Tag Archives: political economy

Businesses Behind the Tree

Posted on by
1

California wants the Federal tax reform-saved money for itself, and they want a State Constitutional amendment to make the seizure permanent.

A proposed Assembly Constitutional Amendment by Assemblymen Kevin McCarty (D) and Phil Ting (D) would create a tax surcharge on California companies making more than $1 million….

The Progressive-Democrats claim the money would go to “programs that benefit low-income and middle-class families,” but that’s just tear-jerking.  The State’s government would divert the monies to favored programs at convenience.  That’s minor, though.

The point of the proposal is to take the money from business—the surcharge is a tax of fully 50% of business’ Federal tax cut—because Government Knows Better, and business doesn’t deserve it, anyway.  Nor did they earn it.  Government did that.

Don’t tax you, don’t tax me.  Tax that business behind the tree.  That’s not quite what Russell Long (D, LA) said all those years ago, but California’s new tax proposal is close in spirit.  What the Progressive-Democrats in California’s legislature and governor’s mansion are missing, though, is another sentiment of Long’s regarding tax breaks for businesses:

I have become convinced you’re going to have to have capital if you’re going to have capitalism.

This is an understanding completely absent in the Progressive-Democratic Party.

A Government Shutdown

Posted on by
1

Louise Radnofsky had a piece early Friday morning—before the Senate vote on a bill that would keep the Federal government running for another month—outlining the costs of a shutdown, based on the Progressive-Democrats’ 2013 shutdown.  Over those roughly two weeks of relative inactivity, the costs were quite trivial.

Those trivial costs are part of why the Progressive-Democrats are so anxious to have the shutdown this time around, too—they know there’ll be small practical impact while having large publicity impact.

Frankly, I hope Trump stands firm, and with the government shut down that it stays shut down for far more than a couple of weeks—let everyone see how little Big Government is needed and how well a skeleton government (at least compared to the present morbidly obese government) functions.  After all, to take one example from that 2013 shutdown, then-EPA Secretary Gina McCarthy admitted that more than 90% of her EPA personnel were non-essential, and she furloughed them for the duration.  Now, 90% probably overstates the long-term case (assuming we actually need an EPA, but that’s a separate discussion), but the EPA’s current budget request, which reflects a 47% reduction in EPA employees, is a good place to start.

Martin Feldstein Thinks the Markets are Headed for a Fall

Posted on by
Reply

He’s right, to an extent.  The Price-Earnings ratio for aggregated publicly owned businesses is at historic highs.  His reasoning centers on four factors: the Fed’s raising of its benchmark interest rates, which will make money cost more for businesses; the Fed’s reducing its own government bond holdings, which will contribute to upward pressure on interest rates generally; the Federal government’s needing to borrow to cover its still enormous deficits; and heretofore easy money has made the labor market too tight.

However.

There are a couple things about Feldstein’s four reasons. One is that the improving economic activity will greatly mitigate (albeit not eliminate) stock price falls by raising business earnings to meet those falling stock prices—both the numerator and the denominator of the P/E ratio, after all, are dynamic, not only the numerator (albeit the one is capable of moving faster than the other).  Prices won’t fall as far as Feldstein seems to think.

Another thing is that Feldstein’s third reason is a prime argument for the Progressive-Democratic Party to get out of the way and allow Federal spending to be cut.

A third thing is that Feldstein is overstating the case in his fourth reason.  The labor market isn’t as tight as it might seem, given that the underemployed per centage remains at elevated levels, as does the number of workers who’ve left the labor market because they’ve given up; the latter is a population that can be persuaded to return to the labor force.

The Party Wants No Deal

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrats in Congress don’t want a deal, neither on the budget nor on DACA.  They want the Federal government shut down so they can blame the Republicans for it during this fall’s elections.  They also want to keep the DACA situation and immigration in general alive as a debating question for those same elections.

Democrats said Mr Trump’s dismissal of “shithole countries” in Africa in a closed meeting last week with lawmakers positioned him as the person who upset the negotiations.

Notice that.  The Progressive-Democrats are doing two things here: masquerading a claim of certain words being spoken as a fact that those words were spoken, and then using those words as an excuse to refuse to deal on DACA rather than actually dealing on DACA.

That the Progressive-Democrats do not want a DACA deal at all is illustrated by a third thing to notice, a matter that’s being carefully ignored by both those Progressive-Democrats and the NLMSM.  Such words spoken publicly would be damaging to our national reputation; on that we’re all agreed.  What’s ignored is that, having been said in that closed meeting (if they were said), no one outside the meeting would know about them and no damage would be done—but for a meeting participant (Senator Dick Durbin (D, IL) comes to mind) running screaming to the press as soon as the meeting broke up to bruit about those words.  This is a deliberate move to blow up any DACA negotiations.

Nor is a DACA agreement needed in the current budget debate.  President Donald Trump’s rescission of ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) DHS memorandum gave Congress, where such a matter belongs, until next March to enact a DACA program legislatively, or explicitly decline to do so, before Trump’s rescission takes effect.  The lack of urgency is further well-known to the Progressive-Democrats: a Federal judge has blocked Trump’s order.  Demanding a DACA deal in the current budget debate is simply a mechanism to block a budget deal.

Too, the Progressive-Democratic Party must come before children.  That Party is more important than children is demonstrated by two outcomes of the Progressive-Democrats’ obstructionism.  The DACA children will get nothing from any government shutdown.  The Progressive-Democrats’ rejection of a budget deal also will reject the CHIP program, whose funding is renewed for six years, in the deal on offer.  Millions of children will be denied access to health insurance.

Remember that in the coming elections.

The Rogue EPA

Posted on by
Reply

Glider trucks are freight-hauling trucks with used, rebuilt engines and drive trains installed in new cab-chassis.  Then-President Barack Obama’s (D) EPA, led by the paragon of green envy virtue, Gina McCarthy, decided that these used trucks actually were new trucks and held them required to meet that EPA’s emissions standards for new trucks.  After all, the Environmental Protection Act exempted used trucks from those standards, and the Obama crowd and its cronies like Volvo didn’t like that.

In late 2017, in order to prove the legitimacy of the claim, some holdover folks of the EPA ran a test on a couple of glider trucks and found them to meet/exceed EPA standards for new truck emissions.

So, shut up.

No.

Staff at EPA headquarters told [Steve Milloy, the author of the piece at the link] that administrator Scott Pruitt had no knowledge of these tests and never authorized them. The renegade report that the tests produced wasn’t peer-reviewed, as is customary. It also wasn’t printed on official EPA letterhead or assigned an internal EPA document number. It is not even available on the EPA lab’s website. Yet it mysteriously found its way into the hands of glider opponents at the early December public hearing on the proposed rollback.

The current budget request for the EPA contains a payroll budget level that’s consistent with a 47% reduction in EPA employees.  That reduction is clearly justified.