Tag Archives: politics

This, too, Has a Fix

Posted on by
Reply

The lede intimates the problem:

Dual-earning married couples are estimated to face a loss of $18,100 in annual benefits in seven years without the passage of some sort of entitlement reform, according to a new study.

And this:

“At the same time, those retirees might experience reduced access to health care due to an 11% cut in Medicare Hospital Insurance payments. The cuts would grow over time as scheduled benefits continue to outpace dedicated revenues,” the analysis [by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget] also read.

Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott has proposed legislation to address this:

…create a “Budget Point of Order” and require a two-thirds vote against any legislation that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) “determines would create a “Budget Point of Order” and require a two-thirds vote against any legislation that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) “determines would reduce or cut existing Medicare and Social Security benefits.”

But that would only increase costs to all of us in the form of steadily rising taxes. After all, any tax bill that didn’t raise taxes sufficiently to suit CBO would be claimed by it to reduce or cut those benefits and so would require that supermajority vote.

No, the better solution is to entirely privatize Social Security and to return responsibility for Medicare entirely to the States under their respective Medicaid programs.

Social Security could be privatized entirely for those currently younger than 50 years—or under 40 years if the longer transition period would be more politically palatable. Continue to require folks to pay those Social Security taxes, but the money would go into retirement accounts strictly for the benefit of the taxpayer and his future retirement, instead of being sent right back out for the current benefit of existing retirees. This would give the taxpayer/future retiree skin in his own game, and I guarantee you that this individual would do a lot better job of managing his retirement money than the government has been doing—especially with the government confronted as it is with both a dwindling supply of employed persons paying the taxes to produce current payouts and an increasing post-retirement life span. The transition would be deucedly expensive for the government (all of us taxpayers), but that expense is only going to explode if nothing else is done.

On the other hand, Medicare conversion doesn’t need so long a transition, and it would produce immediate savings for the Federal budget—its real budget, not the fictional one that pretends Social Security and Medicare aren’t part of government expenditures. For this conversion, it’s a simple matter of converting the Medicare transfer to each State to a Year Zero block grant solely to the State’s Medicaid program. Then each year over the next 10, reduce the size of the block grant by 10% of the Year Zero amount and reduce each worker’s Medicare part of his payroll tax and his employer’s contribution to that payroll tax by 10% of that Year Zero tax collection. At the end of those 10 years, the Federal government would be out of the States’ health coverage business, the States would have their responsibility for and control over their own programs wholly restored, and each worker and employer would be out from under that portion of the payroll tax.

Their Plan, Our Necessary Response

Posted on by
Reply

The headline and subheadline of the editorial lay it out succinctly:

China’s No-Exit Plan for Foreigners
Beijing is blocking two more Americans from leaving the country which is part of a pattern.

Then the lede:

Chinese President Xi Jinping has been eager to lure American companies to invest in China, but you wouldn’t know it from Beijing’s latest actions. China is preventing American citizens, including a Commerce Department employee and a Wells Fargo banker, from leaving the country.

This is naked hostage-taking, and the only way to stop it is to counter it decisively, deeply, and broadly. That doesn’t mean if the PRC takes an American hostage, we take 10, nor does it mean if the PRC brings a knife to the matter, we bring a gun and all our friends with guns. It may come to that—tit-for-tat is far worse and more expensive than drastic and rapid escalation—but it’s not useful in the present context.

What is necessary is for Americans to stop traveling to the PRC under any circumstance—not to visit, not for tourism, not on business. This would be made more effective, and safer for business employees, if American businesses stopped doing business inside the PRC completely. Along those lines, our State Department should issue a Level 4 Travel Advisory—Do Not Travel—on travel to the PRC. The specific risks to travel are included with this level of advisory, and SecState should be explicit: there is an unacceptable risk of the American traveler being kidnapped by the PRC government and barred from leaving. It may be true, and it seems to be so for the two kidnap victims above, that the victims are free to roam about the PRC, but that just means they’re in a shabbily gilded cage.

In addition to those steps, our government needs to make those hostages our hostages against PRC good behavior: do nothing diplomatically or economically with the PRC until all of our citizens are back on US soil, safe and healthy. Rescind the PRC’s Most Favored Nation status and impose tariffs of at least 500% on all goods and services originating from the PRC, regardless of the path those things take in getting to the US, again until all of our citizens are back on US soil, safe and healthy.

Accelerate arming the Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Japan. Actively and overtly—with the presence of US Navy and Air Force assets—assist the Philippines in its defense of its island possessions in the South China Sea, including physically blocking PLAN ships from impeding Philippine shipping. Deem PLAN ship refusal to give way, maintaining a collision course as an attack on our ship or the Philippine ship, and fire on and sink the PLAN attacker. Work defense arrangements with Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia.

The more Xi and his minions object, the more rapidly we should push these moves.

Hostage takers deserve no profit; they do deserve to lose drastically.

A Brief Thought on Trade Negotiations

Posted on by
Reply

There’s this from a Wall Street Journal article centered on European Union and People’s Republic of China trade relations:

Chinese and European leaders must “make the right strategic choices” amid a fast-changing and tumultuous global environment, Chinese leader Xi Jinping told visiting EU leaders in Beijing on Thursday, according to Chinese state media.

The right strategic choices. This kind of rhetoric is all too typical of Xi’s and his minions’ demands on any subject, whether on trade or other nations’ decisions regarding their own national security. In the end, it’s Xi’s demand that other nations, here European, must make those choices comport with Xi’s positions.

Neither Xi nor his ministers are negotiating seriously or in good faith when they make such demands; this is emphasized by the PRC’s “rationing” of critical raw materials. It’s time the rest of us pushed back—hard. We need to respond by saying that as long as that’s the PRC position, there can be no negotiation, no discussion, since the PRC is not operating in good faith.

And then act on those words and walk away. Continue by moving on and elsewhere without the PRC, saying publicly that Xi knows how to contact them when he’s ready to be serious.

Gerrymandering

Posted on by
Reply

It’s time to ride this horse again, this time due to a Wall Street Journal op-ed on racial gerrymandering, Texas, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which sought to balance minority access to electing government representatives with majority access (itself an unconstitutional unequal treatment law IMNSHO).

The op-ed centered on Texas’ move to redraw its current Federal House of Representative districts and “liberal” beefs that Texas’ current districts already disadvantage Hispanics is, here, irrelevant; it’s that unequal treatment that matters.

The second clause of the first Article of the 14th Amendment of our Constitution makes the matter crystalline.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Gerrymandering on the basis of race is clearly unconstitutional, and that VRA should have been struck down long since—the latest opportunity having come when the Supreme Court released the Southern States from government oversight regarding their voting laws. Beyond that, one of the central privileges of a citizen of the United States is the ability to vote in an election (in this post, a national election) and have his vote count as much—neither more nor less—than the vote of any other citizen of the United States.

The concept—equal protection of the laws—extends easily to political parties: gerrymandering on the basis of political party also plainly denies us average Americans our equal treatment by limiting the value of our votes in some districts and artificially increasing the value of our votes in other districts solely on the basis of political stance.

The clear, constitutional, equal treatment solution to this is to draw our Congressional districts without regard to political belief, race, or any other criterion other than our status as American citizens (and citizens of the State in which we reside, as the first clause of that Article specifies), but strictly within (or as practice has overcome the explicitly stated requirement) within the spirit of equal population requirement stated in Article I, Section 2 of our Constitution:

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand….

Thus: beginning with the geographic center of the State, draw the districts as squares, with the only deviation from a straight line being at a State’s boundary with an adjacent State. Otherwise, the number of districts must equal the apportionment of Representatives the State’s total population allows, and each of the districts must be geographically sized so that each of the districts has substantially equal populations of citizens.

We’re all Americans, and so we’re all equal under law. Race, political position—religion, etc—are wholly irrelevant to this.

My Sympathy Meter…

Posted on by
Reply

…is flashing Empty. On a note related to another post of mine, there’s this out of Tucson, AZ:

Tucson Unified School District (TUSD), based in Tucson, Arizona, is reportedly facing financial and enrollment struggles after universal school choice passed in the state in 2022.
A TUSD official told KGUN that approximately 4,000 students used vouchers to either go to private schools or homeschool.
The trend of parents overlooking TUSD cost the school district about $20 million. TUSD’s Chief Financial Officer, Ricky Hernandez, told the local outlet that TUSD is “preparing for continued declines in enrollment as a result” of vouchers.

This, after TUSD as a whole had these test score outcomes, as of the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years:

In Tucson Unified District, 28% of elementary students tested at or above the proficient level for reading, and 23% tested at or above that level for math. Also, 27% of middle school students tested at or above the proficient level for reading, and 19% tested at or above that level for math. And 48% of high school students tested at or above the proficient level for reading, and 42% tested at or above that level for math.

Here’s a thought—bear with me on this; it’s a strange concept for many—maybe the TUSD managers and teachers should do a better job of teaching the children in their educational charge the basics and advanced principles of reading, writing, and arithmetic, with budgeting, finance, and economics added in for the district’s grade schools, junior highs, and high schools, respectively. Room in the school day for that last, especially, could be made by eliminating the claptrap of DEI, “flexible” gender, pornographic books in grade school libraries, and other Woke ideologies.