Overbearing, or Justice-Seeking?

The Federal Department of Justice thinks Ferguson, MO, should make changes in the way it polices itself, and in the main, Ferguson agreed. That’s where the rub is, that “in the main” part.

An agreement was tentatively negotiated between Ferguson and DoJ on what those changes should be, but when it got to the City Council, the Council wanted some changes before they’d sign off. Vanita Gupta, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, said that DoJ would take

necessary legal actions to ensure that Ferguson’s policing and court practices comply with the Constitution and relevant federal laws.

The Ferguson City Council has attempted to unilaterally amend the negotiated agreement.

Of course, Gupta knows better. Nothing was agreed until the city actually agreed—which is what the City Council was discussing when, on its review of the offered settlement, it decided some changes were desirable. The Council, for instance, is concerned about whether it can afford the settlement. Among other things:

The council also wants Justice to cap federal monitoring fees the city must pay at $1 million….

Another concern is how this settlement would affect adjacent government entities. One change requested by the Council was an explicit statement that

the agreement will not apply to any other governmental entity that might take over duties currently provided by Ferguson. That means, for example, that St Louis County would not be beholden to the agreement if it takes over policing in Ferguson.

Because, for instance,

St Louis County police spokesman Brian Schellman said if the county were ever asked to take over policing in Ferguson, “we would consider the implications of the consent decree before entering into such an agreement.”

DoJ’s response? Since you didn’t sit down, shut up, and do what you were told to do, we’re suing you to implement our agreement diktat. The suit was filed the day after the Council voted to ask for these few amendments. No negotiation. Suit.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Ferguson’s decision to reject the deal left the Justice Department no choice except to file a civil-rights lawsuit.

Of course, Lynch knows better, too. The Council’s request for changes is not at all a rejection of the deal. In the first place, no deal can exist until it’s agreed by both parties, not dictated by one to the other. In the second place, a request for changes is an implicit agreement to the basic offer, else there’d be nothing to change.

Then Lynch made this entirely disingenuous statement:

The residents of Ferguson have waited nearly a year for the city to adopt an agreement that would protect their rights and keep them safe. … They have waited decades for justice. They should not be forced to wait any longer.

And yet, rather than negotiating these few changes to a reasonably quick resolution, Lynch now seeks years more delay while her DoJ sues to impose her will. This reaction is nothing more than an egotistical, self-aggrandizing move by Lynch and Gupta. Worse, it represents, regardless of the merits of the tentative agreement or of the requested changes, nothing but an overbearing power grab by the Federal government.

Business Taxes

Richard Rubin, of The Wall Street Journal, thinks reforming these is not a straightforward proposition. To an extent, he’s right, as business and personal income taxes have become increasingly intertwined with each successive tax reform since Reagan.

The links between corporate and individual taxation inevitably lock policy makers in intractable disputes about popular deductions and the question that divides the parties most bitterly: is the US collecting enough money from wealthy individuals?

But this entangling, or more correctly, the concern about the entangling, simply overcomplexifies the problem.

It’s an easy thing to do conceptually, if political will is lacking, to reform business taxes. Keep in mind a single, core fact: businesses don’t pay very much of their tax bills already. Business taxes are just another cost center, whose value in large part is paid by the business’ customers in the form of higher prices that are set to recover, at the least, a significant fraction of that cost. Customers pay much of those business taxes.

The framing provides the answer. Cut through the Gordian business/personal income tax knot by eliminating the business tax altogether. This, aside from eliminating the tax pass-along to already taxed individuals, also eliminates disputes about popular deductions, credits, and so on: they go away with the taxes.

This also removes the non sequitur of whether business taxes are hitting the wealthy sufficiently. That question becomes focused on the personal taxes where it belongs and thereby brought into sharper relief.

An Appropriate Response

Freedom from Religion Foundation cried foul after the group noticed a “God Bless America” banner that employees at a post office in Pittsburg, KS, had erected after Sep 11, 2001. A lawsuit filed by FFRF on behalf of a Pittsburg resident forced the banner down in late January[.]

This is the timidity of the local postmaster, or perhaps it’s the political correctness of his bosses up the government food chain.

However.

When news of the banner’s banishment spread, a business in the area, Jake’s Fireworks, printed 1,200 “God Bless America” yard signs and 300 banners. Jake’s gave away all of the signs within 45 minutes, according to the Post.

This is entirely appropriate.

Budgets

President Barack Obama (D) sent up his budget proposal Tuesday, carefully timed to be buried under the news coverage of the New Hampshire primaries. $4 trillion worth of proposals. It’s replete with the Left’s dreams of tax increases—including a one-third tax on oil (at current prices: a $10/barrel tax with oil now going for $30) and an acceleration of the Left’s tax war on successful Americans—and associated spending claptrap (gotta spend those taxes, after all) like more spending on college subsidies such as Pell Grants, incentives for States to expand Medicaid programs, increased subsidies for the Left’s goals, expanding budgets for the Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Labor, and on and on. This Obama Budget expands the current half-trillion dollar deficit, because gotta spend more than tax revenue, too.

Oh, yeah: that oil tax is intended, in part, to subsidize “energy sources of the future.” Read that as increased subsidies for “green” energy sources, subsidies the Left thinks are necessary because “green” energy sources can’t compete in a free market, and that’s just not fair. Along those lines, though, here’s a “subsidy” that would pay off in spades and produce potsful of green energy: drastically reduce regulatory and permitting restrictions, and so the associated costs, on building nuclear power plants. We even have a spent fuel storage facility built and ready to go in Nevada; we just have to get government out of the way of that, too. Fat chance on either one, though, under this administration.

No, what Congress needs to do, what Congress has both the sole authority to do—to pass a budget and then pass the several appropriations bills to give effect to the budget—and the power to do with Republican majorities in both houses, is ignore Obama’s budgeting nonsense. A proper step in that direction is this:

Congressional Republicans last week announced they wouldn’t invite the White House’s budget chief to testify on the administration’s proposals, breaking with longstanding protocol.

Instead, Congress simply should pass a proper budget, and it should take the one passed last fall and pass the appropriations bills that properly reduce tax rates, expand defense spending, and reduce spending everywhere else so as to produce a net surplus within those lowered tax rates. And within those bills, specify that the surplus must go first to paying down the debt.

Keep in mind, too, two things. One is the meaning of the budget passed last fall. Nothing in it prevents Congress from passing the appropriation bills outlined just above. Budget bills set outer bounds of spending; they do not set required minimum levels of spending.

The other is so-called “discretionary spending.” “Discretionary spending” is carefully defined to be spending that Congress is authorized to manage year by year; the definition is designed to exclude spending on things like welfare, Social Security, Medicare; and these exclusions amount to roughly two-thirds of Federal spending. This is a cynically perpetuated fiction. It’s all discretionary spending. It’s all fully within Congress’ spending authority to manage on a year by year basis. Every single dollar of it.

The more dollars left in Americans’ hands through lower tax rates, the less government competes with the private economy for goods and services through spending, the better off Americans will be through the resulting economic activity and rising prosperity. And the faster our nation will be able to pay down—and off—its national debt.

Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches

She was for releasing the transcripts before she was against it. The fact is, there could well be contractual requirements for not releasing them. However, I discount that because if such contract clauses existed, she’d cite them. Her latest weasel-worded excuse for not releasing is this, instead, in response to a George Stephanopoulos question about why she’d not yet:

Yeah, you know, here’s another thing I want to say. Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them. We’ll all release them at the same time. You know, I don’t mind being the subject in Republican debates, the subject in the Democratic primary. That kind of goes with the territory.…

Couple things about this. One is the typical Clintonian (and others’) tactic of releasing the bad news within a deluge of good news, other bad news, and utterly irrelevant news. Everyone releasing at the same time would bury whatever embarrassing or outright bad stuff might be in the Clintons’ Wall Street speeches.

The other thing is this: why not show the way and be the first to release the transcripts? Because that would be taking the high road.