Tag Archives: political economy

Private Moves and Regulations

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration’s Bureau of Land Management is moving to rescind and replace an Obama administration regulation that would drastically limit methane gas emissions by companies drilling for hydrocarbons on Federal land.

While the move is salutary—the Obama regulation would have imposed too much cost, would have stunted energy innovation, and would have limited energy supply with resulting higher prices to us consumers—there’s one tidbit in the Wall Street Journal article carrying that news that needs emphasis.

Environmentalists rejected that claim [of impeding energy development] and decried the decision, pointing out that several companies had already moved on their own to start cutting methane emissions.

Because some in private industry think a move is a good idea, Government, says the Left, must get involved and require everyone to do the same thing.

And

Many oil-and-gas companies—including some of the world’s biggest—have been anticipating further rules to slow climate change and have decided to invest in better methane-capturing technology. They can recoup some of the investment and potentially add to profits by capturing more stray gas and selling it with the rest of their output.

Of course, they still will be able to with the new regulation in place.  Methane gas produced as a side effect of oil drilling or fracking still will be a marketable product, still will be competitive with coal, still will produce profit for the drillers and frackers.  This is innovation in a free market, something the Left and their environmentalists.

Bigger Budgets and Spending Cuts

Posted on by
Reply

Last week, Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed, a budget covering the next two years that has significantly larger spending caps than the last several budgets have had, including in particular a large increase in domestic spending.  Of course, that means spending must rise, right?  Every dollar budgeted must be spent; the budget is a spending floor, not a cap?

Not at all, as the budget proposal Trump has sent over to Congress for FY2019 demonstrates.

The Trump budget is proposing to reduce nondefense discretionary spending caps by 41% over the coming decade.

Cuts to domestic spending instead of spending every dollar budgeted.  Hmm….

Costs, and Costs

Posted on by
Reply

The fight to drive the Daesh out of Iraq (while killing too few of them IMNSHO) has caused more than $45 billion in infrastructure damage to Iraq.

That’s roughly half the cost of the damage a couple of hurricanes did in Texas and Florida last year, an even smaller ratio when Puerto Rico is figured in.  But it’s a lot of damage for a nation like Iraq.

What might that imply, besides the relative wealth of the two nations?

One is the relative dependence we have on our more highly developed, and so expensive, infrastructure compared to Iraq.  Iraq is scraping by with that level of damage and already beginning to recover.

If we suffered the same relative level of damage to our infrastructure, particularly our electric grid, how well would we fare?

Against Their Own Interest

Posted on by
Reply

Fast food workers began protesting yesterday, demanding higher wages and the right to join a union.  Ashley Cathey, a 29-year-old Memphis fast food person, had this:

Fast-food cooks and cashiers like me are fighting for higher pay and union rights, the same things striking sanitation workers fought for 50 years ago.  We’re not striking and marching just to commemorate what they did—we’re carrying their fight forward. And we won’t stop until everyone in this country can be paid $15 an hour and has the right to join a union.

The work they do isn’t worth $15 per hour.  They’re just looking to price themselves out of their jobs, to be replaced by automated kiosks, as so many fast food restaurants already are doing.  Worse, if their unions, through strikes, force those higher wages, that will end with two outcomes: higher food prices for consumers, and from that, lessened demand for those restaurants’ fast food.  That, in turn, will result in fast food restaurants accelerating the move to kiosks or going out of business.  That last will cost not only the demanders their jobs, it’ll cost everyone in those restaurants their jobs.

And the right to join a union?  They already have that.  These folks should know that; they’re being misled by union leadership and the SJWs in the mix.

The Budget Deal

Posted on by
Reply

…was just passed in the small hours of Friday morning.  The high points of what it does is provide funding for the Federal government into late March, provide a budget good for two years, raise the debt ceiling a smidge, and increase spending authorization for defense by $165 billion over the next two years and for domestic items by $131 billion over those two years.  It does not include anything regarding immigration, particularly DACA, despite House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D, CA) 8-hour speech Thursday, nor does it include anything regarding welfare reform.

The lack of immigration matters in the budget deal is appropriate; Pelosi’s long harangue notwithstanding.  Immigration has nothing to do with the budget, and it will be handled separately, as both House Speaker Paul Ryan (R, WI) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) have said repeatedly.  The lack of welfare reform does matter, but it needn’t have been a deal breaker in the present instant.  There needs to be a stronger consensus both in Congress and in the nation before that can be done properly—recall the fiasco that is Obamacare.

A number of Republicans in both houses objected to the deal, though, and voted against it and held it up in the Senate.  Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) wanted a vote on his amendment to restore the prior spending caps, which would have eliminated those $196 billion in spending increases.  The Conservative Caucus of House Republicans also objected to the vasty spending increases.  In all cases, those increases will add to the Federal budget deficit and through that to the national debt by up to $1 trillion, depending on how much our growing economy adds to Federal revenues.

Except.

One thing the budget deal does not do, and this is a Critical Item, is require all that money to be spent.  The bill is an authorization bill; it sets an outer bound on how much can be spent.  That’s all it does.  Actual spending will come from the several appropriation bills that must now be passed.  This is where those Republicans’ concerns can be addressed, and they should be; the concerns are entirely valid.

In the coming appropriations bills, Republicans must hold the line on the defense spending increases—there’s nothing domestic of any import if we can’t support our friends and allies or even defend ourselves—and reduce spending in other, domestic, areas (including welfare reform, even if only a series of tweaks this year) to pay for the defense increases.  And that includes on holding the line on those domestic appropriations bills already passed by the House, which were passed under the lower caps.

The Progressive-Democrats in Congress will howl over this; they view authorization to spend as an absolute requirement to spend.  Let them howl.  Let the Progressive-Democrats continue to be the heavy spending, deficits and debt be damned, party.  Let the Progressive-Democrats run on a platform of profligate spending.  They’ll drag out every tear-jerking trope they can dream up—it’s for the children, our grandmas are getting pushed off the cliff, think of the poor people in Illinois and Connecticut, and on and on.

Americans aren’t as stupid as the Progressive-Democrats make us out to be.  Our kids, our parents, our poor regardless of where they live will be better off for that spending discipline.  Let the Progressive-Democrats try to sell their snake oil budgeting that Government spending and Government income have nothing to do with each other.

One more thing.  The budget deal, good for two years like it is, means Republicans won’t be able to pass anything, including those appropriations bills, without nine Senate Progressive-Democrats on board.  Appropriations bills aren’t subject to reconciliation votes.  Without actual spending authorization, the Federal government will shut down in late March.  Without nine Democrats to support ending a Senate filibuster, spending won’t be authorized.  Let Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) shut down the government again because he can’t get wastrel spending done.  Let the Progressive-Democrats throw another temper tantrum.  That won’t play any better than the just ended Schumer Shutdown did.