Tag Archives: political parties

The Federal Debt Ceiling

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) has thrown down the gauntlet.

In an interview on Tuesday, McConnell stated “I can’t imagine a single Republican in this environment voting to raise the debt limit.”
He told Democrats to include the hike in the second infrastructure bill they plan to pass through reconciliation.

I hope McConnell isn’t being overly optimistic about his Senate caucus.

It’s doubtful that there is a single Progressive-Democrat in the Senate who would vote against raising the debt ceiling, but if there were, and if the Federal government were shut down as a result, that wouldn’t be all bad. There are many parts of the Federal government that wouldn’t be missed and those critical to national security—DoD and State—would continue to function.

Biden Says

Posted on by
2

President Joe Biden (D) sees no problem with his spending proposals. Could he actually be right? Here’s a thought on that.

Biden said runaway government spending isn’t inflationary (although he doesn’t recognize the runaway nature of his spending).

Biden missed the opportunity to claim that runaway government (re)regulation also is a net good (although he wouldn’t characterize his reregulation as runaway).

But the two work in concert to control inflation.

Government spending crowds out the private economy’s spending. Government regulation makes the means of production a government concern.

One buyer—Government—and one supplier—Government—means only one price—Government’s. One price means no inflation.

It’s simple, really.

One Outcome

Posted on by
Reply

…of President Joe Biden’s (D) timidity.

Russia is testing hypersonic cruise missiles in the White Sea, and announcing that they’re nuclear capable. The Russian Embassy in the US now says

We would like to remind @PentagonPressSec that potential deployment of any [American flag] hypersonic [missile] in Europe would be extremely destabilizing. Their short flight time would leave [Russian flag] little to no decision time and raise the likelihood of inadvertent conflict.

“We’re arming in Europe with nuclear capable hypersonic cruise missiles. You stay out. Be too bad if something was to happen.”

Alongside that, the People’s Republic of China is threatening Japan with nuclear destruction if that nation dares object to the PRC’s conquering and occupation of the Republic of China, as the PRC is more and more openly plotting to do.

This comes as Biden repeatedly barks loudly from the safety of his White House porch while doing nothing to back his yapping.

Timidity breeds far more and more dangerous contempt than does familiarity.

Migrant Voters

Posted on by
Reply

And no, I don’t mean illegal aliens as potential voters.

Last spring, before Texas’ cowards, no, flee-baggers, no, Progressive-Democrats ran away from Texas explicitly to block voting on new voting laws (!), the State’s legislature succeeded in passing a voting law that, among other things, prevented folks from renting a post office box, claiming residency from that in that PO’s district, and voting away. Instead, the law requires folks to have an actual street address at an actual residence—house, apartment, what-have-you—and actually live there.

Leftists object to that and have filed suit.

They don’t care (or maybe they do care; it’s the sort of thing Progressive-Democrats last fall openly contemplated during the runoff election campaigns for Georgia’s Senator seats) that establishing residency by getting a post office box—which shrinks the concept of mobile tiny houses to new levels of mobility and tininess—is simply an open invitation to setting up waves of migrant voters to be sent to key jurisdictions in order to swing elections.

Failing Money Market Funds and Dysfunctional Regulation

Posted on by
Reply

Money market funds had trouble during the Panic of 2008, and Federal regulators felt like they had to justify their jobs by Doing Something. So by 2014, they developed and adopted a rule that, in essence allowed money market funds to tell their investors that they couldn’t have their money back under certain fund- and SEC-determined conditions. For the investors’ own good.

Fast forward to the then-active Wuhan Virus situation in early spring 2020, and money market funds found themselves in trouble again. Enter the Gotta Do Something regulators again. This time the international consortium that is the Financial Stability Board (created in the panicky aftermath of that Panic and to which then-President Barack Obama (D) surrendered much of our financial regulatory sovereignty) is contemplating

proposals would discount the value of shares in money funds when lots of investors all want to cash them in simultaneously.

Telling investors they can’t have all of their money back when they need it most. For their own good because the money market fund “needs” their money more, and the money market fund’s “needs” are more important.

Think about that.

Think, next, about a couple of alternatives. One would be to require money market funds to hold a measure of cash capital in reserve and separate from investors’ money. But that’s those regulators, again.

Another would be to let the money market fund that finds itself in trouble go ahead and fail. Let several of them fail. Certainly, that will be painful in the moment, and for more than those funds and unlucky or bad judgment investors. But it also would be the only time, as the industry would be forced by free market imperatives to clean itself up. That would result in far less pain in the medium- to long-term.