Tag Archives: political economy

Infrastructure, Investigations, and Agendas

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump has said that he’ll do infrastructure negotiations and legislation after the Progressive-Democrats end their investigations of his administration, not before. Pointing out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D, CA) bad faith approach (my term, not Trump’s) to any such negotiations, he said that

he had watched House Speaker Nancy Pelosi…accuse him of a “coverup” in remarks to reporters shortly before their scheduled infrastructure meeting at the White House.

Never mind that Trump has completely cooperated with the Mueller investigation throughout the 2+ years of that effort, and that Mueller found that there was no collusion between Trump’s administration or his campaign and the Russian effort to interfere in our elections.  Never mind that Mueller also found no obstruction (in the expanded portion of his authorized investigation), only embarrassing instances of loud venting of his frustration.

When Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) arrived for that meeting following their press op, a meeting at which Republican leadership also was present, Trump advised them

I want to do infrastructure. I want to do it more than you want to do it. But you know what, you can’t do it under these circumstances.

Indeed. The Progressive-Democrats are so intent on their several inquisitions that they have no time for serious matters, no energy left for serving their employing constituencies.

Which brings me to a strange remark by the WSJ piece’s authors.

The president’s declaration raises questions about how he would pass any of his legislative agenda in the remaining year and a half of his first term.

There are no questions here.  The Progressive-Democratic caucus in the House has been intent on blocking his agenda since they took office last January.  The Progressive-Democrat caucus in the Senate has been intent on using their filibuster powers to try to block all of Trump’s agenda, with considerable success (and a couple of notable failures) on legislative matters, since Trump’s term began two and a half years ago.

Union “Dues”

Posted on by
Reply

Now the taxpayer looks to be on the hook.  At least in New York.

[O]n May 1, New York’s state Senate voted to let strikers get benefits one week after walking off the job—essentially putting them on equal footing with those who are laid off.
If Governor Andrew Cuomo signs this bill, he’ll effectively be using New York’s unemployment-insurance program to subsidize union strikes, upending the balance of power between workers and management.

Union strikes are little indistinguishable from extortion, except that they’re legal. They’re used to threaten a company’s ability to function—to survive—unless they surrender to union demands.  “Nice little business you got here. Be too bad if something was to happen to it.”

In a way, though, Cuomo’s pandering makes sense. Since unions can’t commandeer pieces of the paychecks of non-union workers anymore, they have to make up the money loss from somewhere.

Enter the victim-taxpayer.

A Foolish Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris has one.  She’s

proposing that large employers pay women on an equal basis with their male counterparts or face government fines, seeking a sweeping shift in the way the nation addresses pay inequity.

She wants to impose a 1% tax on “large” companies’ profit for every 1% disparity in pay.  The size of the disparity is an open question, though.  The favorite number of the Progressive-Democrats is that women are paid in the neighborhood of 70-75 cents for each dollar a man is paid for the same work; although the number Harris bandied was 80 cents.  That would make the Harris Payroll Tax run 20% or 25%-30% of profit.  The more valid, empirically derived number, though, puts that disparity between 0 and 7 cents less for the woman than the man, with a heavy lean toward the 7.  This more accurate number actually presumes to correct for time in the workforce, experience level on the job in question, and so on.

Beyond that, the Harris Payroll Tax is just plain bad finance.  Companies—small as well as large—pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on the wage they pay, and those same companies tie perks like health coverage, paid time off, bonuses, etc to the wage they pay.  An increase in wage would carry with it those added payroll costs.

It’d be cheaper for the companies to pay the Harris Payroll Tax than it would to raise the wage paid the woman.

Further, Harris would

put the burden on companies to demonstrate that they are not engaging in pay discrimination.

Because, typical of today’s Progressive-Democrats, we’re all guilty until proven innocent.  Especially when it’s difficult even to define the crime.

Trade Deals

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic Party has once again shown us its meld.

“It used to be Congress versus the administration; now it feels like the administration is at least coming around to the Republican point of view” on trade, a Democratic congressional aide said, adding that “it’s going to be hard for them to work with Democrats in a productive way.”

Never mind the Progressive-Democrats’ refusal to work with the White House or Republicans in a productive way.  “A productive way” means, as it always has, doing it the Progressive-Democrats’ way.

Take the present case.  The US, Mexico, and Canada have agreed to lift the metals and other tariffs the three had imposed on each other—per Progressive-Democrat demands.

It’s not enough.  Progressive-Democrats want to renegotiate the deal altogether because the labor parts of the agreement don’t suit them.  Never mind, here, that the agreement effectively mandates significant pay raises for Mexican workers.  Never mind, either, that the rules are supported by American unions.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) and her cronies want to scuttle the Trumpian deal altogether.

It’ll never be enough.  It’s not just hard, it’s nearly impossible, to work with Progressive-Democrats in any productive way.

Trade Wars are Taxing

Posted on by
Reply

Indeed, they are, and the one the People’s Republic of China has been inflicting on us for years is especially so.  For the duration of the PRC’s economic war—of which its trade “war” is just one campaign—they’ve been conducting cyber espionage, stealing our intellectual property, extorting technology transfer as a condition of doing business inside the PRC, demanding government-approved backdoors into our companies’ core software as another condition of doing business there, even poisoning the powdered milk, pet food, and plywood they sell to us.

I sympathize with Farmer Blake Hurst and his fellows, but the sad fact is that no war is bloodless for either side, and often the winner suffers, in the near term, the greatest damage and casualties.  Beyond that simple fact, too, is this: the damage done Hurst, et al., is done by the PRC with its assault on our economy, it is not done by our resisting that assault.

So I ask: what’s the alternative? What would Hurst—and Progressive-Democrat naysayers (of which Hurst is not at all one)—have us do instead?

What if we lose this economic war?  How well does anyone think it would work out for us were the PRC to win and so to dominate?  What does anyone see as the benefit of a dominant PRC dictating terms to us?  Demanding not the transfer of our factories to them, but the transfer of our intellectual property and our technology to them?