Tag Archives: politics

I Want My…Maypo

Posted on by
Reply

Late in the Biden administration, as the lede notes,

Documents obtained by The Free Press from the Environmental Protection Agency reveal that, despite handing out $20 billion in grants to eight nonprofits just before President Donald Trump took office, the federal employees who reviewed grant applications had concerns about high salaries, conflicts of interest, and oversight of taxpayer money.

After he was confirmed to the office, EPA Secretary Lee Zeldin

called for a Department of Justice investigation and had the money, most of which resided in 129 Citibank accounts, frozen.

Naturally, the NGOs are suing, because they want their filch fruits restored. Just to be sure, they’re also suing Citibank, whose since the freezing has been nothing but obeying a government directive, which they have to do unless and until a court overturns the directive.

Never mind that the staffers expressed, in writing as part of their reviews of the grants during the application process, concerns about excessive-seeming pay for NGO executives; NGOs’ cost claims that had no explanation, much less rationale, for them; or apparent lack of oversight planning.

It’s illustrative of these NGOs’ entitlement mentality that they think they should have the money just because they want it. It’s also one more reason for the necessity of taking several machetes to the jungle undergrowth of Federal government spending.

Another Reason…

Posted on by
Reply

…we can’t trust those of the Left, and why even the Left can’t have nice things. This one is the smear campaign against the Progressive-Democratic Party’s Senator from Pennsylvania.

It began with a once-trustworthy senior aid to John Fetterman, Adam Jentleson, who sent a letter to Fetterman’s doctor after Fetterman’s recovery from his stroke was readily apparent. Jentleson wrote that

the senator was suffering from “conspiratorial thinking” and “megalomania” while experiencing “high highs and low lows.” In “long, rambling, repetitive and self-centered monologues,” Mr Fetterman was “lying in ways that are painfully, awkwardly obvious to everyone in the room.” Mr Jentleson also said the senator was “preoccupied” with Twitter and driving “recklessly.”

Jentleson’s attack is only the most overt and blunt instance. There is a constant susurration behind closed doors and behind certain backs of concerns—carefully couched as being for Fetterman’s declining welfare, of course—for his mental state.

Fetterman’s mental disability? his deviation from the Left’s orthodoxy: he’s more moderate than the Left thought he would be and want him to be. He’s no radical, extreme Leftist firebrand thrower.

I was bothered, in the beginning, by Fetterman’s medical fitness for office following his stroke. But once he became able to communicate with the aid of a laptop translator so he could read what people were saying rather than having to process audio, the center of his stroke’s damage, it became clear that his mind was sound, and regardless of what anyone might think (anyone other than those of the Left) of his politics, he was, and is, quite rational. He no longer needs his laptop for this purpose, and his speaking difficulties, also typical of strokes, have long since nearly fully abated, too, outcomes increasingly typical of stroke rehab.

The smear and its rationale are reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s persecution, and consignment to its gulag, of those who disagreed with the Communist Party: such disagreement was ipso facto proof of their insanity and of the necessity of sequestering them away from “normal” society.

The Truce of the Barbarian

Posted on by
Reply

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a cease fire truce for the three days covering its victory in WWII celebration, and then he increased his attacks on Ukraine. Then he offered low level talks between his underlings and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s subordinates, supposedly for this Thursday in Turkey, basing his offer on renewal of the same talks he pretended to engage in 2022 in Turkey to address his claimed underlying cause of his invasion of Ukraine: ending Ukraine’s continued existence as a fully independent and sovereign nation and exposing it, in that newly and drastically weakened state, to renewed invasion and final conquering and occupation.

Zelenskyy responded,

demanding that Russia start a cease-fire on Monday [yesterday], and saying he would be waiting for Putin “personally” in Turkey on Thursday.
“There is no point in prolonging the killings,” Zelensky wrote on social media. Later in his nightly address, the Ukrainian leader reiterated his intention to go to Istanbul for talks. “And I hope that this time, Putin won’t be looking for excuses as to why he ‘can’t’ make it,” he said.

If Putin is a no-show in Istanbul Thursday, Europe and the US—this means President Donald Trump (R)—need to stop slow-walking weapons, ammunition, and logistical support for Ukraine, and start delivering them in the numbers and at the pace the Ukrainians have said they need in order to succeed in defending themselves against the barbarian’s threat to their existence.

It isn’t possible to negotiate with a barbaric entity who only understand conquer and enslave. His truces, his commitments, cannot be trusted. Ever.

In the end, the only way to achieve Trump’s—and Zelenskyy’s—goal of “ending the killing” is to destroy the barbarian invasion and drive the barbarians out of Ukraine.

Tariffs and Reindustrialization

Posted on by
Reply

This seems to be my day for letter-writers. Another writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s Sunday Letters section wrote about the current lack of effectivity of (protectionist) tariffs in stimulating moves toward reindustrialization in our economy.

Through initiatives such as Operation Warp Speed and strategic invocation of the Defense Production Act, the government took risk out of domestic production through substantial direct investment, guaranteed purchase agreements, prioritized allocation of critical materials and equipment, and streamlined regulatory processes.

He then proposed a similar program to spur reindustrialization.

He’s right as far as he went, but it’s too one-sided, lacking as it does any requirement for the targeted industries to do their part. Aside from the addictive nature of protectionist tariffs, it’s far too often the case that the “protected” industry companies merely take advantage of the increased prices of tariffed imports to raise their own prices accordingly, collect the increased revenue, and do nothing to improve their own competitiveness.

What’s also needed, as a part of these tariffs, is a requirement that the “protected” industry companies use the large majority (60%-75%, say, just to have a starting point for discussion) of the increased revenues accruing from the increased sales at their immediately pre-tariff prices to achieve the following:

• increase market share via their largely unchanged price
• increase spending on innovation
• increase spending on capital plant maintenance, improvement, and expansion
• increase spending on line worker wages
• increase spending on line worker hiring

And one more fillip: a hard expiration date of the protectionist tariff, in the range of 5-10 years, that cannot be extended except by Congressionally enacted statute.

That’s the route to actually reindustrializing: doing concrete things to achieve concrete goals.

Why Must They Be Mutually Exclusive?

Posted on by
Reply

A letter-writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s Sunday Letters section objected to an op-ed whose writer touted Federally mandated IVF insurance provided by private economy insurers as a means to elevate our nation’s too low birth rate.

The letter-writer proposed, instead, a tiered cash baby bonus: bigger for married women, smaller for unmarried women.

My question: why must it be one or the other? Why not both?

Follow-on question: why not consider the system of which these are just two components? If the Federal government, or at least the Republicans in the government, are going to work for increasing our birth rate and against the related universal and easily obtained abortion rate—and they should, on both—and on the underlying economic situation of the middle and lower class individuals and families, why not provide women—married or not—in parallel with a range of incentives to have more babies, with financial, educational, and medical support during their pregnancies and in the period surrounding birth, and in the first years (until kindergarten?) of the baby’s life, expanding that to include the baby/toddler/child in the support mechanisms?

If our government and us are going to be serious about birthrates and about right to life, government and we need to get serious about achieving those goals.