Tag Archives: political parties

Ending Subsidies

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden wants to end fossil fuel subsidies, per his budget offering.

I actually partly agree with him on this. But only partly, because he’s only partly ending subsidies—those for fossil fuels. He needs to end—or propose ending; it’s Congress that has to do the deed—all subsidies for any purpose in any industry.

Still he could make a major step forward were he to produce a favorable answer to my question:

Will Biden also end the “green” energy subsidies, or will the Progressive-Democrat continue to insist on picking industrial winners and attacking those industries of which he personally disapproves?

Guess.

A Strong Economy

Posted on by
Reply

Stipulate, arguendo, that we actually have one of those going on. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell wants to cool it down hard.

The latest economic data have come in stronger than expected, which suggests that the ultimate level of interest rates is likely to be higher than previously anticipated. If the totality of the data were to indicate that faster tightening is warranted, we would be prepared to increase the pace of rate hikes.

That is the Fed’s standard answer for dealing with inflation, manipulating interest rates are its primary tool, and it’s not an entirely wrong answer. Burgeoning economic activity that has demand for goods and services overwhelming the ability of producers to deliver the goods and services is a major driver of inflation, and that inflation hammers us average Americans by badly devaluing our incomes. Dampening demand is a way to deal with inflation.

However.

Consumer demand isn’t the only component of overall economic demand: Federal spending is another major player, and the Federal government creates completely artificial demand with its spending.

Repeat my opening stipulation. If our economy is strong, we don’t need nearly so much Federal spending. The Biden administration—and any following series of administrations—need to cut out the stimulus spending, cut back on “baseline” spending, and get out of the way of the private economy. Absent Federal…interference…in our economy, spending and supply will align quickly as us Americans decide for ourselves what we will buy, what we will produce, and the price levels at which we will carry out the relevant exchanges.

Take note, also: that puts a premium on the Republican House and Senate caucuses standing firm on requiring spending cuts beginning next fiscal year and continuing into the out years as a quid pro quo for raising the debt ceiling this year.

Negative Inference

Posted on by
Reply

Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg likes to jet around the country and to overseas locations. He claims to do this while flying coach on commercial airlines, but he’s also taken 23 jet rides at taxpayer expense on private Government-owned jets. Now he’s refusing to supply relevant oversight data for these rides.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) has turned down repeated requests for information related to the taxpayer costs of 23 flights Secretary Pete Buttigieg and his advisers took on government private jets since taking office.
The DOT and the agency’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) office both declined to detail how much each flight cost taxpayers over the course of multiple months and in recent weeks.

It’s illegal for Government agencies to refuse to respond substantively to FOIA requests (clearly saying “No” with a clear explanation of the legality for that “No” would constitute such a substantive response).

It’s a common practice in cases before a court for a judge to advise a jury that when a prosecutor’s witness obfuscates during his testimony, or refuses to answer clearly or at all, the jury is free to attach the most negative interpretation to those witness failures during the jury’s subsequent deliberations.

So it is with the man who sits in the Transportation Secretary’s chair. Pete Buttigieg cannot be taken as anything other than both in over his head and dishonest. His words are useless, and the only conclusion possible concerning those flights is that they were done illegally, and that illegality—repeated 23 times—should be a fireable offense.

Perhaps it’s time for Government officials who stonewall to lose access to their office facilities through those facilities’ loss of funding. And this step, also, although it won’t have immediate effect, even were it to get through the Progressive-Democratic Party-dominated Senate and White House:

House Republicans plan to vote to defund non-complying witnesses in the government when the new fiscal budget takes effect on October 1.

In the present case, that would mean Buttigieg and the head of his FOIA Office would lose their salaries.

What He Said

Posted on by
Reply

Rick Wallace has the right of it—and exactly so—in his Letter in The Wall Street Journal‘s Tuesday Letters section:

The Republicans should be sending one message to the American people loud and clear: The Democrats want to cut your Social Security benefits by 26% in 10 years. There is no other pertinent debating point. If the GOP is going to be vilified for trying to save the program with responsible alterations, the alternative should be made clear. Should the Democrats have their way, the program will collapse, and everyone will face major cuts to their benefits. That’s their Plan A. The GOP offers Plan B.

Those 26% are the size of the reduction in Social Security payouts to then-existing retirees when the Social Security Trust Fund runs out of money in those 10 years, and payouts after that come solely from incoming payroll tax collections.

The Progressive-Democratic Party politicians in both houses plainly don’t care about that damage to our retirees, preferring instead to keep the threat of reduction as an active cudgel with which to attack their political opponents. That’s why they react to loudly against any effort by Republicans and Conservatives to adjust Social Security in order to save it and avoid that 26% cut in benefits.

The Republicans and their Conservative allies, though, do need to stop cowering behind glittering generalities and instead be explicit in their solution, how it will work, and when/over what schedule it will be implemented.

Lobbyists

Posted on by
Reply

In particular, lobbyists representing the interests of the People’s Republic of China and companies domiciled there.

It turns out that the multinational retail and tech conglomerate Alibaba—headquartered in Hangzhou, Zhejiang, PRC—has lobbied, and donated lots of money to, American politicians, to the tune of $2.5 million just last year.

And this, via Voice of America:

Public information shows that Mercury, a lobbying firm, lobbied the White House repeatedly on behalf of Alibaba on technology policy issues, access to US capital markets, issues related to e-commerce, and small- and medium-sized enterprise export promotion.

That brings me to my beef about lobbyists and the White House. It’s one thing (however questionable or legitimate) for lobbyists to jawbone White House officials on behalf of companies, whether foreign or domestic. It should be unacceptable for lobbyists to jawbone White House officials on behalf of foreign governments—which in the case of the PRC, includes all businesses domiciled there, since all of those businesses are arms of the PRC’s intelligence community under that nation’s 2017 national intelligence law.

Foreign governments, in particular the PRC government, already have professional, talented, and perfectly suited lobbyists to White House officials: those governments’ Ambassadors and ambassadorial staff personnel. No one else should be lobbying.