Category Archives: Government

President Obama’s Executive Order

We all know what just happened.  Obama announced on Friday that he would no longer authorize the deportation of children in the country illegally:

(Reuters) – Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who were brought into the United States as children will be able to avoid deportation and get work permits under an order on Friday by President Barack Obama.

I immediately came out in support of the policy and think that the time has long ago passed when we need to craft a better immigration policy here in America.  As I enjoyed the weekend, however, I began to look past the immediate good news of the policy and think through how we got here.

And I don’t like it at all.

The President issued an Executive Order.  By it, he simply stated that he would no longer enforce the deportation of these kids.  He did NOT change their status or any laws that speak to that status.  He just told us what he would do, or not do, with those found in violation of those laws.  I don’t think that rewrote any law or is breaking any laws in doing what he did.

However.  Think this through.

When we make it easier for Presidents to change laws based on discretion of prosecution, what’s to prevent a future President from changing tax law in the same manner:

I now declare that I am instructing my administration to stop prosecuting individuals who fail to pay more than 15% of their income in taxes.

Just like that the President can effectively change tax law without the need to involve congress.

I ask you, is this what we want?

The Filibuster

I saw a graphic the other day that said this congress passed the fewest new laws in what, 40 years?  To some this represents “gridlock” in congress and is emblematic of the troubles we’re facing in an increasingly partisan world.  To me this is a feature.

Whatever the case, there is the belief that much of this inability to pass laws is as a result of the republicans penchant for the filibuster.  The procedural requirement that a bill obtain 60 votes to allow it to be voted on.  In other words, the bill really requires not a majority of the senate, but what can be construed as a SUPER majority.

Personally I’ve never been much of a fan of the filibuster.  The idea that a group of individuals can hold up the workings of the senate seems to me to be rather — well, childish.  The feeling i have for the filibuster is the same I felt as we watched Wisconsin play out.  First the democrat fled the state, escaping the reach of the law by the way, so as to prevent a vote on Governor Walkers budget bill that would have stripped the public unions of much of their ability to collectively bargain.  Then we watched as the state’s democrats forced a recall election for each senator and the governor.

Babies all.

So I resonate with the dislikers of the filibuster.  And I even acknowledge the increase in use of the procedure since Obama has take office and the republicans are in the minority.

What I don’t know is how often THIS happens:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday blocked Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) from attaching an amendment to the farm bill that would withhold U.S. aid to Pakistan.

Reid asked for unanimous consent Tuesday to consider a batch of five amendments to the farm bill, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012 (S.3240), but Paul objected, arguing that his amendment on withholding aid to Pakistan should also be included.

In response, Reid performed a procedural move called “filling the tree,” or taking up all the amendment space, to keep Paul’s amendment from being considered.

Now, this is pretty “inside baseball” and even THIS whole series of events is questionable.  However, that’s how work gets done in the halls of the senate.  And if the Leader is going to prevent a silly procedure by the use of another silly procedure then he should not be surprised, or outraged, when THAT silly procedure is counter by the silly procedure we call the filibuster.

 

Scott Walker: Wisconsin Wins

Scott Walker Wins Wisconsin Recall

I predicted a 2-4 point loss.  The emotional game goes to the challenger in recalls.  Further, the unions that are dependent on this election have decades of built in ground game.  I was listening to the radio and I heard that they knocked on thousands of doors and called even more.  Walker was ahead in the polls, but he was slowing down in the final days.

I had the ill luck of having to drive to Charlotte tonight, so I wasn’t able to watch the election results at all.  I tried keeping track on my phone, but that proved to be untenable on the road.  So I called family and friends and asked them to keep me up to date via texts.

What a great trip!

Walker took a massive lead early and never really was challenged.  Fox called it when 25% of the vote was in, the rest soon followed suit.

What Does This Mean

Wisconsin has now elected their governor twice.  Twice, and he still has another term to run for.  Mr. Walker was clear about what he was gonna do when he ran the first time.  Then, when in office, he did them.  Rather, he TRIED to do them.  When faced with a vote that they didn’t like, the Democrats ran from their job, ran from their capital and even ran from their state.  All to prevent a vote.

An interesting functional filibuster don’t ya say?

Then, when the democrats tried to take control of the senate by recalling a number of members, they lost.  The senate remained in control of the republicans.  Finally, after the requisite number of months in office, the democrats tried to recall him.  While they were successful in forcing the election, they were unsuccessful in their bid to unseat him.

The people have spoken.  Spoken at least three times.  They want this governor, they want this senate, they want these reforms and they are tired of the status quo.

The reforms that the legally elected republicans moved into law through a legally sanctioned vote have worked for the state.  Budgets have seen significant relief, many have been balanced.  School districts have been able to obtain fiscal flexibility while not having to lay off teachers.  In short, Walker works.

Finally the people of Wisconsin are not pleased that the recall election even took place.  The recall process is meant to force out a governor that has been guilty of some crime or of some ethical lapse.  Mr. Walker is guilty of neither.  The only thing he did was pass legislation that made the liberals mad.

So they sulked and pouted and wanted a redo.

And the good folks of Wisconsin didn’t appreciate that.

Does This Have Implications Nationally

I don’t think so.  I think that Wisconsin remains steadily blue.  The folks there are liberal at heart but simply found that they need a dose of fiscal reality.  The continued spending and taxing of the past finally caught up.  They’ve had enough.

As I’m listening to the news now I am hearing that a large number of folks who voted for Walker will continue to support Obama in the upcoming election in November.  I think the number is 18%.

That’s big.

Wisconsin will roll blue for the President this fall.

Scott Walker: Wisconsin Recall

On almost double the volume today Intrade has Walker at 93% and going away …

Maybe the good people of Wisconsin really do understand that what he did has helped the state save money and save jobs.  Let’s hope so.

California Budget Cuts: Inevitable

California Is Broke

It’s not even really a question at this point anymore.  California doesn’t have any money and is losing more every year.  In fact, the situation is getting worse and not getting any better, it’s not even slowing down:

California’s budget deficit will swell to nearly $7 billion greater than expected due to weak tax revenues and slow progress in cutting spending, Governor Jerry Brown said on Saturday.

Brown said the shortfall for the state’s 2012-2013 fiscal year now stands at $16 billion, up from a previous estimate of $9.2 billion made in January.

“We are now facing a $16 billion shortfall, not the $9 billion we thought in January,” Brown announced in a video posted on YouTube. “This means we will have to go much further and make cuts far greater than I asked for at the beginning of the year.”

There’s little reason to believe that this trend isn’t going to continue.  Individuals from California earning incomes in the top 1% are delivering less and less tax revenue:

In 2007, the top 1% of California earners paid about half of the state’s income taxes. Now it’s around 37%

Is this because salaries are dropping for the very rich or is it because they are leaving the state?  It’s hard to say.

Revenue Or Spending

Whatever the reason, the top 1% are no longer the cash cow they used to be.  Going from 50% to only 37% is going to massively impact balance sheet.  But is that the only cause for California’s current condition?  Not at all.  Committed spending on public pensions is also to blame:

(Reuters) – A radical plan to slash public employee pension benefits gets voted on by the residents of Silicon Valley’s San Jose on Tuesday – a decision that could set an important precedent for many other cities, not only in California but across the nation.

The nation’s 10th-largest city is also one of the wealthiest, but over the past several years it has cut its municipal workforce by a quarter, laying off cops and firefighters, shuttering libraries and letting street repairs fall by the wayside.

The problem? Mayor Chuck Reed says it’s simple: Retiree benefit costs eat up more than a quarter of the city budget – and are growing at a double-digit rate.

So, the mayor has identified a problem specific to San Jose.  Is this systemic across California?

Public finance woes are nothing new in California. The state budget deficit stands at an estimated $15.7 billion for next year, requiring further cuts in state services and, if Governor Jerry Brown has his way, higher income and sales taxes. Local governments and school districts have struggled for years to make ends meet.

The pension problem, though, may be the mother of all budget issues – for California, for its cities and counties, and for other states and municipalities across the nation. The main California state retirement systems have a total shortfall in pension-plan funding of close to half a trillion dollars, a Stanford University study estimated. The bill is not due at once, but payments on it grow steadily and can eventually squeeze out even basic services. Public officials like Reed, and academics who have studied the issue, say the day of reckoning is nigh.

Yes.  California has created a condition that is set to consume public budgets very soon.  In efforts to pander to the unions and the public employees, the state and her cities have engaged in reckless commitments that is has no hope of meeting.  There is only one solution in sight:

The solution he is pushing at the ballot box, after city council approval, would slash benefits for workers, increase employee contributions – and almost certainly prompt a precedent-setting legal challenge from the public employee unions.

“The best metaphor is cancer,” said Reed, a Democrat known as more of a technocrat than a firebrand, who is now cast as public enemy No. 1 by public employee unions. “It started a long time ago, it goes for a long time, and then it becomes life-threatening.”

Of course that’s the solution.  California is already taxing her people so much that the freakin’ Buffalo is puking*  I don’t know how much of a leftist/statist individual Governor Brown is out there in California, but if he’s at ALL interested in fixing his state he should gaze east and look and see what a government can do as exemplified in Wisconsin.

 

* This is an old reference to someone who is so cheap in the days when the buffalo adorned the nickel.

Minimum Wage And Rent

The image above is making its way around the internet and for me, Facebook.  The idea, of course is to make the point that someone making minimum wage isn’t able to afford even rent, much less eat.  However, the chart fails to examine some deeper truths about minimum wage:

  1. Very few Americans work at minimum wage.  And the vast majority of them that do live in homes with other wage earners making significantly more.  Examples include teenagers and spouses of primary bread winners.
  2. Minimum wage earners should not be in the market for 2 bedroom units without a roommate.  For many years I bunked up with a friend.  At times even two.  In fact, there were times I slept on the couch or floor of a buddy until I could make ends meet.
  3. Minimum wage earners almost always make more than the minimum wage very quickly.
  4. By raising the minimum wage, the marginal employee will make the REAL minimum wage – $0.00

To be sure, we all want an environment where anyone who wants work can find work.  But we have to agree that we live in a world where people bring different levels of value to the table.  Further, that these people travel a graduation of value.  We start out with no work experience and are compensated poorly.  As we grow in experience and knowledge, our productivity rises and our compensation likewise increases.  By changing this, the only thing that will occur is less employment.

Government Regluations: New York Soda

By now we’ve all heard about Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to ban large sizes of drinks that are high in sugar or calories.  This would include soda, energy drinks and sweetened teas.

New York City plans to enact a far-reaching ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts, in the most ambitious effort yet by the Bloomberg administration to combat rising obesity.

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

This has to be a clear cut example of what the government CAN do, but what it SHOULDN’T do.  There’s no question that American are getting bigger and becoming obese at alarming rates.  There is no question that eating/drinking less garbage and working out more often would greatly contribute to reducing this problem.

However, at some point, there has to come a time when the government oversteps its bounds.  Are we really ready to accept living in a state where the state can dictate such personal freedoms?  Perhaps we are.  We already accept the fact that we can’t smoke in certain places.  We acknowledge and accept that the government can dictate seat belts and motorcycle helmets.

As much as I’m appalled at the regulation of soda-pop, I am equally sure that most of our citizens will accept it and we can just chalk it up to another example of people eschewing personal liberty in the name of removing any semblance of personal responsibility.

Government Spending: Obama And The Rest

We’ve all seen or heard about the Market Watch piece by Rex Nutting:

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

And the graphs that follow made it through Facebook like a wildfire:

Pretty startling.  If true, and Politifact says it mostly is, it paints a significantly different picture than most people have come to accept.  And to be sure, there have been some herculean efforts to point out that Nutting, Obama and Politifact may not be explaining the whole reality.  For example, the stimulus is charged to Bush but the repayment of that stimulus is credited to Obama.  At the very least, the two actions should be charged to the same guy, either one seems fair.  Then there’s the fiscal activities that took place during Bush’s fiscal year but that Obama passed.  Those should not be given to Bush but rather to Obama.

However, there’s been something gnawing at me during this whole debate and until I read a piece this morning by Dan Mitchell.

He makes a great case that while Obama IS a big government big spender, it’s not as if the Republicans are innocent.

Continue reading

Voter ID Laws And Shoes And Other Foots

Today North Carolina voted on “Amendment One”.  This is the constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union between one man and one woman.  It bans gay marriage.  In fact, some feel that the amendment is written such that it bans civil unions between men and women as well.  I’m not so sure about that, but it’s possible.

Anyway, an interesting con-flux occurred tonight.

It involves primary voting, age and fraud.  All the best election night news.

Continue reading

Gay Marriage In NC: Amendment One

 

Sadly I am afraid that Amendment 1 will pass in North Carolina.  This is the amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage between one man and one woman to be the only recognized union in the state.  I’m distressed by this outcome.  I’m distressed that a segment of the population of my state would look to restrict the liberty of another segment.

I get the arguments.  I understand that Christians may feel that homosexuality is a sin.  I get that people think the point of marriage is to generate children.  I get all that.  But even if it’s true, even if being gay is a sin, that isn’t the litmus we use to pass legislation.

I am VERY clear that taking the Lord’s name in vain is a sin.  Yet none of us would think to legislate that into law.  Again, I am sure that failing to keep the sabbath holy is a sin, yet again, we wouldn’t dream of codifying it.

The fact that a thing is, or MAY be a sin, simply isn’t reason enough to erect state laws.

With that said, in my disappointment in my state, I find the process fascinating.  There are things that a state can do that the federal government can’t.  And regulating marriage is one of those things.  A state may decide that the age of consent is 16, or 17 or 18.  That state may allow exceptions with parental consent.

Some states require blood tests.  Test to determine if the betrothed carry infectious disease.  Or are related.  States get to regulate marriage.  And though I don’t agree with that regulation, it would seem that the proponents of the amendment followed the process.  They petitioned the government.  That government listened and struck an amendment that made its way to the ballot.  And, if the polling is right, will pass.

States have the right to regulate things in a way and manner that the federal government does not.

And here is where I’m conflicted.  I certainly hope that the courts take this up and rule that the amendment isn’t valid.  We simply can’t stipulate advantage for one group of people over another.  On the other hand, the people of the State of North Carolina have spoken.  Perhaps we are obligated to live with the unfortunate consequences.

If only we had done the right thing and voted this thing down.