Wrong way on farm subsidies. Daren Bakst writes:
How would it look though if conservatives reform the food stamp safety net and as a result improve the well-being of the poor by reducing dependence on government, yet at the same time they expand the farm safety net and increase dependence on government?
This appears to be a real possibility. […]
According to United States Department of Agriculture data, large family farms, which received 32 percent of commodity payments and 34 percent of crop insurance indemnities in 2016, had a median household income of $347,000 (about six times the median income for all U.S. households) and median household net worth of $3.8 million (about 39 times the median wealth for all U.S. households). […]
In the last farm bill, Congress got rid of the direct payment program, which provided subsidies to farmers regardless of need. Instead of stopping there, Congress unwisely created two new commodity programs called the Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs.
These two programs are costing more than the direct payments program. This would be funny if it weren't so sad. Plus, these programs are costing about 80 percent more than projected, with a cost overrun of about $13 billion.
What does the House agriculture committee farm bill do? It would make changes so that Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage payments would be made more likely, not less likely.
[Daren Bakst, "This Is a Bad Look: In Current Farm Bill, Conservatives Prop Up Rich Farmers," The Daily Signal, May 10]
Union-backed study finds unions aren't attractive to workers. Eric Boehm reports:
If public sector workers were given the choice to stop paying union dues, many would do so, according to a new report from a union-backed think tank.
The Illinois Economic Policy Institute estimates that 726,000 workers would choose to stop paying dues if they had that choice, which public sector workers in many states currently do not. That could change after the U.S. Supreme Court announces a ruling—likely to come next month—in the much watched Janus v. AFSCME case. The plaintiff in that case, Mark Janus, has asked the court to release him from paying mandatory "fair share fees" to a union that represents him even though he has not joined it.
With the current composition of the high court, unions are bracing for a decision that would potentially cut off lucrative revenue streams. A ruling in Janus' favor could require unions to do what all other non-government entities already have to do: convince people to voluntarily support their activities.
[Eric Boehm, "Unions Could Lose 726,000 Members if Mark Janus Wins His Supreme Court Case," Reason, May 10]
Markets promote renewable energy better than the government does. Chuck Devore writes:
California government heavily regulates electricity while Texas allows free market competition in most of the state.
Yet, Texas produces more than double the amount of wind, solar and other renewable electricity as California while California's retail electric rates were 89 percent higher than Texas' in 2017. […]
Since 2008, when California's renewable electricity and greenhouse gas reduction policies really started to accelerate, the inflation-adjusted retail price of electricity has increased 13 percent in the state. The Western region saw its electrical prices rise 8 percent in tandem.
These increases don't seem too high—until you factor in the fact that inflation-adjusted natural gas prices plummeted 70 percent from 2008 to 2017 in inflation-adjusted terms, thanks to widespread use of fracking in Texas and other states. Fuel accounts for about 40 percent of the cost of operating a typical natural gas electric generating plant and California generates about half of its power from natural gas.
It can only be the ham-fisted hand of government that could cause electric prices to rise by 13 percent when the primary fuel costs for electricity decline by 70 percent. […]
By comparison, Texas saw retail inflation-adjusted electricity prices decline by 32 percent from 2008 to 2017, reflecting the fact that Texas electricity producers were encouraged to pass the savings of the 70 percent drop in natural gas prices onto consumers—if they didn't, their consumers would have switched to a different electric provider (most Texans have the ability to choose their electric provider, unless they are served by a municipal utility or an electric co-op).
[Chuck DeVore, "Texas Produces Double the Renewable Power as California at Almost Half the Price—Blame Regulation," Forbes May 7]
Pension underfunding fuels Seattle's tax conflict. Steven Malanga writes:
While cities around the country dangle huge tax incentives at Amazon in an effort to attract its planned new headquarters, the Internet giant's hometown of Seattle is trying to wallop the company with a $20 million-to-$30 million new tax. The effort is not going well, as the company, construction workers, editorialists, and residents balk at the idea of squeezing more dollars out of Amazon and other big firms in a city with coffers already overflowing with revenues. The uproar might be evidence that the progressive strategy of forcing big businesses to pay their "fair share" has its limits.
Late last month, Seattle's city council proposed a so-called head tax of 26 cents for every hour worked by each employee at businesses with $20 million or more in revenues. The objective: to raise $75 million annually toward building affordable housing and expanding social services to address what officials say is an explosion of homelessness in the city. Amazon, with some 50,000 workers in Seattle and another 10,000 planned, is the tax's top target, and it could wind up paying as much as 40 percent of the money that the new levy generates. […]
Seattle's budget strains, however, are more than just the result of its growing economy and homeless problem. Left unsaid, but lurking in the fiscal background, is the city's deep public-pension problem. Seattle has one of the worst-funded municipal pension systems of any major city, and its annual costs have been rising rapidly—from $40 million to $108 million over the last 10 years. Over the next decade, the city projects that it will have to dedicate about $850 million toward paying off the pension system's debt—and that's on top of nearly $600 million that it will cost the city over that same period to fund new pension credits that workers are currently earning.
It's no accident that the proposed tax targeting Amazon would probably raise just about what Seattle will have to spend bailing out its pension system. Supporters should be honest and call it the "fixing-our-pension-mess" tax.
[Steven Malanga, "'Fair Share' Has Limits, Even in Seattle" City Journal, May 8]
Refusing business is a way to take a stand, unless you're a conservative, says the Left. Timothy P. Carney writes:
Recent months have given us an endless stream of companies refusing to take part in business arrangements that executives found morally wrong.
This week Google took a stand for businesses who don't want to participate in practices the executives find immoral. The company will discriminate against bail bond companies on its ad platforms, Google announced, to the plaudits of civil rights attorneys. "No one should be incarcerated simply because they can't afford not to be," former federal civil rights prosecutor Vanita Gupta declared. "I applaud @Google for taking the unprecedented step today of banning ads for bail bonds from its platforms."
There was The Happiest Hour, the Irish pub that barred patrons who dared don "Make America Great Again" hats. A Manhattan judge ruled, properly, that such discrimination was within the rights of bar owner.
If you followed closely the decline and fall of leading Obama fundraiser and corporate lobbyist Tony Podesta, you know his more progressive staff argued that the Podesta Group should deny service to organizations whose agendas bugged their conscience, such as cigarette and gun companies. Should that be legal?
Bank of America announced this year it wouldn't bake the proverbial cake for gunmakers. The First National Bank of Omaha wouldn't cater the proverbial wedding of the National Rifle Association and its customers. Delta Airlines followed suit.
The Dallas Observer celebrated a bartender who kicked out customers for being neo-Nazis. A left-wing coffee-shop owner wouldn't tolerate customers using her business for a pro-life meeting.
Chicago florists demand their customers pledge political allegiance before serving them.
After Trump won, progressive champion attorney Lisa Bloom argued that the Rockettes should not be compelled to perform for his inauguration. "No artist should be forced upon threat of firing to perform for the most racist, misogynist prez in our lifetime."
[Timothy P. Carney, "Google Won't Bake the Cake, Which Is Fine," Washington Examiner, May 9]
-
Comments
Post a Comment