe it’s very disruptive to put the president and myself, the Treasury secretary, in a situation where we might be unable to pay the bills that result from those past decisions[.]”

This would, of course, mean that the concept of a debt ceiling itself would be removed.

Wrong answer.

The right answer, which would make a debt ceiling unnecessary (although not abolish it), is to limit spending to within revenues.

Of course, to prevent Congress from running away with tax rates, as the current Progressive-Democrat-run Congress is attempting to do, it would be necessary to limit Congress’ ability to raise tax and fee rates or to create new taxes or fees. One way to achieve that would be to define a priori the specific purpose of each individual tax or fee increase and each individual new tax or fee and then put each one, individually and separately, to a national plebiscite. If the plebiscite rejects the proposition, then the associated spending cannot occur and existing spending must remain within existing revenues.

A fillip: financial planners recommend individual families each maintain a rainy day/emergency fund of some months’ worth of expenses. Texas, and some other States, also do this at the State level. It would be useful if Federal spending were required to be limited to 90% of Federal revenues until a national level emergency fund were accumulated—say an amount equal to a year’s worth of established Federal spending. A year, rather than the several months that planners recommend for individuals, because of the Federal government’s empirically demonstrated profligacy.

Another fillip: index the size of the Federal Emergency Fund to positive inflation as measured by the Producer Price Index or its successor. Positive inflation: the required level of the FEF could never decrease, even in a deflationary environment.

Of course, this would require a Constitutional Amendment in order to be permanent.

Oh, and never mind the horror of Yellen being inconvenienced by the tasks of her job.

Invasive IRS

Posted on by
Reply

In an exchange between Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis (R) and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen that occurred during Tuesday’s Senate Banking Committee hearing, Lummis decried Yellen’s proposal to have banks report to the IRS the (allegedly aggregated) “inflows” and “outflows” to/from all accounts larger than $600.

Yellen’s response was to describe the already extensive invasion of personal financial data the IRS demands and to pooh pooh the added reporting because it’s only two additional pieces of easily ascertained information onto the 1099-INT form.

And:

the IRS has a wealth of information about individuals if you work at a job where you get labor income

Invasion, isn’t enough, though. Yellen added that Government has a $7 trillion tax gap between what Government will collect in taxes and what folks allegedly will owe over “the next decade.”

…there are a class of partnerships, businesses, high-income individuals who have opaque sources of income that the IRS doesn’t have direct information about, and that’s where the tax gap is, not low-income people.

Yellen then justified the $600 threshold with this—and she actually was serious:

so that individuals can’t game the system and have multiple accounts.

Sure. Because a family with a $400,000 annual income—President Joe Biden’s (D) threshold for being Evil Rich—is going to set up 650+ bank accounts just to hide that. Or a business in a cash-intensive industry—bars, restaurants, construction companies, et al.—are going to incur the added expense of setting up myriads of $600 accounts in order to disguise their finances.

This is the cynicism of the Biden-Harris administration regarding us average Americans.

Whose Kids Are They?

Posted on by
Reply

And who are the real parents? Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe (D) claims schools, worse than being merely ex loco parentis (which is bad enough), are actually the parents themselves, at least during school hours and while homework is being done at, you know, home. At Tuesday’s debate with Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin, McAuliffe said in all seriousness:

I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach[.]

McAuliffe also bragged about a bill he vetoed that would have acknowledged that parents have the right to veto books.

I’m not going to let parents come into schools, and actually take books out, and make their own decision[.]

Not even about the sexually explicit material in the library that parents would have been notified was present under the vetoed bill.

Parents being barred from telling schools what they should teach also includes, under McAuliffe’s claim of who controls children, parents having no ability to block racist CRT teaching; or teaching children that America is systemically racist; or teaching children that blacks have no hope because they’re black and so permanently victims and whites have it all because they’re successfully permanent oppressors; or teaching children that boys can be girls and girls boys; or schools insisting that it’s OK for biological boys to have access to girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, athletic endeavors, and vice versa.

By extension, too, McAuliffe seems to be exposing himself to opposing home schooling or any other form of school choice—since by making those choices, parents would be “telling schools what they should teach.”

This is how extremist the Progressive-Democratic Party has become.