Welfare Reform: MIA

Senate Republicans and Progressive-Democrats agreed in principle to a two-year budget deal that sets outer bounds on spending allocations that are yet to be debated and passed in the two Houses.  The deal increases defense spending by $165 billion over the next two years, and it increases domestic spending by $131 billion over those two years.

But at what price?

One price is the potential for a return to $1 trillion deficits.  To an extent, that’ll be reduced by a growing economy as the tax reform law begins to take effect.

The larger price, though, by far, is the lack movement on the big three budget failures: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid transfers.  These remain not on any track toward privatization, or with that last item, not on any track toward reducing to zero transfers.

In 2016, the Federal government spent almost $950 billion on Social Security payments and a bit over $590 billion on Medicare.  Federal Medicaid transfers to the States in 2016 ran some $325 billion.

Fixing those would be produce a large reduction in deficits to the point of budget surpluses, which could be used to run down our national debt.  And the fixing would produce a large return to the personal responsibility that has contributed so strongly to our nation’s greatness and prosperity.

A Hong Kong Trial

Some of you may recall the umbrella protests in Hong Kong a few short years ago concerning the rapid erosion of freedoms there as the People’s Republic of China accelerated its walk away from its promise to Great Britain to respect Hong Kong liberties after the island city was surrendered to the PRC.

Joshua Wong, one of those protesters, sentenced to jail for participating and speaking his mind, is out of jail pending his appeal.  Hong Kong Commissioner Clement Leung had a Letter to the Editor of The Wall Street Journal earlier this week objecting to a WSJ piece decrying the whole sorry charade that is the current Hong Kong judiciary.

Surprise: I have my own response to Leung.

Joshua Wong was convicted because he was resisting the enforcement of a court injunction to reopen the roads in a blocked protest site.

No, Wong was convicted for continuing to exercise his free speech rights in the face of a court ruling that erroneously subverted those rights.

Mr Wong and others were also convicted and sentenced in another case, not for exercising their freedom of expression, but for their disorderly and intimidating behavior….

The use of the “disorderly and intimidating behavior” charge was simply a Communist Party of China-directed cynical euphemism for “speaking too freely.” The only ones who saw disorder or who were “intimidated” were those unused to being disobeyed in their diktats and others unused to the rollicking noise of democracy.

As an experienced Commissioner, Mr Leung should know better.

Deep States, Bureaucrats, and Incumbency

Whether the current idea of a Deep State plotting against the current administration is accurate or not, it has been clear for some period of years that bureaucrats who have been in Federal employ for too long become entrenched and begin working at cross purposes with those of their agency bosses.  The latter, being political appointees, are, at least indirectly, selected by the Federal government’s employer, us citizens.

While we can cure the overt incumbency problem of our politicians by electing others in their stead, the incumbency of bureaucrats, none of them elected, is both generally unseen and harder to correct.

There are, though, a couple of things we can do to correct this.

One is to limit the power of public unions by barring them from collecting “dues” or any other fees from non-members.  After all, rather tautologically, they don’t—can’t—represent anyone other than their members.  Non-members should be free to negotiate their own government employment contracts, and if those contracts happen to look like union contracts, that’s just a happy—or unhappy—side effect of those separate negotiations.  The wage competition also would apply downward pressure on government labor costs, to the benefit of us taxpayers who are the ones paying those wages, anyway.

It’s also important to take the government side out of the labor negotiations; although likely this is just pie in the sky.  Currently unions, when they make political donations, are donating to the politicians nominally negotiating those contracts on behalf of us taxpayers.  One possibility is to have a third-party negotiator represent us rather than those politicians, albeit this is even more pie in the sky.  Then put the union employment contracts up for final approval/rejection by plebiscite in the jurisdiction in which the contract is proposed.

Another measure is to change via legislation the nature of the employment contracts that are allowed.  Civil servant employment contracts should be limited to a five-year period with automatic expiration unless each house of Congress positively renews the contract.  Moreover, those contracts should be renewable only in three-year increments, and each renewal should be justified first by the agency for which the employee works and then by each house of Congress.

Additionally, transfers between agencies, whether permanent or temporary, should not be allowed unless the receiving agency eliminates a job position for each transfer in.  Such transfers should be for the expertise gained, not simply to increase headcount.

Finally, every five years, the public service union of relevance should be recertified, first by secret ballot vote of the union members, and then by roll-call vote in each house of Congress.

Five years is long enough to get useful work out of a new hire, and having to justify the continuation of the employment contract can help to hold down the disruptive power of bureaucrat incumbency by increasing turnover.  Requiring the public service union to recertify also can help to hold down the ability of the union to bloat off us taxpayers.

Yes, that will increase the work load of Congress.  That’s beneficial, too.  Working on this sort of thing will contribute to Congress not working on foolishness.

Immigration, Progressive-Democrats, and Votes

President Donald Trump has an immigration bill on offer before the Congress, the Republicans have one, and a bipartisan group of two Senators have one.  Trump’s bill includes legalization and an eventual possibility of citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers (1.2 million, or so, beyond ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) illegal DACA program Dreamers), funding for a border wall, and changes to our visa programs.  The Republicans’ offer centers on DACA protections and a border wall.  The “bipartisan” bill has only DACA protections, not even border security.

The Progressive-Democrats in Congress oppose both of the first two, and all three bills don’t look promising for passage, with that third a non-starter for its lack of protections for our nation.

This is what we see from the Progressive-Democrats.  They’ll vote against a bill that provides protections for the Dreamers protected under DACA.  They’ll vote against a bill that provides protections and legal status for three times the number of Dreamers than were protected under Obama’s DACA.

This is the conclusion that follows.  The Progressive-Democratic Party and its Congressional members don’t see DACA Dreamers—and especially the added Dreamers under Trump’s offer—as human beings.  Not at all.  These people are just a mechanical commodity, a tool to be used politically as a campaign issue on which to raise money and get votes.

The Progressive-Democrats claim that Trump’s offer would reduce overall immigration through the visa changes, and it likely would.  That, though, is just a broader, immigrants-as-commodity for Party political gain, argument.  Immigrants generally aren’t human beings in the eyes of Progressive-Democrats; the mass of immigrants is just a tool.

Of course, the Progressive-Democrats could prove me wrong.  They could stop playing politics with human lives and support Trump’s bill.  Or they could stop playing politics with human lives and support the Republicans’ DACA plus border security bill.

If they don’t, remember their attitude toward men and women and children this fall.

The New Tax Law and Bankruptcy

The Wall Street Journal is quick to point out how the tax reform bill passed last December does little to help failing businesses.

The new tax law is a boon to most US businesses, but it will make life harder for one type of company: those that are struggling financially or at risk of filing for bankruptcy.

The new tax law was never intended to help failing businesses, though, it was designed to help the rest of us individuals and our businesses—and to help those who are failing do better next time.

The law eliminated a provision that gave money-losing companies a cash infusion in the form of a retroactive federal tax refund by applying current losses to past tax bills. Experts say these tax breaks, called net operating loss carry-backs, gave companies access to money at a critical time….

No, the provision helped current businesses paper over bad decisions and outright failure by letting them rewrite their history; there’s nothing that helped failing businesses do better in future.

The provision, in fact, was written in the aftermath of WWI, ostensibly to help our economy’s manufacturing sector.  On the contrary, though, the provision was enacted to bail out from Woodrow Wilson’s attempts to nationalize significant fractions of our industrial sector and to attempt recovery from Wilson’s drastically inflationary policies.  Any policy enacted for bad reasons always will fail in the end.

“It doesn’t fix the business, but it fixed the balance sheet,” she [Bankruptcy lawyer Cathy Hershcopf] said of the tax benefits.

Indeed.