Tag Archives: regulation

Undoing a Unilateral “Presidency”

Posted on by
2

Lahnee Chen closed his Monday Wall Street Journal op-ed of a similar title with this:

By revoking Mr Obama’s executive actions, and beginning the arduous task of identifying and addressing his many other unilateral moves, the next president wouldn’t have to jettison the entire Obama legacy.

But our next President should.

On the next president’s first day in office, the president could simply issue an executive order revoking all of his predecessor’s executive actions, except those necessary for national security or the basic functioning of government. This includes Mr Obama’s executive orders, but also a flood of presidential memorandums and directives, as well as informal guidance and orders from federal agencies, that he has used to reshape federal policy.

Not “except for.” Every single one. Don’t waste time sorting through the mess to find the occasional nugget that might be useful. Rescind every single one. The next President should issue his own few Executive Orders regarding those narrow areas of national security and the basic functioning of government. That last, especially, doesn’t need many, since government can, and should be, shrunk drastically by the next President and the next two (at least) Congresses.

In the name of actual transparency, this item, too. Those Presidential Memoranda don’t need to be, and so they’re not, published in the Federal Register, and so the public has very limited access to them. The next President, on day two, should publish those memoranda. Every single one of them.

Keep in mind this, too. It’s not only Obama’s legacy. It’s our nation’s legacy, it’s the legacy of us citizens, it’s your and my legacy. It needs to jettisoned in its entirety, every single syllable. For our national honor.

Clinton’s Emails

Posted on by
Reply

State released 7,000 more of Hilary Clinton’s emails, those…documents…transmitted via her private, unprotected email server. One hundred fifty of them contained classified information.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner said the emails in question were “subsequently upgraded” to classified. He stressed that none of the emails was considered classified at the time.

This is so utterly disingenuous as to be outright lies. The material in the emails were not “subsequently upgraded” to classified; they were only marked classified after the fact. The material was classified all along.

[S]ome of the information on Clinton’s server was inherently classified. Fox’s analysts cited a memo transmitting information provided by foreign diplomats about Sudan peace talks.

As Shannen Coffin explained, because such information is substantive and comes from foreign diplomats, it is “born classified.”

Information from other sources also is born classified. Recall the first set of emails discovered to be classified (if unmarked as such): they passed along information derived from Talent Keyhole programs.

There are two things about this. All the folks sending, receiving, and reading those emails—TO, FROM, CC, and BCC senders and receivers (and relayers—that’s one reason why the email headers (available only in the electronic copies) are so important), every single one of them—knew or should have known that the material was classified, regardless of their markings. All the folks sending, receiving, or reading those emails should have squawked to the classification authorities of the sender’s office and of State, and to the Security facilities of both offices, about the security violations those emails represented, both by their lack of markings and by their existence on an unclassified, unprotected server.

The other thing is that the mere transmission of such information via unsecured means, or the mere retention of them, however briefly, on unsecured media, is a felony, whether or not the information was properly marked. Everyone in that sequence of transmittal—TO, FROM, CC, and BCC senders and receivers and relayers—who did not so report committed a felony.

Every single one.

PRC Local Debt

Posted on by
Reply

The Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress imposed a 600 billion yuan limit on the direct debt local governments are allowed to run up this year, the official Xinhua News Agency said late Saturday. That would be on top of 15.4 trillion yuan on debt owed by local governments as of the end of 2014, Xinhua said.

That works out to about $2.5 trillion in total local debt across the country. There’s no word on how the NPC, or any other part of the central government, intends to enforce that limit. No more fudging the economic data by the locals, perhaps? That’s where it would have to begin. But then what? Fire the local government employees—or better, enroll them in one of Xi’s reeducation programs? Terminate local services? Raise taxes? Some more?

But there are loopholes.

The caps don’t include indirect liabilities, which officials said totaled 8.6 trillion yuan (roughly $1.3 trillion), according to Xinhua.

In addition, the central government has expanded a local-debt refinancing program that allows local governments to swap their high-interest debt for low interest central government debt. Don’t ask who sets the central government’s bond rates. Do think, though, about the financial liability being laid off onto Chinese “taxpayers” across the country from those locals.

And

Separately, lawmakers will remove a 75% cap on banks’ loan-to-deposit ratios on Oct 1, Xinhua said on Saturday.

Boy, howdy, are there loopholes.

Energy Wealth Redistribution

Posted on by
Reply

Your tax dollars at work. Exposed by UC Berkeley, yet. This is the Abstract from their working paper The Distributional Effects of U.S. Clean Energy Tax Credits [emphasis added]:

Since 2006, US households have received more than $18 billion in federal income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying hybrid and electric vehicles, and other “clean energy” investments. We use tax return data to examine the socioeconomic characteristics of program recipients. We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans. The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all credits, while the top quintile has received about 60%. The most extreme is the program aimed at electric vehicles, where we find that the top income quintile has received about 90% of all credits. By comparing to previous work on the distributional consequences of pricing greenhouse gas emissions, we conclude that tax credits are likely to be much less attractive on distributional grounds than market mechanisms to reduce GHGs.

Of course, the top quintile aren’t only the cronies; they’re also the folks rich enough to install these things and/or buy the expensive battery-operated cars—which are horribly expensive, even after the “tax credits,” and in the case of those solar panels, have payback periods measured in generations rather than years.

From the body of the paper [citation omitted]:

If these tax credits are successful in inducing changes in behavior, then we should expect to see increased purchases during years in which the subsidies are particularly generous. Conversely, if credits do not induce additional sales, then the primary effect is just to transfer rents to participants in transactions that would have taken place anyway.

In other words, if there are no additional sales, then the sales that would have occurred anyway would see wealth redistribution from the lower income strata to the higher income strata in addition to the basic price paid for the goody bought.

How did that work out? Taking, for example, hybrid car sales,

There does not appear to be much of a decrease in hybrid sales when the AMVC [Alternative Motor Vehicle (Tax) Credit] was ended for all hybrids at the end of 2010. Moreover, since 2010, hybrid sales have increased significantly without the benefit of the AMVC.

Hmm….

From the paper’s conclusion:

Since 2006, these credits have provided more than $18 billion in subsidies for households who make clean energy investments. Using rich data from tax returns we show that over the last decade US clean energy tax credits have gone predominantly to higher-income Americans. Taxpayers with AGI in excess of $75,000 have received about 60% of all credit dollars aimed at energy-efficiency, residential solar, and hybrid vehicles, and about 90% of all credit dollars aimed at electric cars.

Again, hmm….

School Lunches

Posted on by
1

Apparently our school kids are eschewing critical parts of the First Lady’s Federally mandated (via the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act) school lunch menu. A University of Vermont research report says that the kids are tossing their veggies after they’re forced by their schools, under the Act, to select one (or a fruit), rather than actually eating them.

The report, entitled Impact of the National School Lunch Program on Fruit and Vegetable Selection, noted that average waste increased from a quarter cup to more than one-third of a cup per tray.

A USDA spokesman said,

Ninety-five percent of schools are successfully serving healthier meals….

Nice try, Mr Alinsky, but we’re talking about what the kids are eating, not what you’re serving. Besides, you’re apparently serving those veggies to the trash can.