Tag Archives: ethics

Now that the Bill Has Been Passed

Posted on by
Reply

…and we can see what is in it, the pork for President Barack Obama’s paymasters that is in it is quite impressive.  Here are some, in no particular order.  Enjoy the sausage.

  • Accelerated tax write-off for owners of NASCAR tracks: $78 million
  • Tax credit for companies operating in American Samoa: $62 million
  • Distillers rum tax rebate: $222 million
  • Film and television producers expense the first $15 million of production costs incurred in the US ($20 million incurred in economically depressed areas in the United States): $430 million
  • Wind production tax credit: $12 billion
  • Cellulosic biofuels tax credit continued and expanded to include producers of “algae-based fuel:” $59 million
  • Biodiesel and “renewable diesel” tax credit: $2.2 billion
  • Plug-in motorcycles tax credit: $7 million
  • Energy-efficient appliances tax credit: $650 million
  • Energy-efficient homes tax credit: $154 million

Most of these seem like chump change, but they, with other inclusions, sum to $40 billion of pork in the tax “deal.”

Harry Reid’s Filibuster

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote here about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D, NV) move to eliminate the filibuster so his Progressives could run riot in the Senate, or Conservatives in their turn, eliminating any and all rights of the minority.

This, of course, would reduce a once proud institution to a shabby Parliament.

Now, though, Politico reports that Reid will delay his move until the middle of the month, since he doesn’t appear to have the Democratic votes needed to violate the Senate’s Rules.  This is indicated by the existence of a bipartisan coalition of Senators—four each Democrats and Republicans—who demur from his assault.  It’s those four Democrats objecting that are giving him pause.

However, Reid is attempting to effect this delay by technically

keep[ing] the Senate in its first legislative day by sending the chamber into recess—rather than adjourning.  That move would keep the Senate in session, preserving his option of pushing forward with the so-called nuclear option at a later date.

He’s filibustering the protect-the-filibuster move.

Obama’s Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

From a person calling herself Jezebel comes this:

Ugh, you rubber cement-huffing nincompoop….

Anyway, I’m all for Hobby Lobby (and all other organizations that think birth control is totes gross) ignoring the law.  If they keep this up for long enough, we won’t have to worry about the fiscal cliff.

And I suppose that now’s as good a time as any to confess publicly that “Hobby Lobby” is the nickname I’ve given my vagina.

Name calling as pseudo-logic.  How very Progressive of her.

And this pseudo-argument from Think Progress, in their post misleading titled “Hobby Lobby To Deny Contraception To Employees, Ignoring Court Order:”

This ignores two obvious points—first, that Plan B is not an ‘abortion-inducing’ drug, as Hobby Lobby claims, and second, that the company may well end up paying more to avoid covering contraception than they would simply providing access.  It also takes a twisted view on the ‘Freedom of Religion’ argument; the company is actually forcing its owner’s religious beliefs on all employees, no matter their personal religious views.

I’ll ignore their first point as irrelevant (Look! Shiny!) and proceed to their second, which is blatantly cynical.  Think Progress actually is arguing in all seriousness that religious freedom—any freedom—is solely a pecuniary, fiscal thing, having nothing to do with principle or morality.  How little the Left understands individual liberties and duties.  How little the Left understands the threat to their own freedoms Big Government represents.

But their argument begins and ends with a disingenuously false premise.  Of course, the owners of Hobby Lobby are not at all denying contraception to their employees, nor are they imposing their own religious beliefs on anyone.  Those employees remain free to obtain birth control on their own, to obtain contraceptive “coverage” from other insurers, to engage in any other activity, all in accordance with their own religious beliefs.

Moreover, this refusal to participate in the HHS intrusion inflicts no other harm on their employees, either, including the costs of contraception now to be borne by those employees.  Sandra Fluke’s foolish remarks notwithstanding, contraception is freely available, and nearly free, for instance for $7/mo at any Walmart.  Condoms (the forgotten contraceptive) are just as cheap.

Hobby Lobby’s owners are simply exercising their 1st Amendment rights (that conveniently ignored clause that says, “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].”)  They’re simply declining to participate in a market for materials their religious beliefs hold to be immoral, while not at all impacting the ability of anyone else to participate in exactly that market.

But there’s another problem here.  When Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor refused a request from Hobby Lobby for a temporary injunction staying enforcement of HHS’ contraception insurance rule pending adjudication of the primary case, she continued the injustice rather than mitigated it.  In the balance was whether Hobby Lobby’s owners should be forced to suffer enormous economic damage or to violate their religious teachings, and so to suffer enormous moral damage, against whether Hobby Lobby’s employees should be required to go elsewhere for extremely low cost contraception and emergency contraception.  And this balance would have been purely temporary: resolution through the courts is in progress.

Sotomayor’s reasoning is instructive.

While the applicants allege they will face irreparable harm if they are forced to choose between complying with the contraception-coverage requirement and paying significant fines, they cannot show that an injunction is necessary or appropriate to aid our jurisdiction[.]

No.  $1.3 million in daily fines aren’t at all “irreparable harm.”  The moral damage of violating religious principles isn’t harmful at all.  After all, holding at bay that irreparable harm isn’t at all necessary or appropriate to aid the Court’s jurisdiction.  Never mind that it is the purpose of the Court to decide cases in accordance with the law—here the Constitution—and so to minimize overall damage.

And

Even without an injunction pending appeal, the applicants may continue their challenge to the regulations in the lower courts.

But pay, in the meantime, the frightful fiscal or moral cost that Sotomayor so casually dismisses.

Instead, Justice Sotomayor’s ruling said, “Kneel and bend your neck, sucker.  We already know the right answer.”  She carefully chose not to take the low cost—morally, fiscally, or legally—path.

But that’s freedom, Progressive style—Obama style.  Do it our way; we’ll take care of you.  But if you’re really so stupid as to disagree with us, we’ll vilify, demonize, you.  Because, in the first place, logic has no place in the discussion, and in the second place (yes, as in secondarily), your freedom is ours to determine.

Update: A Federal district judge appears to have a better understanding of relative costs and legal efficiency than does our Supreme Court Justice:

US District Judge Lawrence Zatkoff ruled Sunday in favor of Tom Monaghan and his Domino’s Farms Corp., near Ann Arbor.  Monaghan, a devout Roman Catholic, says contraception isn’t health care but a “gravely immoral” practice.

Zatkoff granted Monaghan’s emergency motion for a temporary restraining order until a final decision is made in the case.

President Obama’s Fiscal Cliff and 401(k)s

Posted on by
Reply

Are our 401(k)s at risk from the Obama Fiscal Cliff?  To the extent that they are (and I don’t know that they are), consider some ramifications.  Here’s one way such a risk might unroll:

The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force has one way to help fix the deficit: reduce 401(k) contributions by 64% using a 20/20 Cap.  Under the 20/20 Cap, contributions would be limited to the lesser of 20% of pay or $20,000 a year.  All those pretax dollars designated for retirement will now be taxable income and Treasury will fill with additional tax revenues.

I’ll leave aside BPC‘s cynical assumption that our money actually belongs to the government, that they’re somehow entitled to it (now there’s an entitlement program…).  Here are a couple of those ramifications.

A single employee who earns $60,000 per year can contribute $17,500 to a 401(k) in 2013.

After taking the personal exemption and the standard deduction, the single employee would be in the 15% federal tax bracket. Under the 20/20 Cap, assuming the 401(k) has a 4% match, the same single employee earning $60,000 per year would be limited to a $9,600 401(k) contribution and will now be in the 25% federal tax bracket paying $1,700 more in taxes.

It’s true that those $17.5k represent 29% of his income, but with disciplined budgeting (he’s single, recall) it’s not so far-fetched.  He will be stretched, but getting hit with an additional $1,700 in taxes will hurt—possibly to the point of blowing up his retirement plans.

With a 64% reduction in contributions, many small businesses may terminate their plans–forcing employees to save money on their own.  After all, why pay plan fees and other administrative costs if the amount of income that can be deferred is reduced to basically the amount of an IRA contribution?

Indeed.  I was chairman of my employer’s 401(k) Plan Board of Trustees a number of years ago.  For our 25-employee company, the typical fee for that sized plan ran to $20,000.  Which is why we had a Board of Trustees and ran our own Plan.  Have the fees changed all that much since?

There’s one more, though, with serious long-range implications.  Reduced contributions to our (private) 401(k) plans while we’re working means a smaller nest egg when we retire.  Which means greater dependence on a Social Security System that will be bankrupt by that day.  Which means both we’re being a greater burden on our fellows in our retirement and we’re living much more poorly than we would have had we been able to accumulate a larger nest egg.

Here’s an example, of just 10 years’ duration.  My wife, being older than 50, is able to contribute, presently, $23,000 per year beginning in 2013.  With the 20/20 cap, that would drop to $20,000 per year.  Note that I’m assuming no changes over the 10 years—including in tax treatment and limit increases.  I’m also assuming a 4% real (after inflation) return on 401(k) investments.

After 10 years, that higher contribution rate will have produced a nest egg of a bit over $276,000, while the limited contribution rate will have grown only to a skosh (that’s the technical term) over $240,000.  That’s a 13% reduction in the value of our nest eggs from such a cap.  Blow that up over 20 years—yes, this contribution rate is possible; you’re in your mid-40s and entering your peak earning years at 20 years prior to retirement.  That nearly 13% annual shortfall only expands the deficiency of the capped 401(k)’s outcome—now it’s nearly $89,500, some 150% greater, short by more than four years’ worth of capped contributions.

Another Fiscal Cliff

Posted on by
Reply

From Fox News:

[A] potential strike by thousands of dock workers from Boston to Houston threatens to shock the economy as early as this weekend.  …it could cost billions, citing estimates that a 10-day port lockout in 2002 cost $1 billion a day—and caused a major backlog in shipments.

[The present] port strike would affect more than the East and Gulf coasts, where all these ports are located.  It could choke supply chains across the country.  Groups ranging from the automobile industry to the National Retail Federation to the US Chamber of Commerce to the Cheese Importers Association of America are warning of dire consequences.

The primary beef?  Management wants to cap the current container fee royalties, rather than letting them continue to rise according to International Longshoremen’s Association schedules.

It’s important to note that those royalty fees are little more than featherbedding on the docks.  As The United States Maritime Alliance, Ltd (USMX), notes,

[C]ontainer royalties were established in 1960 as a way to protect members of the International Longshoremen’s Association, AFL-CIO (ILA) in New York from job losses created by containerization and its introduction of automated cargo.

Because shippers are job welfare programs for the ILA, after all.  Keep those buggy whip workers employed, no matter the costs to Americans.  Never mind that there aren’t any buggy whip workers anymore, anyway.

[O]nly 136 of the 3,281 ILA workers at the Port of New York and New Jersey today were working at the port in 1968….

The Port of New York and New Jersey was the original and only port at which the ILA was active during the transition to container shipping.  The rest of the ports up and down the east and Gulf coasts through Florida began life with containerized cargo.

Moreover, containerization has been beneficial to labor.  ILA workers at ports like Savannah, Charleston, and the rest saw their job opportunities grow specifically because of containerization.

On top of this, the royalty payments don’t all make it into the pockets of the ones being featherbedded.  Ten per cent—which ran to $21 million in 2011—were raked off the top by the workers’ union management, as the union’s vig.

In the end, the union doesn’t care about the economic damage done by the strike they’re threatening, nor do they care that their strike has so little economic purpose.  This isn’t even about protecting a featherbedding perk—USMX is willing to keep paying the “royalty;” they just want an upper bound on a payment that has nothing to do with the work being done.

No, this is about union power and the unions’ decision to use extortionate-type actions to maintain/increase it.  It’s a legal version of the violence they threatened in Wisconsin and Michigan, and of the dishonesty shown by the Wisconsin Teachers’ Union a year ago.

Update: Michelle Malkin provides one:

A deal has been struck that for now averts a strike by 14,500 longshoremen at major ports on the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico, including PortMiami and Port Everglades.

A federal mediator announced Friday that an expired contract for workers in the International Association of Longshoremen would be extended for another 30 days while negotiations continue.