Tag Archives: political parties

Local Control vs Federal Funding

Posted on by
Reply

Tennessee’s General Assembly is considering a bill that would indemnify teachers and all other employees of public schools and local education agencies against civil liability or “adverse job actions” if they refer to a student by pronouns consistent with his biological sex rather than by his preferred gender pronouns. The General Assembly’s Fiscal Review Committee noted that the bill

could violate Title IX and would put at risk the state’s federal funding, which for the current school year is more than $5 billion.

That’s the important aspect of this bill, and it has much broader implications for all State-level legislative actions. The $5 billion might seem like a lot of money for a State, but it pales against the long-term cost outcomes of a State accepting any Federal funds under any guise: the more money a State accepts from the Federal government, the more control over its own internal affairs the State surrenders to the Federal government.

The Feds are acting entirely legitimately when they attach strings to the money they provide the States, or to any non-State entity. Anyone providing money to anyone or anything else naturally gets to specify the manner and purpose for which the money is to be used. It’s the existence of those strings, not what they require, that should give States pause in the decision to accept any of the Federal government’s money.

In the end, States that want to retain control of their own intra-State affairs should reject Federal funds transfers—and join with other States in efforts across the legal spectrum to end Federal transfers of State tax remissions to other States altogether except in the event of an emergency declaration. Nor should any exceptions to the bar be allowed: once carve-outs are begun, in very short order, the bar will be so exception-ridden as to cease to exist in any meaningful form.

Corporate Tax Rate Cuts

Posted on by
1

…must lead to Federal government tax revenue reductions. Or so Progressive-Democrats claim. Say it ain’t so, Joe. President Joe Biden (D) won’t say it, though, so I will. It ain’t so, as this table from The Wall Street Journal illustrates.

When you leave money in the hands of private economy operators—individual or corporate—they do productive things with their money. That productivity leads to more R&D, more innovation, more physical capital improvement, physical capital expansion, wage increases, more jobs (which represent the mothers of all wage increases, for many, from zero wage to an actual paycheck), the latter two leading to human capital improvement, which leads to greater private economy demand for goods and services, which leads to greater production of those goods and services, expanding the economic virtuous circle.

In comparison, Government merely redistributes from one operator—individual or corporate—to another its collected revenues, producing very little. Even the redistributions to noneconomic operators—individuals on welfare, for instance—the resulting production has less value than the transferred funds. The recipients of those redistributions have very small demand increases from the redistributions since they start out with small demands: they’re unemployed or employed only in low-wage, low-value jobs, and all those redistribution payments do is trap those folks in those two statuses.

All of that is even before any discussion of any need for the tax revenues Big Government Progressive-Democrats claim exists.

Border Removal

Posted on by
Reply

The latest example of President Joe Biden’s (D) move to erase our nation’s borders is this: exemptions to Title 42 health restrictions, which Biden plans to implement in the next few days, and which will largely make elimination of the Title 42 restrictions themselves, or their retention, irrelevant. The exemptions apply, in particular, to illegal aliens; legal immigrants remain held to different standards.

The exemptions certainly sound pretty:

…a physical or mental illness, disability; pregnancy; lack of access to safe housing or shelter in Mexico (under 21 years old or younger or over 70, including families); and an indication that an individual has been threatened or harmed in Mexico.

All of these, though, with the exception of the pregnancy, are easily claimed by the illegal aliens, knowing our border agents are in no position to verify the claims.

Nor is any of this relevant to Title 42’s health restrictions or to the state of the Wuhan Virus in the US. Those restrictions are to protect the US from entry by immigrants who are coming from countries with serious outbreaks of infectious disease(s), not just a Wuhan Virus outbreak. Biden and his Progressive-Democrats (and too many Republicans who argue against Title 42 restriction lifting from a different perspective) know this full well.

This is a move to not bother stopping anyone from entering our nation from anywhere, for any reason, no matter who they are or what diseases they might bring with them—if any.

There no longer are any meaningful health checks under Biden-Harris, so we won’t know how healthy or unhealthy these illegal aliens are.

Skinflints

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) and wife donated all of 2.8% of their income to charity in 2021. Average Americans in their income level donated 3.1% of their income to charity. Average Americans in the next lower income level donated 2.9% of their income—still more than the Bidens, despite their greater income.

Vice President Kamala Harris (D) and husband were just as tight. They donated 1.3% of their (higher than the Bidens’ by a factor greater than two) 2021 income to charity.

Just to emphasize how cheap these Progressive-Democrats are, average Americans with income under $50,000 and who still managed to itemize donated 8.4% of their income.

Keep in mind, too, the Bidens and the Harrises don’t have the expenses that us average Americans have. They get all expenses paid houses to live in, free transportation, and not only are their meals entirely free*, they’re catered by top drawer chefs.

But the Bidens, anyway, always have been chintzy with their charity. In 2007, while Joe was sitting in the Senate, he and Jill donated all of 0.3% of their income to charity.

*Free in this context means us American taxpayers are paying their expenses. And they’re still that chintzy.

Yellen’s Foolishness

Posted on by
Reply

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is boycott[ing] some G-20 meetings this week that include Russian officials. This is idiotic and tends to send the signal that she is as afraid of “Russian officials” as her boss President Joe Biden (D) is of Russian President Vladimir Putin (or that Biden has ordered Yellen to hide away from those particular G-20 meetings).

The better signal, the stronger signal, would be for Yellen to attend all the G-20 meetings and simply to refuse to engage with the Russian officials, to turn her back on them and engage with others present instead.